Dave,

As another long-standing cider drinker, one who finds "fruit" ciders and
pear-ciders an abomination (well, I am a Somerset boy!!), I still wouldn't
say either of us is uneducated or a snob.

I know what I like - farmhouse scrumpy, sadly not available in mainland Europe.
You know what you like.

As far as I am concerned, uneducated means failing to understand another's
point of view, and insisting on forcing your own views onto somebody else.

I apply that definition to all walks of life - cider, beer, wine, food, croquet
laws, religion, etc., etc.

Neither am I unwilling to try something new and different - which snobs of
all kinds tend not to do.
Breton & Normandy cider is good - but fizzy, like champagne.
German cider is truly excellent.
Yet to try Spanish cider!

Cheers,

Kevin

>-- Oorspronkelijk bericht --
>Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:23:25 +0100
>From: David Maugham <>
>To: .uk
>Subject: Re: [Croquet] UK pubs
>
>
>On 11/10/2010 20:55, Dave Kibble wrote:
>> On 11 October 2010 20:02, Martin Murray<>
wrote:
>>> So when you wrote "but beer drinkers who have no preference for well-kept
>>> real-ale are simply uneducated!" what you really meant was "preference
>for
>>> well-kept real-ale over Euro-fizz"?
>>>
>> Actually Martin, hard for you to comprehend as it is, I meant what I
>> wrote; but I was writing in the context of discussing UK pubs. If you
>> check the subject line, you might get a hint of that.
>
>I'm with MM on this. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about beer,
>or literature, or music,
>or art. You can't say that your preferences will automatically be changed
>just because you are
>"educated" about something. I was "educated" about Shakespeare at school
>and I still find it archaic
>and obscure.
>
>There is nothing intrinsically "better" about one piece of art (in its widest
>sense) over another.
>That's the whole point of "art" - it's down to personal taste. People who
>believe that their
>preferences (whether it be for literature or beer) are somehow superior
to
>another's are simply snobs.
>
>I'm not a beer drinker, so I doubt that I can be "educated" about that.
But
>I do like cider and my
>preferred choice is Koppaberg Mixed Fruits, which is about as poncy a drink
>as you could ask for.
>But if anyone expressed the opinion that I would prefer some scrumpy if
only
>I were "educated" would
>either be laughed at or verbally abused, or possibly both.
>
>Snobs just want to believe that their choice is superior because they aren't
>secure enough to accept
>that they have a preference which is not shared by the majority.
>
>Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

As someone who prefers to drink well-kept real ale I want to become more
educated about why so many people drink the lager supplied in UK pubs. Have
they never tried real ale? Did they last drink real ale in the 1960s or
1970s when the quality was often poor and many pubs didn't sell it? Were
they seduced by the heavy marketing campaign for lager? Do they drink lager
because they think real ale drinkers are snobs? Or do they simply prefer
something cold, fizzy and tasteless?

Please enlighten me.

Ian.

On 11/10/2010 23:23, David Maugham wrote:
>
> I'm with MM on this. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about
> beer, or literature, or music, or art. You can't say that your
> preferences will automatically be changed just because you are
> "educated" about something. I was "educated" about Shakespeare at
> school and I still find it archaic and obscure.

No-one said automatically. The fact that some people are educated from
less sophisticated to more sophisticated tastes, and recognise it as
progress themselves, and that no-one is educated the other way round, is
(somewhat subtle) evidence that there can be inherent value in
aesthetics. Acquired tastes are raerly unacquired.
>
> There is nothing intrinsically "better" about one piece of art (in its
> widest sense) over another. That's the whole point of "art" - it's
> down to personal taste. People who believe that their preferences
> (whether it be for literature or beer) are somehow superior to
> another's are simply snobs.

There's certainly an element of personal taste; no-one would deny that.
But the interesting questino is whether it's *only* personal taste.

People who think their tastes are more sophisticated may be snobs, but
they may also be right, and some may be right but not be snobs and some
may be wrong. That's neither here nor there. It certainly doesn;t go far
towards proving the difficult claim that there is no intrinsic value in
aesthetics, and that it is *all* down to personal preferences.
>
> I'm not a beer drinker, so I doubt that I can be "educated" about
> that. But I do like cider and my preferred choice is Koppaberg Mixed
> Fruits, which is about as poncy a drink as you could ask for. But if
> anyone expressed the opinion that I would prefer some scrumpy if only
> I were "educated" would either be laughed at or verbally abused, or
> possibly both.

Possibly so, but that doesn't constitute evidence for your case either.
(Some might cite it as evidence against: "the sort o people who enjoy
that type of drink tend to resort to verbal abuse if challenged".)
>
> Snobs just want to believe that their choice is superior because they
> aren't secure enough to accept that they have a preference which is
> not shared by the majority.

