Is beer tasting purely subjective?

It depends. I read somewhere that when most people drink beer that are drinking advertising and that has a lot to do with how they are experiencing the beer. On the other hand, I judge homebrew (BJCP) and when we do that we are comparing a beer to a set of style guidelines. There are still aspects of subjectivity but generally two judges will come within 5 points of each other. If they are wildly apart they will discuss and come to an agreement. I think the BA people are probably somewhere in between and a lot of them have some pretty good ideas about what a quality beer is. I have done blind tastes tests with Westvlereteren 12 and St. Bernardus and they come in pretty close but then Westie always tastes better when you know you have just forked over $30 bucks or more for a 33 cl bottle.

 

I needed a nap after reading this...

 

Yes and no. There are measurable taste characteristics in beer that are accounted for in the style guidelines. BUT your perception of those as good or bad in any given beer IS subjective. SO - I will borrow from another thread if you don't mind - when @steveh is noticing all the hops in the local interpretation of the classic czech pils, his remarks are not purely subjective. BUT when you delight in your bottle of IPL then YOUR taste at that point IS subjective. I always seem to taste things others don't seem to notice. I have come to accept that. language is the real barrier. Can I present my observations in such a way that it brings clearly to you the meaning of quantative expressions like "moderate" or " low." The best way to do that is by analogy or by comparison which is where our discussions always seem to get very lively.

 

That's why I do blind tastings. I also review beer accordingly to style if a brew is staple to the style it gets a good review. Yet if there is off flavors that shouldn't be part of the style, it gets a negative review. If a brew sets itself above the Staple gets an Amazing Review. It all comes down to personal preference I guess, yet I let my tastes buds do the math.

 

+1 to the importance of blind tasting. The 'challenge' for beer rating as it occurs on BA and that other beer website with the word "rate" in it is that 99+% of the people are rating the beers non-blind. Non-blind beer tasting introduces a boat load of biases to the mix.

I appreciate the ratings on both BA and that other site but it really, really needs to be understood that the individual ratings all have bias of one sort or another since they were conducted non-blind.

Cheers!

 

Below is an excellent post that @Ranbot made in a prior thread:

"You're opinions are influenced by outside forces from the moment you see the item in the store and every moment afterwards. Whether or not people look at BA ratings before or after is only a piece of the larger puzzle. Off the top of my head the following are things that effect people's perceptions/opinions:

1. Price and/or effort (i.e. trading, hunting, traveling, etc.) involved in aquiring a beer or any good (See "Veblen Goods": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good )
2. Scarcity ( http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...er-a-case-study-in-scarcity-marketing.212737/ )
3. Reviews and/or buzz/hype creating expectations and anticipation, which can easily become self-fullfilling.
4. Regional bias, which I would break down as 1) homerism, and 2) people who believe a product from a certain region is better (for example a west coast IPA or a sour from Belgium). Even professional tasters are effected by this as proven in the famous "The Judgement of Paris": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Paris_(wine)
5. Brewery bias, which is related to #4, but brewery specific, and would include negative bias (for example bias against BMC)
6. Environmental factors, including mood, surroundings, presentation of the beer
7. Physical differences in taste caused by other drinks, food, smoking, allergies/cold effecting your sense of smell,
8. Changes in individual tastes over time.
9. Marketing, including ads, beer labels, posters, ect. (yes it does work and you are not immune)
10. [EDIT] Memories....Does drinking a beer remind you of positive or negative moments in your past?

Anyone who thinks they are clean slate is fooling themselves."

Cheers to Ranbot!!!!

 

Sounds like "mind over matter." Cheers Jack!! Just playing.

 

LOL!!

Touche sir!

Cheers!

 

The trouble with reviewing to style is that you rely on the label to specify the style. Brewers though are simply experts in making beer and I have great respect for them in this aspect. But I've heard the most appalling nonsense from some of them regarding beer styles.

 

CliffsNotes version:
We don't imbibe in a vacuum.

