Good Taste and Naïve Realism

See also: Epistemology of Preference-Avijjā, Māna, and the Emptiness of Aesthetic Taste in Buddhist Philosophy — A comprehensive Buddhist deconstruction of aesthetic preference as avijjā, māna, and the emptiness of taste.

Introduction: The Intersection of Perception and Aesthetics

The concept of "good taste" has historically been treated as a measure of character, intelligence, and social standing. Yet, the moment we attempt to define what separates good taste from bad, we enter an ambiguous domain where subjective preference masquerades as objective fact. This phenomenon is perfectly explained by a cognitive bias known in social psychology as Naïve Realism.

By understanding the psychological mechanisms behind naïve realism, we can deconstruct why human beings are so fiercely defensive of their aesthetic preferences, from the art they revere to the food they consume.

The Psychology of Naïve Realism

Coined by social psychologist Lee Ross in the 1990s, naïve realism is the cognitive illusion that we see the world exactly as it truly is, free from bias or error.^[1] While philosophical naïve realism (or direct realism) focuses on sensory perception—such as believing a red apple possesses the intrinsic property of "redness"—psychological naïve realism applies this direct perception to social judgments and personal beliefs.^[2]

Because our interpretation of the world does not register internally as an "interpretation" but rather as "plain sight," encountering disagreement feels like an attack on reality itself.^[3]

The Illusion of "Good Taste"

The domain of aesthetics and "taste" is uniquely vulnerable to the trap of naïve realism. For centuries, critics and philosophers have attempted to establish objective frameworks for subjective sensibilities.

In his 1790 Discourses on Art, Joshua Reynolds argued that the standard of taste was rooted in the authority of works "consecrated by having stood the test of ages."^[4] This created a historical template where the subjective preferences of a dominant cultural class were elevated to the status of objective law.

When we believe in the objective reality of our own good taste, we naturally view disparities in response not as mere differences in subjective wiring, but as indicators of a person's character or intelligence.

The Arrogance of Objective Preference

When naïve realism merges with aesthetics, it produces what some cultural commentators call the "arrogance of objective preference."^[5]

This manifests in several ways across society:

• Intellectual Snobbery: When a cinephile is baffled that a friend dislikes a critically acclaimed film, the naïve realist assumption kicks in: The friend just didn't "get it," or they lack the requisite artistic vocabulary.

• Culinary Elitism: The belief that a refined palate is an objective measure of quality, ignoring how cross-modal tactile-taste interactions and cultural upbringing dictate food satisfaction.^[6]

• Cultural Polarization: Treating alternative aesthetic subcultures as not just different, but objectively inferior or "trashy."

The naïve realist cannot process that two people can consume the exact same art, food, or music, process it through different internal psychological and cultural interfaces, and emerge with two equally valid, yet entirely opposing, subjective experiences.^[7]

Overcoming Aesthetic Naïve Realism

To break the illusion of objective taste, one must practice epistemic humility. This requires acknowledging that human reality is not made up of the atoms of the "real world," but is instead a subjective conjuring synthesized by the brain.^[8]

Strategies for Deconstructing Taste Biases

• Acknowledge the Interface: Recognize that your aesthetic preferences are heavily filtered through your upbringing, biological sensory thresholds, and prior cultural exposures.

• Separate Morality from Aesthetics: Actively remind yourself that a person's preference for "lowbrow" entertainment or "uncultured" food has zero correlation with their ethical baseline or intellectual capacity.

• Embrace the Subjective Gap: When someone disagrees with your artistic taste, use it as a prompt for curiosity ("What in their background makes them view this differently?") rather than a prompt for judgment ("Why are they so blind to this brilliance?").

By abandoning the illusion that our taste is an objective metric of reality, we open ourselves up to a much broader, more empathetic engagement with human culture.

References