The recent trainwreck on AAAC got me thinking. "Groupthink" is often criticized here, and more often cited elsewhere as evidence of our derangement. It is true, at least partially, that some things get a lot of love here while others are almost universally derided. But is that "groupthink" necessarily? Since I have been enjoying cooking analogies lately, I will continue with one. Gather 10 or 100 foodies in a room. Chances are 90% or more of them -- probably close to all of them -- are going to love foie gras. Is that "groupthink"? Or is there something inherent in the subject matter that leads a refined palate in that direction? As soon as one uses a phrase like "refined palate" one is out on a limb. What is "refined"? Who decides? Who excludes? Who is excluded? Where is the line? It is not easy to answer those questions. But it is conversely too easy to say "'Refined' has no meaning, it is all in the eye (or palate) of the beholder." Are there sartorial conventions/ratios/proportions/colors/patterns/shapes/textures/combinations, etc. that are somehow inherently more pleasing than others? Do the most sartorially inclined tend to gravitate toward those things? This is not to say that tastes at the top must be identical, or that the best dressed will inevitably all look alike. That is a silly strawman -- one I expect to see repeated, probably in this thread and certainly elsewhere. It is to ask, is there a common vocabulary that is hierarchical in nature? The same way that a bunch of restaurant critics might disagree as to their absolute favorite, and disagree violently as to the merits of this or that restaurant -- but tell them to produce a list of the 100 best, and rank them, and chances are those lists are going to look a lot alike.