A Position of Authority
Hey Team,
No matter how much you know about something, there’s always somebody else who know more than you.
Humble, but Overwhelmed
As an MW student I worked relatively* hard to get to this point, I finished my WSET Diploma back in 2016. If I think really hard about things, I’m sure I do definitely know some things about wine.
But. I’m constantly asking questions, and constantly doubting myself.
I sent a message to Flint Vineyard winemaker Ben at the weekend while I was out walking my dog, musing over how to filter and cold stabilise prosecco without affecting the bubbles**.
It’s not the sort of question normal people mull over, but I saw the question and had to find out the answer.
I ask these questions because I’m convinced that the more I learn about wine the more there is to learn, and in some ways, the less I understand anything.
How can anyone ever feel like they’ve truly mastered any subject? At what point are you confident enough in your abilities to declare yourself a master?
Sheer Confidence
Cultivating the impression of knowledge and experience is a trait that you learn I think. Because, if there’s two knowledgeable people in the room the person most likely to dominate proceedings is the one with the most confidence.
That confidence comes from experience, yes, but it also comes from external acknowledgement, a community of justifiers in demonstrable agreement.
How does anyone get to that point, without thinking that along the way they’ve asked the wrong person, a bit like the time Guy Goma was on BBC News***.
I listen to SO MANY podcasts on wine, most often with people I’ve never heard of, quite regularly pretty technical talks, things like, soil regeneration, root stocks or malolactic fermentation.
The people being interviewed are field leaders, technical researchers and each of them humble, and constantly learning, evolving, updating their work.
It Depends
The old saying goes that if you ask two Master of Wine the same question you’ll get three answers.
My version goes that if you ask two Masters of Wine the same question, neither will be able to answer the question as well as the person who wrote the paper on it, or does it everyday.
Which makes me think, what does being an MW achieve, and if Masters of Wine are really the pinnacle of any field. Base your answer simply on their ability to pass the MW exam, and you’d probably say no.
Base it on their years of humble experience in their particular sector and you’re probably most of the way there.
A wise MW once told me:
“To pass the MW exam, you need to know something about everything, rather than everything about something”
That is a mantra i’m sticking to.
dk
* I’m never one to blow my own trumpet. Remain Humble.
** You can filter and cold stabilise under pressure. You’re filtering out the particles, not the gas, so the CO2 remains in suspension.
*** Guy Goma
Further Reading
Occasionally it feels a bit like Imposter Syndrome, but most of the time I’m comfy knowing that others know more than I do.
“Even as others praise your talents, you write off your successes to timing and good luck. You don’t believe you earned them on your own merits, and you fear others will eventually realize the same thing.”
You’re Not a Fraud. Here’s How to Recognize and Overcome Imposter Syndrome
You are definitely onto something here. One big distinction (there's a Paper 4 question in this) is between the way we look at things with our brains. (cf Prof Iain McGilchrist). The specialist has a left-hemisphere perspective. It's not "what" the brain does, so much as "how" each hemisphere approaches it. The left is analytical, it abstracts things, isolates parts, creates (or sees) sequences and rules. It is the hemisphere of "if/then". It lives in the explicit. The great MW (dare I say it) is a creature of the right hemisphere. Or at least a balanced approach. The right sees the "gestalt". The whole. Sometimes it believes in six impossible things before breakfast. It's also the hemisphere of unspoken emotion. It "gets it". But doesn't always know why. It lives in the implicit. The great MWs I've met (and there are many) have an implicit understanding of the impossibility of understanding wine. It is so much more than the purely analytical. It cannot ALL be isolated and abstracted. All its rules have exceptions.
You have not given up by reconciling yourself to the the idea that there will be others who will know more. You achieve a greater insight by surrendering yourself to the right-brain's wisdom that it was an impossible task in the first place. That true understanding comes from knowing that the whole... the gestalt... is greater than the sum of its parts.
To score a wine is the ultimate expression of the left-brained view of the world. I'm with Hugh Johnson who balances his huge expertise with great insight: "how can I score my friends?".
Evening Dan , there is a big problem with people over -mystifying wine . It is a great subject but comes down to one basic tenet ; what do you like to drink ! It really isn’t more complicated than that to me