And the same for food critics/wine tasters.  Also, wine tasters generally drink in moderation whereas chefs and food critics have been known to carry a little extra weight.

In both cases, the choice of profession has revealed a taste for the respective delicacy.  Winemakers love the taste of wine, chefs love the taste of food.  And, as demonstrated by wine tasters, you can taste without consuming, and you can partake without consuming to excess.  The wine tasters manage to achieve this but the chefs do not.

Evolution has given us taste as an incentive to acquire necessary nutrients.  Pleasant taste is our reward for consuming.  Presumably, sometimes we might prefer to consume less (maybe more) than what Mother Nature would prefer, so she gives us the sense of taste so that we internalize her preference.  But we try to find ways to manipulate her incentive scheme and get this taste without consuming a lot, or even at all, viz. the wine taster.

Mother Nature is perfectly content to allow us to taste but not consume wine if we see fit.  But when it comes to food, she insists that she knows better than us and she will not let us get away with just a nibble.  As with the taste of wine, the taste of food draws us in, and we expect to have just a taste.  But once the food is in front of us, the trap is set and she deploys her most powerful weapon: temptation that cannot be overcome.

An evolutionary explanation of time-inconsistency and a preference for commitment, a’la Samuelson and Swinkels.

Advertisement