1) in the EEA, we didn’t normally taste the ingredients of beer
Not sure what you mean here. In the EEA we could still probably taste the rough signature of a fermentation process.
2) 25% of the population is distracted by the taste of alcohol and unable to use the information
Again you imply that supertasters are unable to get past their initial reaction to the taste of alcohol, despite the utter plausibility of psychoactive reinforcement leading to a modified sense of taste.
3) the nutrition detectors we do have evoke pleasant responses in almost everyone, from a very young age (i.e. aren’t acquired tastes).
Source? My tastes changed slowly but continually as I aged. Is your assertion that none of the common shifts from childhood to adult food preferences are linked to nutritional content?
I call it a “just so story” because it doesn’t pass many obvious sanity checks.
If the above ordered list constitutes your “obvious sanity checks”, then I question their adequacy. If you’re referring to some other sanity checks, I’d be interested in hearing them.
To clarify, I’m not actually advocating Roberts’ theory. I brought it up because I think it’s plausible, which is all that’s required to doubt the counterintuitive assertion that developing a taste for bat urine is akin to developing a taste for beer.
If you meant GI tract micoorganisms, beer came around way too late, and is way too dissimilar to other things we consume to have been adapted for as a gauge of useful diversity.
Came around way too late? Dietary adaptations can be pretty rapid (e.g., adult lactose tolerance). But I doubt your assertion that beer is too dissimilar to other things we consume—getting a message like “this is fermented, caloric, and not obviously toxic” from your tongue is probably good enough.
Not sure what you mean here. In the EEA we could still probably taste the rough signature of a fermentation process.
Then you’d have to show how it has selective power. What information is gained from the fermentation stage, and why would it shift our makeup so quickly?
Again you imply that supertasters are unable to get past their initial reaction to the taste of alcohol, despite the utter plausibility of psychoactive reinforcement leading to a modified sense of taste.
Not one that just happens to line up with a convoluted mechanism that just happens to justify liking beer.
Source? My tastes changed slowly but continually as I aged. Is your assertion that none of the common shifts from childhood to adult food preferences are linked to nutritional content?
We change what we like, but we keep the category of sweet (detection of sugars). There is no scientific substantiation for a “fermentedness” category detector: just sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and the recent meaty one. That gives a serious presumption against this kind of mechanism.
To clarify, I’m not actually advocating Roberts’ theory. I brought it up because I think it’s plausible, which is all that’s required to doubt the counterintuitive assertion that developing a taste for bat urine is akin to developing a taste for beer.
Then I just have to show equal plausibility of the usefulness of bat urine, which I’ve done. Diabetic bat urine contains sugar, which in turn contains sweetness, which in turn contains information information about the plants in the area. This result can be extended to normal bat urine, in which the fruit content of the area will determine bat urine bitterness, which we would then “enjoy” drinking, just as people learn to “enjoy” beer’s bitterness.
And, as a bonus, urine was consumed for a sliver of our evolutionary history.
Sure, it’s convoluted and implausible, but good enough to keep consumption of bat urine nice and legal, which is really all it has to do.
Then you’d have to show how it has selective power. What information is gained from the fermentation stage, and why would it shift our makeup so quickly?
Why would it need to be a quick shift?
Not one that just happens to line up with a convoluted mechanism that just happens to justify liking beer.
Huh? In earlier comments you seemed to have no problem with the idea that people developed a taste for things that got them high, but now the idea is suspect because it supports an explanation for liking beer?
We change what we like, but we keep the category of sweet (detection of sugars). There is no scientific substantiation for a “fermentedness” category detector: just sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and the recent meaty one. That gives a serious presumption against this kind of mechanism.
And there’s no need for a “fermentedness” category detector, any more than there’s a need for cones that selectively perceive yellow.
Sure, it’s convoluted and implausible, but good enough to keep consumption of bat urine nice and legal, which is really all it has to do.
Ah yes, the “grand social conspiracy to ward off prohibition” hypothesis emerges again. I’d be interested in hearing more about how you think this is supposed to work.
Ah yes, the “grand social conspiracy to ward off prohibition” hypothesis emerges again. I’d be interested in hearing more about how you think this is supposed to work.
