A lot of the press on Tyler’s new book has focused on his suggestion to avoid restaurants with pretty women: Beware the Beautiful, Laughing Women When I’m out looking for food, and I come across a restaurant where the patrons are laughing and smiling and appear very sociable, I become wary. … Many restaurants, especially in downtown urban areas, fill seats—and charge high prices—by creating social scenes for drinking, dating, and carousing. They’re not using the food to draw in their customers. The food in most of these places is “not bad,” because the restaurant needs to maintain a trendy image. … I also start to worry if many women in a restaurant are beautiful in a trendy or stylish way. The point is not that beautiful women have bad taste in food. Instead, the problem is that they will attract a lot of men to the restaurant, whether or not the place serves excellent food. And that allows the restaurant to cut back on the quality of the food. … When you enter a restaurant, you don’t want to see expressions of disgust on the diners’ faces, but you do want to see a certain seriousness of purpose. … This review on Zagat.com says it all:
We all know, Tyler included, that where a bunch of beautiful women are, there are going to be beautiful men. Beautiful men being there first or the beautiful women--it doesn't matter. One will not find, generally, in a straight social setting, only one sex. This is the nature of our hunt. So, given Tyler's intelligence, which cannot be disputed, why did he choose to identify the presence of beautiful women, rather than beautiful people, as being an immediate indicator of the (lower) quality of food that is considered acceptable by the customer? Equally plausible is that successful men have lower culinary expectations. Or, of course, that beautiful/successful PEOPLE have lower culinary expectations.
Equally plausible is that when the perfect balance is achieved between beautiful environment, beautiful/successful clientele, and beautiful if not perfect food, mating is most likely to happen. It is the balance of these things that is central.
Equally plausible is that those that are beautiful/successful are, in fact, connoisseur of all things sensuous, and that the quality of food and relative attractiveness of the people present in the restaurant are completely unrelated. Imagine all those lovely people waking up the next morning in each others embrace, introducing themselves, and commenting on how mediocre the food was the night before. (But worth it...)
It seems to me that all of this is irrelevant. Tyler is far too intelligent and articulate to have been serious about this assertion that the presence of beautiful women means keep walking. Unfortunately, it seems he was going for the spectacular, the sensational, and was attempting to stir up a pot of interest for media and those who will read all the upcoming outraged op-eds. Naturally, branding. Naturally, sparking interest. Naturally, generating a desire among those piqued to find out more...by reading his book. This seems to me quite cheap.
The root of the problem is the desire to be waited on. The desire to be waited on exquisitly is signaling; it signals good taste, the freedom to spend on luxury, or that "a fool and his money are soon parted."
Anyone can taste (or see) things and judge based on taste (or appearance) - even dogs. It's the relation of sense data to an underlying aesthetic that's "hard." One food aesthetic (that I think Tyler subscribes to) is that déclassé food is cooler than expensive food, because it's somehow more about the food than...whatever else restaurants are about. The food aesthetic that this perhaps responds to is that expensive, "official" food is cooler than cheap food (the kind of person who refers to a taco truck as a "roach coach").
An evaluation of the visual or social environment presented by a restaurant is at least as deep as tasting something and going "mmm." What we really mean by shallow in this context might not be lack of depth of experience, but social-signallyness. It's trivially true that the trendy are more interested in social-signallyness.
If we don't perceive ourselves as trendy, we can internally raise our status by imagining we are capable of relating to an aesthetic that they're denying or missing because of their focus on social signalling. Hence all the hate for "hipsters."
"food quality seems harder to observe that decor, service, etc. quality, the implication is that pretty trendy people are more shallow, i.e., less discerning about or interested in harder to observe qualities"
"by definition surface appearances are shallow, and things harder to see than appearances are more deep"
"by definition surface appearances are shallow" cannot be meaningfully true. This suggests that visual appearance is by definition shallow. So a sophisticated art lover/collector who takes exquisite pleasure in Amate paintings can only be "shallow," in that he is merely appreciating the surface appearance of a canvas.
