What We Really Taste When We Drink Wine, an article by Maria Konnikova in The New Yorker, is another journalistic take on how easy it is to be influenced by extraneous factors (those that have nothing to do with the wine itself) when tasting, and although the word “fool” does figure in the article, it is a lot more nuanced than the typical UK press versions of the same thing, which can be summarised as “ha-ha, all you experts are stupid, and we are all so smart for buying plonk because it is just as good as your expensive stuff.”
The only bits I am uncertain about are those attributed to Galloni, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, as sound-bite quotations are rarely sufficient to express yourself adequately. Regardless, I think it is important to be aware that the story behind a wine may well be cynically manipulated to make the wine taste good. If that happens, we should all be ready to take a stand against it. Be aware too that critics and wine writers are often complicit by retelling the marketers’ stories. It is likely I also fall into that writers’ trap from time to time, but I try to avoid it. Rely on your own common sense.
Having said that, if you want to enjoy wine, it makes no sense to fight against extraneous factors. We need to learn how to use them to best advantage. Things like the best wine glasses, the perfect match with food and the ideal decanting time rarely exist, but if everybody around the table believes, the magic will work anyway.
If you want to take the game to a higher level though, and not get caught up in chasing the same expensive wines as everyone else, create your own stories to believe in. I suppose even the idea held by many, that plonk tastes as good as really expensive stuff, might even come under that category. But personally I prefer to believe in, and tell, the story that experimenting with unusual wines is fun.