Perhaps so, but that's not relevant to your philosophical claim, that
there is no intrinsic value in art.

(Are you suggesting the reverse? That if snobs have a particular
characteristic, then people with that characteristic must be snows ...
and therefore must be wrong?)


Persoanlly I'd stick to the philosophical view that art can have
inherent value even if I knew that I had bad taste and/or was snobbish
and insecure.


Rob

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

Hi David,

"There is nothing intrinsically "better" about one piece of art (in its
widest sense) over another.
That's the whole point of "art" - it's down to personal taste. People who
believe that their
preferences (whether it be for literature or beer) are somehow superior to
another's are simply snobs"

I have a lot of sympathy with this view (Jimi Hendrix and Gerry & the
Pacemakers aside). But by chance this morning I was reading the part in
Richard Feynman's book "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman?" where, later in
life this world-class physicist took up painting. He found it very
difficult to draw or paint, and took drawing lessons from several people,
largely without success. He then recounts that, when at a physics
conference in Rome, he paid a visit to the Cistine Chapel. He noticed,
below the famous ceiling, about a dozen large framed painted panels. These
seemed to be from a variety of painters. He was impressed by all but 2 of
them. Later in his hotel room, he consulted the guide book which said these
panels were all very important, by serious painters etc., apart from two
"which were of no significance".

So somehow, this scientist with the usual "I'm not bothered about art"
background that many of us have, had discovered a taste in painting which
could distinguish the "good" from the "bad" in a way that aligned with the
views of classical art historians and critics. Perhaps this was just
because he had been "polluted" by the prevailing views of the teachers
during his drawing lessons - or perhaps there is something (a little, maybe)
more fundamental about what makes a good painting from an indifferent one?

Mind you, I'm surprised the Pope hadn't got in someone else who could paint
better, to re-do these duff two. Perhaps he's short of a bob or two at the
moment, credit crunch and all that.

regards
Martin French
07718 630804
----------

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Maugham" <>
To: <.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Croquet] UK pubs


> On 11/10/2010 20:55, Dave Kibble wrote:
>> On 11 October 2010 20:02, Martin Murray<>
>> wrote:
>>> So when you wrote "but beer drinkers who have no preference for
>>> well-kept
>>> real-ale are simply uneducated!" what you really meant was "preference
>>> for
>>> well-kept real-ale over Euro-fizz"?
>>>
>> Actually Martin, hard for you to comprehend as it is, I meant what I
>> wrote; but I was writing in the context of discussing UK pubs. If you
>> check the subject line, you might get a hint of that.
>
> I'm with MM on this. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about beer,
> or literature, or music, or art. You can't say that your preferences will
> automatically be changed just because you are "educated" about something.
> I was "educated" about Shakespeare at school and I still find it archaic
> and obscure.
>
> There is nothing intrinsically "better" about one piece of art (in its
> widest sense) over another. That's the whole point of "art" - it's down to
> personal taste. People who believe that their preferences (whether it be
> for literature or beer) are somehow superior to another's are simply
> snobs.
>
> I'm not a beer drinker, so I doubt that I can be "educated" about that.
> But I do like cider and my preferred choice is Koppaberg Mixed Fruits,
> which is about as poncy a drink as you could ask for. But if anyone
> expressed the opinion that I would prefer some scrumpy if only I were
> "educated" would either be laughed at or verbally abused, or possibly
> both.
>
> Snobs just want to believe that their choice is superior because they
> aren't secure enough to accept that they have a preference which is not
> shared by the majority.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

It seems to me there are two very different kinds of 'education' that
permeate this debate:

One is a deep knowledge that comes with years of study and, in the case of
beers and wines, requires sensitive taste buds as well. A very small number
of people fall into this category.

The other is the effect of marketing. This group, 'the brainwashed' forms by
far the largest group (although there will be some overlap between the two
groups).

In reading this thread, I was reminded of a marketing study carried out
decades ago:

Volunteers were asked to taste and then record their preferences for a
number of well known brands of beers on a scale of 0-100. A brand 'Double
Diamond' (which probably dates the survey), came out way on top, scoring
around 80%, very significantly above average.

A second test was carried out, this time without identifying the brand
names. The result of this test was that there was no statistical difference
between any brand.

I cannot help but believe that the rise in the proportion of 'real ale'
drinkers might have more to do with successful marketing than with whether
all the drinkers would always identify and prefer 'real ale' in a blind
test.

Nick


_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

Rob,

I'm sure you're neither a snob nor have bad taste, but you sure as hell have a **** spell-checker...