Alternatively "surface appearances" might be construed to mean something like immediately obvious aspects of the visual field, or something. In which case trendy decor is often NOT "shallow," in the sense that a restaurant's decor might be appreciated through a fine-grained and subtle understanding of various cultural norms, history, visual references, etc., not too unlike the appreciation of Amate painting.
So I don't think Visual = Shallow, Taste = Deep, works.
I know plenty of trendy places that skimp on the food, but also plenty of amazing restaurants packed with beautiful people. Most of the amazing restaurants filled with beautiful people are fancy and expensive and I think tyler also made the point that he can get just as good food at cheaper, less formal places. I think this idea of quality per dollar once a certain threshold of quality is met is what steers tyler away from the trendy places more than anything. If you make it to berlin. would be delighted to show you around town.
I should note that I don't think going to a restaurant for atmosphere is somehow inferior to going there for the food. I've gladly munched on overpriced blah for the sheer joy of dressing up, sitting someplace attractive and feeling cool for a few hours. I've also eaten horrifying bar food in dumps that smell like bleach to have really interesting conversations with the local bar flies.
As I think Mr. Cowen would agree - the goal should be to maximize whatever it is you want. The first step is not letting terms like "shallow" prevent you from being honest about what that is.
The episode busting fancy food and the bottled water episodes are two of my favorites. I still smile when I picture the "water concierge" filling bottles from the hose in the alley behind the restaurant.
I'd suspect that food might suffer more than decor or service in the presence of attractive women because, of those, it's the element that has least to do with creating a certain type of atmosphere. (Not to say that pretty women are elements of decor but ... I supposed I just did.) People who are concerned with the atmosphere more than (or even as much as) the food may forgive weak food faster than weak service or bad lighting.
You could ask why deep is good, but by definition surface appearances are shallow, and things harder to see that appearances are more deep. Seeing deep things is more impressive because it is harder.
I think it is more reflected in price when you go to a trendy place. If your budget is unlimited then your top restaurants will have everything - hot girls, great food, good service.
If your budget is more limited then your probably first to choose between scene and quality of food.
Now wait just a gol'-darn minute! Are you suggesting that OB is neither a "pretty" nor a "trendy" blog? Are you implying that the people who read and/or post comments here are not part of the "in" crowd? Surely one be both deep/intellectual and "trendy" at the same time, right? I mean, like (oh, and "for sure!") consider Legally Blonde. Heh.
We all know, Tyler included, that where a bunch of beautiful women are, there are going to be beautiful men. Beautiful men being there first or the beautiful women--it doesn't matter. One will not find, generally, in a straight social setting, only one sex. This is the nature of our hunt. So, given Tyler's intelligence, which cannot be disputed, why did he choose to identify the presence of beautiful women, rather than beautiful people, as being an immediate indicator of the (lower) quality of food that is considered acceptable by the customer? Equally plausible is that successful men have lower culinary expectations. Or, of course, that beautiful/successful PEOPLE have lower culinary expectations.
Equally plausible is that when the perfect balance is achieved between beautiful environment, beautiful/successful clientele, and beautiful if not perfect food, mating is most likely to happen. It is the balance of these things that is central.
Equally plausible is that those that are beautiful/successful are, in fact, connoisseur of all things sensuous, and that the quality of food and relative attractiveness of the people present in the restaurant are completely unrelated. Imagine all those lovely people waking up the next morning in each others embrace, introducing themselves, and commenting on how mediocre the food was the night before. (But worth it...)
It seems to me that all of this is irrelevant. Tyler is far too intelligent and articulate to have been serious about this assertion that the presence of beautiful women means keep walking. Unfortunately, it seems he was going for the spectacular, the sensational, and was attempting to stir up a pot of interest for media and those who will read all the upcoming outraged op-eds. Naturally, branding. Naturally, sparking interest. Naturally, generating a desire among those piqued to find out more...by reading his book. This seems to me quite cheap.
The root of the problem is the desire to be waited on. The desire to be waited on exquisitly is signaling; it signals good taste, the freedom to spend on luxury, or that "a fool and his money are soon parted."
