There are other problems with the triangle thing as well. Something as simple as pour order can have an effect. Besides which statistical significance may rely taking into account the range human sensual detection when factoring for your P-value.
Just as an anecdote...
I don't know of a data collection or statistical method that has no flaws, and I'm certain dudes like Denny, Drew, and the Brülosophy crew have never claimed the triangle test to be perfect. But it's the best we've got and what I'll continue to use until something better comes along.
And it's certainly better than anecdote.
With all due respect, using something like pour order to minimize the results seems a touch desperate, to me.
We're all coming from different perspectives with different goals. The mantra of "The best beer possible with the least effort possible while having the most fun possible" (TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP) and those who preach it is just fine, but it's just another way of saying "Brew beer that's 90% as good as it could be with only 40% of the effort." I think 90% is more than good enough for most homebrewers, and let's be honest - it's better than what a lot of craft breweries make nowadays.
Some of us are trying to get as close to Augustiner, Westvleteren, New Glarus, Russian River, Hill Farmstead, take your pick - as we possibly can. I'm in this camp.
I want to be clear that I truly don't think there is anything at all wrong with following TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP. We all have work, family, and other obligations and it's unreasonable and wrong for everybody in the hobby to be expected to brew like the best pros in the world. A lot of people have a lot of fun brewing darn good beer at home simply, cheaply, and easily, and I really think that's great.
That said, for beer brewed on my own system, Following some of the advice en vogue on the internet has taken me further away from where I'm trying to go. Following advice found in the German brewing textbooks has gotten me closer. The problem is that trying to get to 100% involves making your process more complex, and that can be confusing to newbies and alienating to people who aren't going for 100%. I think that this is one of the major reasons why the guys who advocate TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP preach what they do. They want an inclusive communal environment, and that's respectable. I believe that this is good for the community as a whole! My one and only problem with this is that when the TBBPWTLEPWHTMFP is the zeitgeist, it becomes taboo to talk about what it takes to reach 100%, and sometimes it's even taboo to suggest that this ideal even exists. See the recent helles threads.
Your opinion that simpler brewing will only get one's beer to 90% seems a bit presumptuous. I'd contend many of the non-simple practices people engage are unnecessary remnants of our less informed past. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm okay with that, but I've had very simply made beer that was more than 90%.
Your personal dedication to replicating beers that already exist is respectable, as is the way you approach doing it. Who cares what the zeitgeist is, it doesn't impact your brewing unless you allow it to. Though again, your version of 100% is completely subjective and the opinion that one can't reach that elusive point using simpler methods comes across slightly self-righteous. Imagine if someone like me said something like, "You can't make the best beer unless you do what I do!" Oh, the s***storm!
This is absolutely, positively huge. When I give myself blind taste tests between different batches I've made, I need to completely cleanse my palette with water and crackers or popcorn or something between sips. The flavor of a beer lingers long after I swallow it.
To be clear, they aren't blind taste tests if you're giving them to yourself and you're aware of the independent variable/s.
Clear as mud.
Denny/Drew: Let's cut the crap. I don't pretend to be an authoritative expert on anything. Read through my comments again. I'm merely saying that I made a change, and as a result my beers improved, that they went from point A to point B. I stand by that. That doesn't mean I'm finished trying to improve them, or that I'm finished exploring new ideas, or finished seeking the wisdom of true experts such as yourselves. I work hard to improve my brewing. When I believe I have accomplished that in some way, notwithstanding an absence of rigorous testing, it does not mean that I'm acting like an authoritative expert without due diligence. That's insulting.
I don't think they're referring directly to you, but the general propensity to rely on what someone in authority says despite a significant lack of evidence, and the subsequent defensiveness when the adopted methods get called into question.
You can swear your beer has improved because of changes you made, and if to you it has, that's great! But it's subjective and based on your own anecdotal experience, which isn't an issue at all...
Until you start trying to convince others that the changes you made will improve their beer. It's this use of anecdote as fact that dudes like me are interested in moving away from. I've made it my hobby, in fact.
Getting insulted over this crap suggests perhaps a bit too much emotional investment.