Perspective Exchange: The Game

[karff]

Due to the nature of our hardware,
-All our maps are different.
-All of them are wrong.
-They change with each use.
It’s a wonder we agree on anything.
The game of Perspective Exchange might help.

For this game, a “mental model” is like a processor in our minds, converting raw information into usable stored information. In physical reality, the processor and the stored info are together (the way neural nets work), but for the game, it’s best to separate them. For game purposes, there are near infinite mental models, each one nuanced by different connections to other mental models in the same mind. And, nuanced further by each use.

Everyone’s mental model of the same subject is different. The goal of the game is to grok the other person’s mental model as well as possible.

If player A starts out with mental model a, and player B starts out with mental model b, the goal is to end the game with player A having mental models a+b, and player B having mental models b+a. They would then roughly have access to the same perspective, possibly a consensus.
The wider goal of the whole game would be to have the audience also come away with some version of b+a, or a+b. The audience would necessarily need to take part in some perspective-taking just to follow the “action”.

The long term goal is to promulgate your own perspective over multiple games. You want your worldview known. To do that, you must be good at perspective taking in the short-term, over the course of a game. The better you are at trying to understand the other’s mental model, and doing it in good faith, the more players will want to play with you in future games, as they want to spread their own perspectives.

The players ask each other questions, trying to get the logic, instinct, and emotions of the other assimilated into their mind. They then discuss different hypothetical situations to see how closely the original model and the newly transferred model sync up in output.

A note on empathy. It will steer you wrong. If you “put yourself in another’s place”, you will be using your own mental model to produce information, not the other’s model.
If you try to feel the emotions of another, those emotions will be associated with the mental models in your own mind that produce those emotions, not the other’s mental models.

Asking someone to play the game is like saying this (imagine they’re a passionate activist for a cause) “I will try my hardest to understand your way of thinking. I’ll try to follow all your logic, using it myself, trying to see the subject like you see it. I’ll do it in good faith. Just one catch - you have to do the same for me, and my cause.”

Imagine a podcast where experts with differing views actively tried to assimilate each other’s mental models instead of debating. Would you listen to that?

Imagine a TV news show where partisan activists spent a half hour or so actively trying to grok each other's worldview, instead of arguing. Would you watch it?

Would it be productive? I don’t know, but I think it’s worthwhile to experiment to find out.

If I may impose on the forum, I’m curious if any forumites of differing perspective would try this on the forum in order to hash out the best protocol, or “rules of the game”*. I’d volunteer myself, but my IRL schedule only permits me to post infrequently.

*Or, you could explain why it’s a stupid waste of time.

[7Wannabe5]

It sounds interesting. Maybe participants could first practice on something relatively easy like pizza toppings rather than capital punishment? Also, I think evading empathy might prove tough, because we only have so many words to describe emotion without resorting to metaphor.

Q: How did you feel when your mother left you?

A: I felt like a motherless child.

Another issue might be problems with integrating those who hold, or claim too hold extremely edge perspectives into the game. For instance, I really don't want to come to inhabit preferred pizza toppings mental model space with Hannibal Lector.

[karff]

I didn't mean no empathy as a rule, I was more giving advice to players of the game, who might make the common mistake of conflating empathy and perspective-taking. Empathy can be a useful component of perspective-taking, but relying on it solely will not actually produce the other players mental model. The players can use empathy all they want, if it's helpful. Would be interesting to see how useful it is, actually. One reason to play the game.
And, part of the game would be being able to choose who you get to play with. This keeps everybody trying to be good at perspective-taking, in good faith, instead of just using it as a platform to push their own perspective, while halfheartedly pretending to to do so with others.

Pineapple vs anchovies, anyone?

[7Wannabe5]

Gotcha. I like pineapple and anchovies, so no skin in the game. One thing I don't like is when there is too much oregano in the sauce and too much sauce on the pizza, so all you can taste is the kind of raw, harsh, permeating taste of oregano. Too much oregano will ruin a pizza with pineapple on it and it will ruin a pizza with anchovies on it. I would even prefer a pizza with pineapple and anchovies over a pizza with too much oregano too much sauce.