Tony
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Edlin-White <>
Sender: croquet-.uk
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:19:45
To: Notts List<.uk>
Subject: Re: [Croquet] UK pubs

On 11/10/2010 23:23, David Maugham wrote:
>
> I'm with MM on this. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about
> beer, or literature, or music, or art. You can't say that your
> preferences will automatically be changed just because you are
> "educated" about something. I was "educated" about Shakespeare at
> school and I still find it archaic and obscure.

No-one said automatically. The fact that some people are educated from
less sophisticated to more sophisticated tastes, and recognise it as
progress themselves, and that no-one is educated the other way round, is
(somewhat subtle) evidence that there can be inherent value in
aesthetics. Acquired tastes are raerly unacquired.
>
> There is nothing intrinsically "better" about one piece of art (in its
> widest sense) over another. That's the whole point of "art" - it's
> down to personal taste. People who believe that their preferences
> (whether it be for literature or beer) are somehow superior to
> another's are simply snobs.

There's certainly an element of personal taste; no-one would deny that.
But the interesting questino is whether it's *only* personal taste.

People who think their tastes are more sophisticated may be snobs, but
they may also be right, and some may be right but not be snobs and some
may be wrong. That's neither here nor there. It certainly doesn;t go far
towards proving the difficult claim that there is no intrinsic value in
aesthetics, and that it is *all* down to personal preferences.
>
> I'm not a beer drinker, so I doubt that I can be "educated" about
> that. But I do like cider and my preferred choice is Koppaberg Mixed
> Fruits, which is about as poncy a drink as you could ask for. But if
> anyone expressed the opinion that I would prefer some scrumpy if only
> I were "educated" would either be laughed at or verbally abused, or
> possibly both.

Possibly so, but that doesn't constitute evidence for your case either.
(Some might cite it as evidence against: "the sort o people who enjoy
that type of drink tend to resort to verbal abuse if challenged".)
>
> Snobs just want to believe that their choice is superior because they
> aren't secure enough to accept that they have a preference which is
> not shared by the majority.

Perhaps so, but that's not relevant to your philosophical claim, that
there is no intrinsic value in art.

(Are you suggesting the reverse? That if snobs have a particular
characteristic, then people with that characteristic must be snows ...
and therefore must be wrong?)


Persoanlly I'd stick to the philosophical view that art can have
inherent value even if I knew that I had bad taste and/or was snobbish
and insecure.


Rob

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

> It seems to me there are two very different kinds of 'education' that
> permeate this debate:

and a lot of ignorance ;)

> One is a deep knowledge that comes with years of study and, in the case of
> beers and wines, requires sensitive taste buds as well. A very small number
> of people fall into this category.

I confess to years of studying beer and wine, but you are completely
wrong to suggest that "sensitive taste buds" are needed, or that only
a small number of people fall into the category. In fact almost
everyone can be educated in the differences.

> A second test was carried out, this time without identifying the brand
> names. The result of this test was that there was no statistical difference
> between any brand.

thus proving only that the "beers" chosen had no distinguishing
features - the very point at the heart of the discussion. You seem to
be confused about the difference between Double Diamond and well-kept
real-ale. Sterile generic fizzes *are* pretty similar.

> I cannot help but believe that the rise in the proportion of 'real ale'
> drinkers might have more to do with successful marketing than with whether
> all the drinkers would always identify and prefer 'real ale' in a blind
> test.
>
I cannot help but believe that if you examined the evidence you might
change your belief.

Faced with Double Diamond and a well-kept real-ale, I doubt that one
in a million could not tell the difference, and the sales figures tell
you where the preference is.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

On 12/10/2010 06:07, Dave Kibble wrote:
> Another subtle shift away from the point, which try as I might I can't
> just ignore. Whilst I think it likely that if properly educated you
> are capable of appreciating, and even enjoying, Shakespeare, I
> wouldn't bet much on it.

It wasn't really intended to be a shift away from the original point.
It's not about appreciating a thing (whether it be Shakespeare or a
pint) in and of itself (although there is an element of that). It's
whether someone can be "educated" into having a "preference". I maintain
that if you like lager for itself ("cold, fizzy and tasteless") then
whether or not you are exposed to real ale, and educated to its finer
points of flavour etc., you will still like lager. And it may well be
that you will still "prefer" lager, despite the education. They are
simply different, and as such, different people will prefer one over the
other. You qualified it by saying that "*beer drinkers* who have no
preference...", and I would say that this is an absurd distinction. You
could equally have said "*alcohol drinkers* who have no preference..."
which is clearly ****. You might have said "*bitter drinkers* who
have no preference..." which might have been more true, but still not
going to be absolute.