 

I have had days judging beer where I was off. A couple of nights ago at an event tasting IPAs, I couldn't get much aroma or flavor. Darned sinus problems.

Somedays I am spot on. We are not analytical machines.

 

To answer the subject question: Yes. Yes it is.

Since "objective" factors like ingredients and "style" affect perceptions, those perceptions are individually colored by a given person's singular experience sets. Just because they can be influenced by other people's sets (including ratings) doesn't mean they're not still subject to the individual's prejudices.

As I've said many times in the past in various forms, any pretense to [specific] objectivity is foolish and misguided.

 

The question here is not quite subjective versus objective. Clearly taste is subjective.

What I think your question comes closer to is something along the lines of, "Is there some thing that absent any cognitive effort, we could all agree is enjoyable." I would say that the answer is most likely no.

Kant gets at the matter in Critique of Judgment. He outlines what are essentially three categories for the way we experience things and deem them, for a lack of a better word, "pleasant" -- the beautiful, the agreeable, and the good.

The beautiful are things that hold a natural appeal independent of what we think of them. Indeed, we judge that it is enjoyable because its form is pleasant, rather than judging its form pleasant because we enjoy it. In that sense it holds a universality of appeal that transcends subjective tastes. EX: Even though one might find a work of vanity, like a giant mansion, to be a moral abhorrence, one can, because of its form, still view it as beautiful -- i.e. you derive pleasure from experiencing it even if you do not like it.

The agreeable are things we find pleasant because of subjective preferences and tastes. EX: I like a particular song because it is representative of a style of music that I enjoy.

The good is matter of functionality. EX: My hammer adequately drives nails into wood and by that measure it is good.

So, are there any beers that meet the definition of beautiful? I suspect that the answer is no. One could point to the top rated beers on this site. However, because we are a self selecting group with a particular niche interest, that beer's top status is a product of our collective preference. The top beer is the top beer because we like a certain type of beer (often stronger, denser, and more alcoholic) and that beer represents the pinnacle representation of that preferred form, not because it holds a universal appeal (outside of our niche group).

 

There are some style guidelines to keep in mind, but within that, it's pretty subjective, and that's why hype, scarcity, heard mentality, etc., play a role.

Jeff

 

True, some Brewers go the ambiguous side with declaring their brew. Yet, if it tastes like a stout and has coffee overtones, it's safe to assume it's not an IPA.

 

And if it's not an IPA (or Bourbon Barrel aged or Imperial Stout) then you just gotta ding it a few points!?!

Cheers!

 

Lol, depends on that mouthfeel .

 

I myself did tasting with notes and ratings for years, and did >2000 tastings,sometimes based on a small sample.
Nowadays, I hate this approach and hate the hype. I now drink more wine than beer, and..... I remember one winemaker from eastern germany saying something like
"small tasting measures mean nothing......if you want to determine the quality of a wine, you have to drink a glass and then ask yourself- do I want another one ? if the answer is yes,it is good wine!" I think the same applies to beer.
With small measures, hype and such stuff may play a role, but when you drink more and more of it, you get to know the beer and see if it really fits your tastebuds, hyped or not.

 

I suppose it depends on the context of the question.

If "taste" refers to whether or not you or I enjoy a given beer (or food or painting or musical number or movie...), then yes, it's purely subjective.

But if "taste" is getting at whether or not certain flavor profiles or characteristics can be identified within a beer, then no, it's not *purely* subjective. Even in this case, it's somewhat subjective, because each person's palate is attuned differently. But there are objective data and reference points that provide a common framework for identifying certain tastes. Especially when it comes to distinguishing broad, "macro" stylistic differences vs. specific, "micro" characteristic differences.

And ultimately, while people may experience different things differently, the elements that make up how a beer tastes--the chemical compounds, for example--can be objectively measured, even though two different people may experience those exact same chemical compounds differently.

But the bottom line is that subjectivity and perception play a large role in taste, even if taste isn't *purely* subjective.