Wasn't this demonstrated by the Royal Chemical Society that pouring the milk into the tea creates a detectable trace of caramelization of the milk sugar or protein denaturation due to the momentary high temperature on the milk while the tea:milk ratio was very high at the initial pour?
I was alway told the milk-last 'scalds' the milk, and I do prefer the taste of milk-first, especially with the first pour of the pot.
If making teabag tea, it's better to let the tea brew (and cool) for a few minutes before adding milk. Adding the milk just after the water gives a terrible cup.
Why wouldn’t the same thing happen when the milk first hits the tea?
Id anything I would think there should be more caramelization in the TBM case because there should be more heat in the larger volume of tea and so the milk should get hotter at the point of initial contact.
> Thus, if and only if the lady properly categorized all 8 cups was Fisher willing to reject the null hypothesis – effectively acknowledging the lady's ability at a 1.4% significance level (but without quantifying her ability).
Important to realize though, that failure to categorize all 8 doesn't prove anything either. It just means this one experiment isn't conclusive in itself (at 95% confidence).
It's good to be aware of how easy it can be to get a false result by chance, but it's imo a worse statistical sin to propose that not proving something is proving the opposite (a mistake I see quite often).
Also, you need to consider your prior probabilities. If you performed an experiment that showed, 0.001<p<.05 that the sun has spontaneously stopped undergoing fusion, I wouldn't be very worried.
This is generally good advice, but isn't it inappropriate in this specific instance?
The lady's claim was (allegedly) that she has a perfect ability to distinguish between the tea-milk orders, so in that case even a single failure is indeed enough to reject her claim.
We can't rule out her success rate being significantly greater than 50-50, but even a single failure puts some bounds on her maximum success rate.
The probability of guessing all eight correctly is 0.5^8 (or roughly 0.39%). The chances of such a thing happening by mere fluke are quite slim. Now personally, I would have preferred a few more glasses to be even more certain, but hey, for all practical purposes those results do seem fairly credible.
That’s one reason. The other one is that when you have a small amount of total milk, you have to make sure there’s enough for everyone. By pouring milk first you can more easily measure how much milk you pour per cup.
Good tea cups would never crack from boiling water, unless they were frozen first. Tea first is probably due to the fact that everybody wants tea, but not everybody wants milk, and some people want to pour their own amount of milk. You offer tea, they accept, you pour tea, you offer milk.
To me when I first came across this in college it was fascinating. I think any stem field should be taught about these statistical methods.
The power of being able to put an objective answer on any personal claim (e.g. mint gives me a headache) with statistics & a blind design is a very powerful tool to approach fields where our science just isn't good yet (psychology, health, etc).
And "The Lady Tasting Tea" by David Salsburg is a nice history of statistics; 29 chapters, a little over 320 pages. [New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001; ISBN 0-8050-7134-2 (PB)]
... one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, but I maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk whereas one is liable to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round.
Not mentioned here is the lady’s name, Muriel Bristol.
I have also heard that this is a different way with 6 cups. This matters because 6C3 = 6! / (3!(6-3)!) = 20. That 1/20 chance of getting all 3 cups right is said to be the basis for the 5% significance cutoff for p values.
Another basis for the 5% cutoff is the (even earlier) Poisson distribution, with zero expected events, 3 observed. In this case, the probability of occurrence by chance is 1/e^3, which is just under 5%. In other words, the 5% p value is analogous to “3 strikes you’re out” because the probability of 3 uncommon events or exceptions is <5%.
The 1967 British TV series The Prisoner, episode A Change Of Mind, prescribes the milk-first method, as part of a general instruction on how to make “a decent cup of tea”.
My father-in-law does that with coffee. Fill a mug with milk, add two scoops of instant coffee, 60 seconds in the microwave at 800W, stir, another 10-30 seconds in the microwave, stir, drink. He won't have it any other way.
[+] [-] lr4444lr|1 year ago|reply
https://www.vahdam.com/blogs/tea-us/milk-first-or-last-the-s...
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|1 year ago|reply
I didn't realise it was a class marker until someone described it as "a bit MBT" (milk before tea.)
Apparently where they were from this subtle social shading really mattered.
[+] [-] BinRoo|1 year ago|reply
> The null hypothesis is that the subject has no ability to distinguish the teas
Since the hypothesis was invalidated, we can begin investigating _how_ she's able to distinguish it, which is what you're getting at.
[+] [-] perilunar|1 year ago|reply
I was alway told the milk-last 'scalds' the milk, and I do prefer the taste of milk-first, especially with the first pour of the pot.
If making teabag tea, it's better to let the tea brew (and cool) for a few minutes before adding milk. Adding the milk just after the water gives a terrible cup.
[+] [-] lisper|1 year ago|reply
Id anything I would think there should be more caramelization in the TBM case because there should be more heat in the larger volume of tea and so the milk should get hotter at the point of initial contact.
[+] [-] mmh0000|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3103
[+] [-] ahazred8ta|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] LeonB|1 year ago|reply
- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DTuXBoA688Y
[+] [-] rahulnair23|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:3103:ed-1:v1:en
[+] [-] zug_zug|1 year ago|reply
Important to realize though, that failure to categorize all 8 doesn't prove anything either. It just means this one experiment isn't conclusive in itself (at 95% confidence).
It's good to be aware of how easy it can be to get a false result by chance, but it's imo a worse statistical sin to propose that not proving something is proving the opposite (a mistake I see quite often).
[+] [-] aidenn0|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sjmcmahon|1 year ago|reply
The lady's claim was (allegedly) that she has a perfect ability to distinguish between the tea-milk orders, so in that case even a single failure is indeed enough to reject her claim.
We can't rule out her success rate being significantly greater than 50-50, but even a single failure puts some bounds on her maximum success rate.
[+] [-] af3d|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|1 year ago|reply
:)
[+] [-] jitl|1 year ago|reply
Lady: is right
[+] [-] jibbit|1 year ago|reply
this is because of the fear that boiling water will crack your best tea cups?
[+] [-] Horffupolde|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway984393|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] zug_zug|1 year ago|reply
The power of being able to put an objective answer on any personal claim (e.g. mint gives me a headache) with statistics & a blind design is a very powerful tool to approach fields where our science just isn't good yet (psychology, health, etc).
[+] [-] YZF|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bikenaga|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] codeulike|1 year ago|reply
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
... one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, but I maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk whereas one is liable to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round.
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|1 year ago|reply
If you were concerned about regulating the amount of milk you were adding, tea first wouldn't even be a possibility.
[+] [-] westcort|1 year ago|reply
I have also heard that this is a different way with 6 cups. This matters because 6C3 = 6! / (3!(6-3)!) = 20. That 1/20 chance of getting all 3 cups right is said to be the basis for the 5% significance cutoff for p values.
Another basis for the 5% cutoff is the (even earlier) Poisson distribution, with zero expected events, 3 observed. In this case, the probability of occurrence by chance is 1/e^3, which is just under 5%. In other words, the 5% p value is analogous to “3 strikes you’re out” because the probability of 3 uncommon events or exceptions is <5%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Bristol
[+] [-] stavros|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] teddyh|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] xandrius|1 year ago|reply
I'd rather just plain tea than water tea + milk, it just seems the worst of both worlds to me.
[+] [-] Sander_Marechal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Loughla|1 year ago|reply
That's terrifying.
[+] [-] telesilla|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] nabaraz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] playingalong|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] brcmthrowaway|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jitl|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] chrsw|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] taejo|1 year ago|reply