Even within itself, the term "real-ale" covers a broad spectrum of
products which have differing tastes, and qualities. You cannot say that
every "beer drinker" will automatically prefer every "real ale" over
every "mass produced beer" given the right education.

> The whole point of art is that there's nothing intrinsically better
> about one piece over another? But I don't even want to pursue that

No, but others have, so I will continue the discussion with them. (Since
I have forsworn JR baiting, it's something else to pass the time...)

> , I
> accept that it's largely down to personal taste, but I will just point
> out that education (and opening your mind to it) affords an
> appreciation of the difference.

I fully agree. But appreciating the difference will not automatically
translate to a preference of one over the other.

>> I'm not a beer drinker, so I doubt that I can be "educated" about that.
>
> And my point was that beer drinkers (in UK pubs) who do not prefer
> well-kept real-ale are uneducated (FTAOD, I mean uneducated about
> well-kept real-ale, not about Shakespeare or any (other) art form).

And my point was that one can be "educated" about well-kept real-ale,
and still prefer to drink something else. You could educate me about all
the nuances of flavour available within real-ale, but I simply don't
like the taste of beer, so it is almost certain that I will "prefer" to
drink something else.

> I don't know much about cider, but I do have a prejudice in favour of
> thoughtful, well-provenanced food and drink over the mass-produced and
> artificial and (like Jamie Oliver) believe that education could make a
> difference to the expressed preference of others. That preference, as
> with real-ale, comes from exposure to the difference (education), not
> by changing taste or opinion.

I fully accept and agree with the fact that if you expose people to a
wider range of sensations (whether they be the taste of beer, or the
sound of music, or the sight of artwork) they are more likely to find
different things that they like. But I don't think that this will
automatically translate into a preference for the "high brow" choice
(whether it be real-ale over lager, Bach over Lady Gaga, or whatever).

> no, it's just a definition thing. If you label someone a snob, the
> rest follows. I'm not sure that snobs *have* to be in the minority, do
> they?

Probably not. But the loudest ones tend to rail against the popularity
of their rivals as inherently being a bad thing.

> Anyway, I was heartened to read recently that the Campaign for Real
> Ale (an education thing) has resulted in real ale sales bucking the
> decline in "beer" sales (in UK pubs that is). Would the establishment
> of a majority make it less snobbish in your eyes to have a preference
> for real-ale?

No, the snobbery comes from believing that your preference is somehow
better than the preference of another (and that someone would
automatically change their preference if only they were educated...). It
doesn't matter if there is only one person in the country who prefers
"cold, fizzy and tasteless" lager to real-ale, even after exposure to
both. His preference is just as valid as anyone else's.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

On 12/10/2010 07:13, wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, uneducated means failing to understand another's
> point of view, and insisting on forcing your own views onto somebody else.

Exactly my point.

Dave

_______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet to subscribe.

I don't understand your point. It is lager and keg beer that has been
marketed heavily, not real ale. A beer drinker would also find real ale very
easy to identify in a blind tasting. Whether you like real ale or not,
your conclusion seems quite bizarre.

The blind test you refer to which took place at the time DD was on the
market was a collection of keg beers which all tasted virtually the same.
None of the "well-known" brands at that time were real ales. The results were
therefore hardly surprising. It confirms my view that all keg beers are
virtually indistinguishable. Do you remember the horrors of keg beer in the
1960s: Worthington 'E', Ind Coupe Double Diamond, Whitbread Tankard,
Watneys Red Barrel, Younger's Tartan Bitter, Courage Tavern and Flowers Keg
Bitter? All equally ghastly.

Ian.

In a message dated 12/10/2010 10:31:20 GMT Daylight Time,
writes:

It seems to me there are two very different kinds of 'education' that
permeate this debate:

One is a deep knowledge that comes with years of study and, in the case of
beers and wines, requires sensitive taste buds as well. A very small
number
of people fall into this category.

The other is the effect of marketing. This group, 'the brainwashed' forms
by
far the largest group (although there will be some overlap between the two

groups).

In reading this thread, I was reminded of a marketing study carried out
decades ago:

Volunteers were asked to taste and then record their preferences for a
number of well known brands of beers on a scale of 0-100. A brand 'Double
Diamond' (which probably dates the survey), came out way on top, scoring
around 80%, very significantly above average.

A second test was carried out, this time without identifying the brand
names. The result of this test was that there was no statistical
difference
between any brand.

I cannot help but believe that the rise in the proportion of 'real ale'
drinkers might have more to do with successful marketing than with whether
all the drinkers would always identify and prefer 'real ale' in a blind
test.