T gaiser bloggers conference ppt 8 12

4,947 views

Published on

PPT used by Tim Gaiser MS for the National Bloggers' Conference in Portland on August 18, 2012.

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,947
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,541
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

T gaiser bloggers conference ppt 8 12

  1. 1. The Neuroscience of Wine Tasting Unlocking the Tasting Strategies of Genius Tim Gaiser MS Wine Bloggers’ Conference August 18, 2012
  2. 2. Initial Thoughts
  3. 3. Today’s Objectives• Discussion of the modeling project• Introduction of concepts: – Modeling internal strategies – Eye accessing cues – Olfactory memory and imaging – Submodalities – The internal image map or grid – Internal visual constructs for calibrating structure and more• Project methodology, findings and exercises
  4. 4. The wine:2008 John Duval Plexus, Barossa
  5. 5. My Background• Two degrees in music: – BA Music History: University of New Mexico 1979 – MM Classical Trumpet: University of Michigan 1983 – A short music free-lance career: 1984-1989• Restaurant industry: 1972 – 1993: everything but kitchen and maître ‘d• MS diploma 1992• Court of Master Sommeliers Americas: Education Chair – Education Director 2003-2011
  6. 6. The Project
  7. 7. Teaching Tasting Is one of the mostrewarding things we do It can also be one ofthe most frustrating …
  8. 8. Teaching Tasting: the Challenge• Trying to give students our own experiences and vocabulary of wine• Knowing that everyone has different neurologies, memories and life experiences• How can we establish commonality so the students can learn easily and quickly using their own experience?
  9. 9. Desired State:More effective strategies for teaching students tasting
  10. 10. Resources:The strategies of top tasters
  11. 11. Overall Goals for the Project• To improve how we teach tasting: – Students learning to taste with more ease in a shorter period of time – Using their own internal maps, memories and neurology• To discover internal strategies of top tasters• To replicate and use the best strategies in order to teach more effectively
  12. 12. Project Participants:• Karen MacNeil• Evan Goldstein MS• Tracy Kamens Ed.D., DWS, CWE• Emily Wines MS• Doug Frost MS MW• Peter Marks MW• Brian Cronin MS• Tim Gaiser MS
  13. 13. ProjectGenesis:2009 Film Sessions
  14. 14. Session Results
  15. 15. Eye positions and patterns are vital to experienced tasters
  16. 16. Olfactory memory—image connection
  17. 17. Submodalities:The structure of internal images canpotentially be more important than the actual content
  18. 18. The existence unique and verypersonal internal image maps or grids
  19. 19. Internal visual constructs arecommonly used for every aspect of experiencing wine
  20. 20. Why hasn’t someonefigured this out before?
  21. 21. How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When Youre Not Anywhere At All?* *Firesign Theater
  22. 22. Mastery of any skill:unconscious competence at a very high level
  23. 23. Needed: the “meta” position -An observer or guide to help slow down one’s internal thinking processes to elicit strategies
  24. 24. The Ongoing Project:Modeling top tasters
  25. 25. Goal:To see if the findings from the 2009 film sessions were consistent in other tasters
  26. 26. Goal:To attempt to find commonality of strategies among other experienced tasters
  27. 27. Goal:To create sequences using thesestrategies in order to be able to teach them to students
  28. 28. Final goal: To improvehow we teach tasting
  29. 29. What is modeling?Eliciting internal patterns ofexcellence in behavior and communication
  30. 30. Modeling Criteria for Tasting Project• Language usage and patterns• Eye movements and patterns• Olfactory image representations• Internal image maps• Driver submodalities• Visual constructs for calibrating structure and other aspects of tasting
  31. 31. How Sessions Were Conducted• Most sessions recorded and transcribed• My acting as a guide• Use of an outline of questions based on the Meta Model: – Goals – Evidence procedures – Needs – Outcomes
  32. 32. Project Findings
  33. 33. Overall Goals for Tasting• Contextual-based for all tasters: – Tasting for pleasure – Tasting for a buyer’s role – Tasting for reviewing wine – Tasting for exam practice – Tasting for teaching purposes
  34. 34. Evidence: Needs for Tasting• Adequate light• Quiet environment• Odor free• Tasting wine in batches• Wines at proper temperatures• Good glassware
  35. 35. I. Sight
  36. 36. Goals For Looking at Wine• The appearance of a wine, especially the color, builds instant expectations• Identify color and use that information to: – Identify age – Identify grape variety – Identify wine making type style
  37. 37. Finding:Use of Visual Constructs forDetermining Color and Age
