From the Atlantic: six rules for finding good food

Found an interesting analysis about how to search out good eats in The Atlantic.

Geo

The author is being discussed in another thread, A Contrarian Chowhound Weighs In.

From the pen of economist Tyler Cowen, cited by Geo above (it's an excerpt from the book in the thread highlighted by LAZ):

Tyler Cowen wrote:"In the Fanciest Restaurants, Order What Sounds Least Appetizing
At fancy and expensive restaurants (say, $50 and up for a dinner), you can follow a simple procedure to choose the best meal. Look at the menu and ask yourself: Which of these items do I least want to order? Or: Which one sounds the least appetizing? Then order that item.
The logic is simple. At a fancy restaurant, the menu is well thought-out. The kitchen’s time and attention are scarce. An item won’t be on the menu unless there is a good reason for its presence. If it sounds bad, it probably tastes especially good.
Many popular-sounding items, on the other hand, can be slightly below the menu’s average quality."

Well. Let's start by ignoring the contradiction between paragraph 2 and the beginning of paragraph 3. If the menu is well thought-out and an item won't be there unless there is a good reason," then why are popular-sounding items below average? The reason, Professor Cowen says, is "a few items may be on the menu specifically because they are generally in demand, not because the chef cooks them with special brilliance." Well, if that's the case, then the only "good" reason is that it's there to sucker people. Oy.

Let's focus, instead, on the idiotic statement in paragraph 1. "Which one sounds the least appetizing? Then order that item." It is followed up somewhat later with "So order the ugly and order the unknown. You’ll probably get a better and more interesting meal." Really? "More interesting," possibly. But "better"? If that's true, the best I can say is that he has in no way proved his case. Far more likely, from an empirical standpoint alone, if I order something I "least want to order," it's probably because I've either had it before and don't like it or have avoided it for good reason in the past. His contention will only work--and even then, it's dubious--if it's something you know little or nothing about. But I just love the line: "If it sounds bad, it probably tastes especially good." Based on what theory or explanation? This has got to be the lamest logic I've seen in quite some time. I guess because the writer is an economist, it "stands to reason" that his analysis is fool-proof or at least logical. Ever heard of andouillette? Hmmm...sounds like andouille. I love andouille, guess I'll try that. I'll just suggest that if you don't know what it is, your reaction may likely not be a positive one. Even if you KNOW what it is, your reaction may not be positive.

While other aspects of what's in this article are more plausible, I have to admit I only scanned the remainder because this first paragraph is just so inane.

Gypsy Boy wrote:Well. Let's start by ignoring the contradiction between paragraph 2 and the beginning of paragraph 3. If the menu is well thought-out and an item won't be there unless there is a good reason," then why are popular-sounding items below average? The reason, Professor Cowen says, is "a few items may be on the menu specifically because they are generally in demand, not because the chef cooks them with special brilliance." Well, if that's the case, then the only "good" reason is that it's there to sucker people. Oy.

Actually, though it is poorly articulated by the author, the point is that when one is dining in a restaurant that takes chances with unusual ingredients and preparations, there must be something on the menu for the non-adventurous eater who may be accompanying someone who is interested in the more challenging dishes. Those "popular sounding" dishes are there as an accommodation. That is something I really appreciate in a restaurant when dining out with the Chow Poodle, who has far less adventurous tastes than me. It means I can take her places which, without such dishes on the menu, she would not enjoy.

Steve:
Agree with virtually everything you say. My larger point was that while there might be a good point buried there somewhere (I'm honestly not sure), it's SO poorly expressed as to say something that I think is actually wrong. The Lovely Dining Companion, like the Chow Poodle, is becoming more adventurous but we're at very different places in what we'll eat. So I agree that it's wonderful to have adventurous and non-adventurous choices. I just thing that this is so badly done that it ends up being wrong.

Its stupid advise in my book to order the item that sounds least appealing. What is the definition of "sounds"? Sounds relative to what thoughts come into your head about something or how the name of a food sounds when you say it? With the high cost of dining out, many people are not that experimental as they want a sure thing when putting money out. Maybe so called "foodies" are more experimental. I think to order something that does not sound appealing makes a greater chance that you will not like what you ordered.

Agreed. I think his lack of examples on "what sounds bad" is a genuine cop-out. I mean, is he thinking of something like 'tripes à la mode Caen' or 'Rocky Mountain Oysters' or etc. Sheesh, I *like* tripe! but to The Other Dr. Gale that sounds simply awful.

Dumb.

Altho', I've got to admit that some of his other principles make good sense: economically speaking, rents are one helluva lot lower in a suburban strip mall than they are in the fashionable Inner Core.

Geo

Well I think one thing to take away from his article is that you can find mighty good eating at what I call hole in the wall kind of restaurants that are in low rent strip malls or in neighborhoods that might be less than upscale. A few places come immediately to mind....Cemitas Puebla is not the kind of place some would generally frequent...(I would) ...also Katy's Dumplings...many would turn away but I love the food I have had at these two places. Love finding the cheaper really good places that are out of the way but have good food.

Absolutely, toria.

Another useful rule-of-thumb: when you drive into a small Kansas (or Missouri, or Nebraska, or Illinois, etc etc) town at 07h, look for where the pickups are parked. That'll tell you where you need to go for breakfast. Interestingly enough, this process works even in big university towns like Columbia MO or Lawrence KS: at 07h the kids are still asleep, but the guys in seed-company caps are having their third cuppa at the best local place!

Geo

It is worth noting in this thread that the book in question is Tyler Cowen, An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies. Cowen contributes to the New York Times and is on the economics faculty of George Mason University (he is something of a libertarian economist). Of more relevance here, he is the author of an excellent on-line guide to Washington, DC ethnic restaurants: http://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/

I have not read this book yet (I will be ordering it soon), but I have dined with Cowen. He is a very engaging fellow, and knowledgeable about the range of cuisines.