The challenge of the game is to have a good idea of what kind of things a given player chooses. Some have a love of contrary or surrealist combinations, some like simple, likely combinations, some go for various kinds of funny. It's hard to be sure you'll win a given hand, but over time the player who wins will be the one with the best empathic read of his or her fellow players, modified by things like drawing interesting cards. There's some luck to it, but less than there appears to be.
So when I say "the best empathic read", I specifically mean "knows what they'll find entertaining," which is the definition of the game. So you'd expect people who suck at Apples to Apples to also be prone to things like, say, telling everybody they meet about how cool "Star Trek" was, regardless of whether they'd like Star Trek at all. Or describing their fishing trip in tremendous detail to non-fishermen. Or talking about professional bowling in a room containing people. I haven't played enough to be sure this is true, but it correlates reasonably with my limited experience, and makes a lot of sense on the face of it.
Amusing datapoint du jour: I really, really suck at "Apples to Apples".