A large fraction of the population is hugely enthusiastic about something, and acts to preserve it? It worked for chocolate—what makes you think alcohol inspires less enthusiasm?
Then I just have to show equal plausibility of the usefulness of bat urine, which I’ve done.
You haven’t shown equal plausibility for your “bat urine” hypothesis as Roberts has for his “fermented food” hypothesis. Go ahead and scan his blog under the categories fermented food and umami hypothesis. (I don’t agree with everything Roberts has written on the subject.)
That said, I think it was an error for loqi to bring up Roberts’s ideas at all—when he talks about fermented food, he means things like yogourt, soy sauce, natto, miso, fish paste, and kombucha, not the products of alcoholic fermentation. (ETA: No, apparently he includes alcoholic fermentation.)
Not sure what you mean here. In the EEA we could still probably taste the rough signature of a fermentation process.
Again you imply that supertasters are unable to get past their initial reaction to the taste of alcohol, despite the utter plausibility of psychoactive reinforcement leading to a modified sense of taste.
Source? My tastes changed slowly but continually as I aged. Is your assertion that none of the common shifts from childhood to adult food preferences are linked to nutritional content?
If the above ordered list constitutes your “obvious sanity checks”, then I question their adequacy. If you’re referring to some other sanity checks, I’d be interested in hearing them.
To clarify, I’m not actually advocating Roberts’ theory. I brought it up because I think it’s plausible, which is all that’s required to doubt the counterintuitive assertion that developing a taste for bat urine is akin to developing a taste for beer.
Came around way too late? Dietary adaptations can be pretty rapid (e.g., adult lactose tolerance). But I doubt your assertion that beer is too dissimilar to other things we consume—getting a message like “this is fermented, caloric, and not obviously toxic” from your tongue is probably good enough.
Then you’d have to show how it has selective power. What information is gained from the fermentation stage, and why would it shift our makeup so quickly?
Not one that just happens to line up with a convoluted mechanism that just happens to justify liking beer.
We change what we like, but we keep the category of sweet (detection of sugars). There is no scientific substantiation for a “fermentedness” category detector: just sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and the recent meaty one. That gives a serious presumption against this kind of mechanism.
Then I just have to show equal plausibility of the usefulness of bat urine, which I’ve done. Diabetic bat urine contains sugar, which in turn contains sweetness, which in turn contains information information about the plants in the area. This result can be extended to normal bat urine, in which the fruit content of the area will determine bat urine bitterness, which we would then “enjoy” drinking, just as people learn to “enjoy” beer’s bitterness.
And, as a bonus, urine was consumed for a sliver of our evolutionary history.
Sure, it’s convoluted and implausible, but good enough to keep consumption of bat urine nice and legal, which is really all it has to do.
Why would it need to be a quick shift?
Huh? In earlier comments you seemed to have no problem with the idea that people developed a taste for things that got them high, but now the idea is suspect because it supports an explanation for liking beer?
And there’s no need for a “fermentedness” category detector, any more than there’s a need for cones that selectively perceive yellow.
Ah yes, the “grand social conspiracy to ward off prohibition” hypothesis emerges again. I’d be interested in hearing more about how you think this is supposed to work.
A large fraction of the population is hugely enthusiastic about something, and acts to preserve it? It worked for chocolate—what makes you think alcohol inspires less enthusiasm?
Enthusiasm alone doesn’t solve coordination problems, especially when there’s no problem to be solved in the first place.
On retrospect, I would argue less “keep alcohol legal” than “keep alcohol available”.
It’s called umami.
You haven’t shown equal plausibility for your “bat urine” hypothesis as Roberts has for his “fermented food” hypothesis. Go ahead and scan his blog under the categories fermented food and umami hypothesis. (I don’t agree with everything Roberts has written on the subject.)
That said, I think it was an error for loqi to bring up Roberts’s ideas at all—when he talks about fermented food, he means things like yogourt, soy sauce, natto, miso, fish paste, and kombucha, not the products of alcoholic fermentation. (ETA: No, apparently he includes alcoholic fermentation.)
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2010/01/17/lindemans-lambic-framboise/
My mistake.