  38. 38. Visual Constructs for Color• Tasters commonly identified the color (and often age) of a wine by using internal color swatches created from memories of previously tasted wines• Swatches were either gradated or segmented into different colors (“Like paint samples.” EW)• An internal auditory prompt often precedes using construct, i.e., “what color is it?”
  39. 39. Visual Color Construct: Evan Goldstein• Internal question (“What color is it?”) prompts appearance of flat panel: – Panel directly in front, eye-level, about 2-3 feet away – The panel is rectangular, about 2’ x 3’ and flat, like a flat screen monitor• Colors range changes in a gradual gradation from light red on the left side to deep purple on the right.• Matches color in the glass to a color in the spectrum
  40. 40. II. Smell:the Main Event
  41. 41. Findings: Eye PositionsAll tasters used a consistent starting eye position or pattern when smelling wine
  42. 42. Eye Positions:Background
  43. 43. Taster’s Eye Positions• Emily Wines: straight ahead (about 3 feet) and slightly down• Doug Frost: pattern of several very rapid movements: down, centered and moving left to right• Peter Marks: down and centered• Brian Cronin: down and center/ slightly left• Tim Gaiser: down and to the left
  44. 44. Eye Positions & Auditory Prompts• An internal auditory “prompt” was almost always used following the starting eye position: – “What’s there?” – “What am I smelling?” – “What’s in the glass?” – “What kind of fruit is it?”• The combination of a starting eye position and internal auditory question started the smelling sequence
  45. 45. Eye Patterns: Other Findings• Other eye positions used to access: – Internal imaging “field ” for creating or comparing images – Auditory memories about a wine – To look at a tasting “grid” as a guide
  46. 46. Eye Patterns and Eye Accessing Cues
  47. 47. What Are Eye Accessing Cues?• 1890: William James -- relationship between eye movements and internal representation in his book Principles of Psychology• 1970’s: Richard Bandler, John Grinder and colleagues: – Found consistent patterns of eye movements associated with the activation of different parts of the brain• Neurologists now call them lateral and vertical eye movements
  48. 48. Eye Accessing Cues Defined• Visual memory: up and to the left• Visual imagination: up and to the right• Auditory memory: lateral eye movements to the left• Auditory imagination: lateral eye movements to the right• Internal dialogue: down and to the left• Kinesthetic (either physical or emotional sensations): down and to the right
  49. 49. Eye Accessing Cues
  50. 50. Important to Note• Not everyone utilizes the same eye accessing cues• Some individuals, particularly if left handed, have the pattern reversed• Everyone was found to use eye patterns on a consistent basis to access various memory functions
  51. 51. Eye Position Exercise
  52. 52. Finding:The Olfactory Image Connection
  53. 53. Remember a time when wine just smelled like … wine
  54. 54. Statement:“It smells like black cherries.”Question:“How do you know?”“If I had to be you, how would I know?“What would I do?”“What would I experience?”“What would I see?”
  55. 55. Findings: Olfactory Image Connection• All tasters represented aromas in wine with internal images or a combination of images and words – Both still images or movies• Images vary not only in content but structure: size, proximity, color, brightness etc.• There is an relationship to the intensity of the aroma and the structure of the image
  56. 56. Image Maps
  57. 57. Findings• All tasters formed an internal map of the aroma images once generated• The image maps or grids differ-- sometimes radically--from person to person
  58. 58. Project Taster Image Maps
  59. 59. Karen MacNeilNo Consistent Auditory Prompt2009 Yalumba Shiraz, South Australia
  60. 60. Evan GoldsteinAuditory Prompt: “What kind of fruit is it?” 2009 Yalumba Shiraz, South Australia
  61. 61. Tracy Kamens Auditory Prompt: “What’s there?” Start2009 Joseph Leitz Riesling Erstes Gewächs
  62. 62. Emily Wines Auditory prompt: “What’s there?”2008 Double Bond Pinot Noir, Wolff Vineyard, Edna Valley
  63. 63. Peter Marks Auditory Prompt: “What’s there?”2009 Robert Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley
  64. 64. Tim Gaiser Auditory Prompt: “What’s there?” StartPattern from several wines
  65. 65. Conclusion: Image Maps are Unique and VaryDramatically from Person to Person
  66. 66. Olfactory Image Exercise
  67. 67. Partner Up
  68. 68. Front Loading• The most common aromas of red wine: – Black fruits: berries, cherries, currants, raspberries – Red fruits: cherries, cranberries, currants etc. – Dried fruits: figs, prunes, raisins, dates – Non-fruit: flowers, herbs, spices – Wood: vanilla, spices
  69. 69. Exercise
  70. 70. SubmodalitiesThe Structure of Thought and Experience
  71. 71. Findings:Submodalities are vitally importantto the internal imaging process and tasters’ experience of wine
