Cooking is a skill where almost everyone seems to get to a certain

>>9247359
It's because people get to a level where their food is acceptable, then use the same 20-30 recipes over and over again for the rest of their lives. Or they learn that they can live off of food made by other people who don't give a shit. Food and cooking is a passion for a fraction of the population, who always want to improve, and for the rest it's "good enough" to eat the same way all the time

>>9247359
As far as your cooking education book idea goes, why don't you create a wiki or blog type setup? I agree with you and I think you're actually talking about an untapped part of the market. People don't learn to cook at home anymore, there's a lot of people looking for guidance

>>9247534
I need these resources because I don't know shit

>>9247570
You could always start a "learning to cook" blog, I've often thought of doing the same thing. I know a little bit, I'd consider myself to be an about average home cook. How interested in this would you be? Ratings for ease, taste, preperation, etc. could be given, and maybe a video of the process

>>9247570
Also I'd say your resources are the internet and cookbooks. My local library has a ton of them and you can learn basics online if you have the trial and error mindset. Learn cooked meat temps, basic skills like how to use a knife, cook eggs, make a roux, etc. which you can easily learn online.

>>9247359
I could not disagree with you more. The people who want to learn and go that step further will do so by being creative and inventive, pushing the boundaries of what they already know and they'll learn in the process. Additionally, people interested in food and cooking will engage with related media and absorb information while doing so, for example while watching masterchef or chopped, or when they try a new recipe out of a cookbook. While the layperson would engage with media like that for entertainment purposes, someone who was motivated to improve their cooking would be more motivated to pay attention and retain information, learning in the process.

Secondly what you described as the solution already exists as cooking degrees (not just one night courses but proper programs) and apprenticeships.

You will notice that everything I've said relates to people motivated to improve and not the general public, and that's not a mistake. If somebody doesn't want to improve then they never will no matter how many resources are available, which is most of the general public.

>>9247359
But then you'd be creating the false impression that there is a direct correlation between dish technicality and their desirability. As in, if you get good at cooking you should only good technical dishes.

Another issue is the lack of critique. Most of what being a good cook is is your taste, so you can actually identify when something tastes like shit and adjust your cooking.
Let's face it, if you're doing elaborate homecooking, all your friends and family will tell you it's amazing. The only place you'll get that critique is in a professional environment.

All in all, the thing with learning to cook at a professional level is, it's so much effort if you're gonna do it you might as well go pro.

>>9247359
Fuck off grasshopper, people work for a living and these days people work longer hours for less pay which just leaves them less time to spend in the kitchen cooking

>>9247359
>how do you take your skills to the next level?

1) constantly challenge yourself to cook new things you haven't done before. If you are indecisive and can't pick something to try on your own then roll dice or choose some other random method.

2) You can easily train yourself to improve at prep tasks by examining your work for consistency, as well as timing it using a stopwatch, and then grade yourself.

3) Eat out a lot. As you get more experience tasting different foods, especially well-made foods, you will end up grading yourself by comparison. I.e. how did the steak you cooked last night compare to the one you just ate at Peter Luger's?

4) Strive to use better and better ingredients.

5) Use double-blind testing to improve your own cooking. Make a dish your normal way and then make some random variation of it--perhaps a slightly different cooking procedure, or different ingredient proportions. Test it and see which is better. Then continue that process to fine tune it.

>>9247359
Maybe the Culinary Institute Of America Cookbook might be close to what you're looking for? It's not really a method book in that it doesn't cover a course in a lesson by lesson manner, but it does cover a lot of techniques and classic recipes.

As a home cook I've never seen the point of mastering particularly involved technique, because most home cooking dishes don't require it. I've made my focus collecting good dishes to make with the basic techniques I have already mastered. It's much more interesting to me to be able to walk into my kitchen knowing I could make 20 or 30 different delicious meals out of what I have on hand than to try turning that kitchen into restaurant fantasy camp. Then again I have no desire to be a line cook or a chef. I want to be that frugal home cook who can whip out grandma dishes from all over the world.

>>9247729
>tfw the future is so dim
>tfw the leisure society dream is dying
why did it all go so wrong

>>9247705
>But then you'd be creating the false impression that there is a direct correlation between dish technicality and their desirability. As in, if you get good at cooking you should only good technical dishes.
That's not true. That's the same as implying that just because you learn linear algebra after calculus, that the former is a "better math".
There are techniques that require mastery of other techniques to do well with.

>>9247359
There's no depth to cooking. Any uneducated peasant can do it.

File: 16216728477[1].jpg (29KB, 304x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 304x400px

Well I mean, there's this.