I’ve been looking at four-dollar-sign Japanese restaurants on Yelp (because I’m considering going to one once just to see what it’s like), and I was disappointed that all the ones I’ve looked at involve the chef deciding what to serve, and see this as a selling point. Why would I pay almost $200 (or more!) for someone to tell me what to eat? If I’m paying that much, if anything it should be the other way around - I tell them what to make and can instruct them on how to make it. I could make those Japanese chefs make mashed potatoes if I felt like it.
Because a big part of their skillset is having better taste and more creative ideas than you have.
It’s like Tyler Cowen’s rule that if you’re at a nice restaurant and you see something on the menu that looks so weird you can’t imagine anyone eating it voluntarily, you should get it. It’s on the menu for a reason.
There’s certain foods that I just don’t like, despite everyone in my family liking it and making me try it a bunch of times.
I don’t care how developed your taste is, either you’re gonna mask it so much I can’t taste that ingredient, or I’m not gonna like it.
The big response here is that $200/plate restaurants genuinely aren’t for everyone. Going to a place like that and complaining that you got something you wouldn’t have ordered is like going to a mosh pit and complaining it was loud and crowded. I sympathize—and I would never go to a mosh pit voluntarily myself—but if you don’t want that thing then don’t buy that thing.
“Having the chef choose the food” is literally a big part of what you’re paying for. The difference between a $100/dish restaurant and a $200/person restaurant is way more about the creativity in choices than it is about the literal skill with which the food is assembled.
That said, I would also observe:
There are a lot of foods and ingredients that I “don’t like” but have liked when prepared well enough/properly/by a sufficiently good chef.
Some ingredients taste awful on their own but add interesting notes in combination with other things. The limiting case here is spices; I would never sit down and eat a plate of paprika or cumin. But it’s true with a lot of other ingredients. I “don’t like” tomatoes or celery, but I use both liberally in my cooking.
As an artistic matter, it can be interested and rewarding to experience dishes that aren’t particularly enjoyable. (This relates back to the big response up top; if you can’t imagine feeling that way, you’re probably not the target audience).
I just object to ‘better taste’. And given things like ‘we know genetics determines if you find coriander tastes soapy/ alcohol tastes bitter/ tannin-y stuff tastes a lot worse’ among others, the combination of flavours that the chef things they’re creating for you may not be the combination that you actually get, and you going ‘this ingredient tastes horrible actually, i don’t like it’ isn’t a sign that you just need to ~develop your tastes~ or whatever.
If i’ve never tried something, and i don’t find it disgusting for non taste reasons (e.g. i don’t like eating eyeballs, even if they taste good), then i’ll give it a try and i might be surprised, but with a few specific ingredients that i’ve tried a LOT of times from people telling me i just need to develop a taste for it, and that i can taste even when people who like it can’t tell it was an ingredient, I’m gonna need a lot of convincing before i pay $200 for.
“Having better taste” is the job of most artists. When I buy a book, I don’t expect to tell the writers which words to use. When I go to a jazz concert, I don’t tell the pianist he should try a different bass pattern for the rest of the song. When I buy a painting or a print, the artist’s choice of composition is at least as important as their skill in actually constructing the picture.
I’m sensitive both to cilantro and to greens in general, so I understand where you’re coming from. There are some things I’m really not going to like!
But if I want to pick my own food, I’m not going to pay someone an extra hundred dollars for his ability to make really good and sophisticated food choices. And when I do go for a tasting menu experience, if I only like six of the eight dishes, that’s fine. Trying a bunch of stuff and being challenged for it is what I’m paying for.
(And one thing I realize is probably non-obvious: it’s not like the chef plunks down one big plate and says “here, this is what you’re eating tonight”. You generally get four to ten distinct dishes, and often a dish will have two or three separate components. I’d have been really unhappy to have been given a meal of the sea urchin sashimi, but I’m glad I got to have two bites of it and then get the next course).
yeah if it’s like a tasting platter (or like, tapas) then that makes more sense.

