Freakonomics covered this back around their inception. The data shows wine tasters and critics generally rate expensive wine as better. In a blind trial where expensive was replaced with two buck chuck and a $5 option, researchers proved there’s not much difference in ratings when the price isn’t known. Tell them two buck chuck is the most expensive thing on the table and it’s then rated as such.
I believe this was part of their coverage on experts not being experts, iirc.
What, price? There’s good wine and not so good wine (and battery acid), that’s it.
Freakonomics covered this back around their inception. The data shows wine tasters and critics generally rate expensive wine as better. In a blind trial where expensive was replaced with two buck chuck and a $5 option, researchers proved there’s not much difference in ratings when the price isn’t known. Tell them two buck chuck is the most expensive thing on the table and it’s then rated as such.
I believe this was part of their coverage on experts not being experts, iirc.