Taste Is a Signal
Surface knowledge cites icons. Deep knowledge explains influence.
There’s something I’ve noticed across every field — finance, sports, physics, art.
When you ask someone who the “best” is, most people give the obvious answer.
Michael Jordan.
Wayne Gretzky.
Einstein.
The canonical names.
But the problem with citing the obvious is that it tells you almost nothing about the person speaking.
It’s safe.
It’s socially reinforced.
It requires no friction.
Real taste reveals itself differently.
The people who are deeply immersed in something tend to give more specific, sometimes even avant-garde answers. They’ll explain why Allen Iverson was transformative to the NBA — culturally and structurally — not just repeat Jordan’s rings. They’ll talk about Bobby Orr redefining positional play, or Jaromír Jágr’s longevity and puck protection, rather than defaulting to Gretzky’s records.
And when they articulate those perspectives, you can feel it. They’re not just naming greatness — they’re mapping influence.
That’s when I learn the most.
Because real engagement shows up in the edges, not the headlines.
I once thought about this in the context of a hypothetical round table. Most people would say they’d want to sit with someone like Einstein. And that makes sense.
But I once chose Fulcanelli.
Fulcanelli — the pseudonymous French alchemist and esoteric writer of the early 20th century — is best known for The Mystery of the Cathedrals.
His work explored symbolic architecture, alchemy, and hidden knowledge embedded in Gothic structures. His true identity remains unknown. Some accounts even claim he disappeared after allegedly achieving a form of transmutation or transformation.
Whether myth or reality, the story itself is compelling.
Because it suggests that the most interesting thinkers are not always the most institutionalized ones.
Sometimes they’re operating in the margins.
Someone whose questions were stranger. Someone less canonized, but more exploratory.
That’s what taste reveals.
Not who you admire — but how you process influence.
Anyone can repeat the consensus hierarchy.