  72. 72. What are Submodalities?• Moda: Greek term for the five senses• Modalities: the inner representation of the five senses: visual (V), auditory (A), kinesthetic (K), olfactory and gustatory• Submodalities: the structural qualities that each modality can possess
  73. 73. Common Submodalities: Visual• Black & white or color* • Associated / Dissociated• Proximity: near or far* • Focused or Defocused• Location* • Framed or Unframed• Brightness* • Movie or still image• Size of image* • If a Movie-• Three dimensional or flat Fast/Normal/Slow image* *Driver Submodality
  74. 74. Auditory• Volume: loud or soft • Fast or slow• Distance: near or far • Pitch: high or low• Internal or external • Verbal or tonal• Location • Rhythm• Stereo or mono • Clarity • Pauses
  75. 75. Kinesthetic• Intensity: strong or • Constant or weak intermittent• Area: large vs. small • Temperature: hot or• Weight: heavy or light cold• Location • Size• Texture: smooth, rough • Shape or other • Pressure • Vibration
  76. 76. Findings: Altering driver submodalities in alltasters changed their experience of a wine—sometimes dramatically
  77. 77. Driver Submodality Findings• Karen MacNeil: – Proximity, Size, 2D vs. 3D, Color vs. black and white• Emily Wines: – Proximity, Size, and 2D vs. 3D• Doug Frost: – Changing any structural aspect of the images of either fruit or words makes the experience artificial and unreal• Tim Gaiser – Proximity, Size, 2D vs. 3D, Color vs. black and white
  78. 78. Submodality Exercise
  79. 79. IV. PalateOlfactory Confirmation and Structural Calibration
  80. 80. Palate: Confirmation of aromaticsDo images and image maps change from nose to palate?
  81. 81. Findings: Images and the Palate• As flavors change or increase/decrease in intensity, the structure of the images changes for most tasters.• Stronger intensity on the palate vs. nose equals the image increasing in size, brightness or closer proximity or location.• Less intensity on palate vs. nose equals image decreasing in size, brightness or a more distant proximity or location.
  82. 82. Palate Findings: Image Grid Changes• Tim Gaiser – Images stay in their grid but may shift in terms of size, brightness, proximity or 2D vs. 3D• Emily Wines – Order and size of cards reshuffles from the nose to the palate. – Stronger flavors causes cards on the “table” to move closer, increase in brightness and color. – Less intense flavors do the opposite.
  83. 83. Palate:Structural Calibration
  84. 84. Finding:Tasters commonly used internal visual constructs or scales to calibrate the structure of wine
  85. 85. Structural Calibration: Tracy Kamens• For sweetness/dryness: sees scale directly in front of her.• A continuum with markers from dry on the left to sweet on the right.• Her attention moves on the scale until the right sweetness level found; a tick (mark) on the scale marks the right point.
  86. 86. Structural Calibration: Emily Wines• Uses different internal scales for structural elements.• Acid: yellow ruler about 12” long with markers for low, medium, etc. – Tastes wine and then points to a mark on the ruler• Alcohol: 24” blue ruler with a “level”-like bubble that moves to the appropriate mark
  87. 87. Structural Calibration: Emily Wines• Tannin: piece of wool stretched out, thin at one end and much thicker and larger at the other. – Texture combined with amount of tannin• Finish: image of the horizon – The longer the finish the farther down the horizon can be seen
  88. 88. Structural Calibration: Tim Gaiser• All structural components calibrated with a 3- 4’ “slide rule”-like device with a red button in the middle resting at “medium”• As I taste the wine the button moves until it matches the amount of acid, alcohol etc., I’m sensing on my palate.• Internally I point to the marker on the ruler and say “it’s medium-plus” or whatever
  89. 89. Utilization:How can the findings be used to help students learn?
  90. 90. Teach students to ID color and age inwine with color spectrums/swatches
  91. 91. Help students to become aware ofthe aroma-image connection that they already possess and use Using imaging to install new memories
  92. 92. Practicing Tasting Without Wines – Disassociated and Associated Rehearsal as a Learning Tool
  93. 93. Teaching students to calibratestructural elements using internal visual scales/constructs
  94. 94. Final thoughts
  95. 95. Q&A
  96. 96. Thanks• Richard Bandler and John Grinder for the principles behind this work.• Tim and Kris Hallbom, Robert Dilts and Suzi Smith for their superb instruction and guidance.• Taryn Voget of the Every Day Genius Institute for her help and guidance in the DVD project
  97. 97. Thanks to Project Participants:• Karen MacNeil• Evan Goldstein MS• Tracy Kamens Ed.D., DWS, CWE• Emily Wines MS• Doug Frost MS MW• Peter Marks MW• Brian Cronin MS• Tim Gaiser MS
  98. 98. Tim Gaiser, MS tgaiser@earthlink.net www.timgaiser.comBlog: www.timgaiser.com/blog.html

×