In light of other recent discussions, Scott Alexander recently attempted a unified theory of taste, proposing several hypotheses. Is it like physics, a priesthood, a priesthood with fake justifications, a priesthood with good justifications, like increasingly bizarre porn preferences, like fashion (in the sense of trying to stay one step ahead in an endless cycling for signaling purposes), or like grammar?

He then got various reactions. This will now be one of them.

My answer is that taste is all of these, depending on context.

Taste is Most Centrally Like Grammar

Scott Alexander is very suspicious of taste in general, since people keep changing what is good taste and calling each other barbarians for taste reasons, and the experiments are unkind, and the actual arguments about taste look like power struggles.

Here's another attempt from Zac Hill, which in some ways gets [...]

---

Outline:

(00:37) Taste is Most Centrally Like Grammar

(03:18) Sometimes ‘Taste’ Is Out to Get You

(04:10) You Are Low Quality and You Have No Taste

(06:03) Don’t Be a Snob

(07:52) Good as in Useful

(10:33) Critic Tells Me I Have No Taste

(12:45) Stand Up For What You Believe In

(15:15) Being Technically In Good Taste Is Not a Free Pass

(16:15) It Is Good To Like and Appreciate Things

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.