Some of the downright awful recommendations given in the Mexican food thread got me thinking: do people have neighborhood bias? Every man wants to be a king, and every woman a queen. A king has to have a kingdom, and no king wants a shitty one. We try to buy our kingdoms in the nicest of areas, as much as we can afford. For some nincompoops, our kingdom exists within the boundaries of St. Charles, Magazine, Jefferson and Audubon Park. For others, it's the Whorehouse District or Metairie Road.

Each lord's duty is to act as steward of his kingdom; that stewardship includes improving it, if by doing nothing more than persuading others of its appeal. A good king knows that supply and demand economics means that the more people think highly of his kingdom, the more they will want to live in it, and the more valuable the kingdom will become. Kings want a valuable kingdom.

In modern America, one variable that dictates a neighborhood or kingdom's worth is the value of restaurants in it. Good neighborhoods have good locally owned restaurants. Poor neighborhoods have restaurants like bad locally owned restaurants, Chilis, Outback, and PJ Changs, just ask Martini. The litmus test of locally owned restaurants determines the strength of the neighborhood: good ones equal a valuable kingdom; bad ones equal a poor kingdom. Thus kings will do what they can to tell others that their locally owned restaurants are good.

How else do you explain people recommending a restaurant like La Macarena? Juan's? Galatoire's? Chateau Du Lac? These recommendations stem from delusion: the delusion that their kingdoms are desirable places. Hiding behind this delusion is also the evolutionary psychological remnant of learning to be pleased with what we have. If you're stuck eating slop with no other options, the mind is powerful enough to trick itself into believing the slop is good.

Neighborhood bias is a serious issue in forums like this one. Don't be afraid to peer through the bias and find honest opinions.