Anyone can taste (or see) things and judge based on taste (or appearance) - even dogs. It's the relation of sense data to an underlying aesthetic that's "hard." One food aesthetic (that I think Tyler subscribes to) is that déclassé food is cooler than expensive food, because it's somehow more about the food than...whatever else restaurants are about. The food aesthetic that this perhaps responds to is that expensive, "official" food is cooler than cheap food (the kind of person who refers to a taco truck as a "roach coach").
An evaluation of the visual or social environment presented by a restaurant is at least as deep as tasting something and going "mmm." What we really mean by shallow in this context might not be lack of depth of experience, but social-signallyness. It's trivially true that the trendy are more interested in social-signallyness.
If we don't perceive ourselves as trendy, we can internally raise our status by imagining we are capable of relating to an aesthetic that they're denying or missing because of their focus on social signalling. Hence all the hate for "hipsters."
If you're paying anything for "trendiness", then you're signalling.
"food quality seems harder to observe that decor, service, etc. quality, the implication is that pretty trendy people are more shallow, i.e., less discerning about or interested in harder to observe qualities"
"by definition surface appearances are shallow, and things harder to see than appearances are more deep"
"by definition surface appearances are shallow" cannot be meaningfully true. This suggests that visual appearance is by definition shallow. So a sophisticated art lover/collector who takes exquisite pleasure in Amate paintings can only be "shallow," in that he is merely appreciating the surface appearance of a canvas.
Alternatively "surface appearances" might be construed to mean something like immediately obvious aspects of the visual field, or something. In which case trendy decor is often NOT "shallow," in the sense that a restaurant's decor might be appreciated through a fine-grained and subtle understanding of various cultural norms, history, visual references, etc., not too unlike the appreciation of Amate painting.
So I don't think Visual = Shallow, Taste = Deep, works.
I know plenty of trendy places that skimp on the food, but also plenty of amazing restaurants packed with beautiful people. Most of the amazing restaurants filled with beautiful people are fancy and expensive and I think tyler also made the point that he can get just as good food at cheaper, less formal places. I think this idea of quality per dollar once a certain threshold of quality is met is what steers tyler away from the trendy places more than anything. If you make it to berlin. would be delighted to show you around town.
I should note that I don't think going to a restaurant for atmosphere is somehow inferior to going there for the food. I've gladly munched on overpriced blah for the sheer joy of dressing up, sitting someplace attractive and feeling cool for a few hours. I've also eaten horrifying bar food in dumps that smell like bleach to have really interesting conversations with the local bar flies.
As I think Mr. Cowen would agree - the goal should be to maximize whatever it is you want. The first step is not letting terms like "shallow" prevent you from being honest about what that is.
The episode busting fancy food and the bottled water episodes are two of my favorites. I still smile when I picture the "water concierge" filling bottles from the hose in the alley behind the restaurant.
I'd suspect that food might suffer more than decor or service in the presence of attractive women because, of those, it's the element that has least to do with creating a certain type of atmosphere. (Not to say that pretty women are elements of decor but ... I supposed I just did.) People who are concerned with the atmosphere more than (or even as much as) the food may forgive weak food faster than weak service or bad lighting.
You could ask why deep is good, but by definition surface appearances are shallow, and things harder to see that appearances are more deep. Seeing deep things is more impressive because it is harder.
Indeed! My favorite objection.
I think it is more reflected in price when you go to a trendy place. If your budget is unlimited then your top restaurants will have everything - hot girls, great food, good service.
If your budget is more limited then your probably first to choose between scene and quality of food.
Why is caring about tastes more 'deep' than caring about appearances?
To the extent TED talks have really taken off among the pretty and trendy, OB can consider itself cool.
Next time I'm in Chicago, I hope I'll remember to look you up. Alas it only happens every few years.
Also, maybe I'm totally arrogant, but if you want to take a pretty trendy tour of Chicago some time, you are welcome to contact me.
Now wait just a gol'-darn minute! Are you suggesting that OB is neither a "pretty" nor a "trendy" blog? Are you implying that the people who read and/or post comments here are not part of the "in" crowd? Surely one be both deep/intellectual and "trendy" at the same time, right? I mean, like (oh, and "for sure!") consider Legally Blonde. Heh.