I read an article the other day in the Denver Post, titled "Discerning palates have trouble telling high-end Pâté from dog food." It was written by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, Jerry Hirsch. The headline seems to be exclusive to the Denver Post, and is at the core of this blog post.

The article is based around a recent study that did a blind tasting of five food samples. 18 volunteers tried four different types of Pâté, and one quality dog food. To make a medium-length article short, 83% of the partcipants mis-identified the dog-food as Pâté and vice-versa. Conversely, 72%  rated the dog-food as the worst tasting.

My only question is, "why did these participants with the 'discerning taste buds' have so much trouble making the logical connection that Dog Food would be the worst tasting of the five?"

Robing Goldstein, co-author of the study,  said, "context plays a huge role in taste and value judgment."

Apparently context can also distract from the nature of the truth.