[karff]

A mere preference isn't quite a perspective, but will work for figuring out the game.

So oregano is bad. Do you not like any oregano, or is it just too much oregano? Is just too much sauce bad, or is it just because of the oregano?

For a hypothetical, If I had your tastes, I would find any food with too much oregano disgusting? Like a lasagna with too much oregano in the sauce? If the lasagna had too much sauce, but little oregano, would that be alright? What about oregano in a dry rub, without sauce?

For my own pizza preferences, I've never ate anchovies, so I don't know. I have a mild dislike for pineapple because a. it's sour, b. it's sweet. I have a major dislike of mixing sweet and savory foods. As for the sauce, I've never considered the oregano content. I don't like it sour, though. It needs just enough acidity to give it a bit of tang, but not be sour.

I won't be able to reply again until some time tomorrow.

[7Wannabe5]

I don't like any oregano, but a little bit is okay. When I cook myself, I generally either substitute basil for oregano or leave it out. I can't think of a dish in which I enjoy the taste of oregano. I don't like too much sauce on pizza or lasagne or just about any pasta dish, even if there is no oregano in the sauce. I don't like it because it makes the cheese too wet and floats it away from the crust or the pasta. When I make pasta at home, I put a bit of olive oil and the cheese on first so that it sticks to the pasta, then I add a moderate amount of sauce which I usually make with onion, garlic, basil, crushed red pepper, balsamic vinegar and other fresh vegetables on hand, and tomato paste to thicken it. Too much sauce also reminds me of walking home for lunch when I was in elementary school and being served burnt Spaghettios by my distracted mother.

Anchovies are extremely salty and, obviously, fish-flavored. So, although I like anchovy pizza, it's not the kind of thing I like to eat very often. I don't drink alcoholic beverages very often either, but anchovy pizza kind of cries out to be consumed with a dry alcoholic beverage. If you do not like to mix sweet and savory, you probably would not like to mix anchovy pizza with, for instance, a rootbeer float. I also think that would be a bad mix, even though I do like sweet and sour mixed together in the form of a pineapple. I don't think of sour and savory as being synonymous. I think I mostly associate savory with tastes like garlic, onion, black pepper, and beef gravy. Like I wouldn't put strawberry jam on a slice of garlic bread, because weird mix of sweet and savory, so I can definitely grok what you are experiencing with the pineapple. I wouldn't order a pineapple pizza with a garlic crust, but I do like the combination of pineapple and green olive. I also agree with you on the too sour or bitter sauce. OTOH, Spaghettios sauce is way too sweet and bland and the pasta is slimy soft.

What pizza toppings do you like? How much cheese do you prefer? Would you choose extra cheese as one of your toppings if you only had 3 choices? Thin or thick crust? What other foods strike you as too sour or savory and sweet at the same time?

[daylen]

Imagine a podcast where experts with differing views actively tried to assimilate each other’s mental models instead of debating. Would you listen to that?

Imagine a TV news show where partisan activists spent a half hour or so actively trying to grok each other's worldview, instead of arguing. Would you watch it?

The former happens quite a bit in various YouTube circles. The latter perhaps not so much though still occurs.

I'll play. Never been much of a pizza fan. I mean it's okay but over-hyped. Topic ideas?

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Some of that which I've also seen on YouTube seems kind of fake to me. Like it's a tactic for bringing a marginalized perspective back into the realm of "reasonable." IOW, it's like the "civil" is being subbed in for the "rational" or even the "good." Like if you are wearing a good suit and speak the King's English and follow Roger's Rules, maybe the moon is made of green cheese or the babies of the poor should be ground into soylent.

[daylen]

True, there is always a gradient of fakeness to trends. One channel in particular I enjoy is "Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal". Here is the "theolocutions" playlist where the objective is similar to what the OP describes. Inevitably debates do arise but authentic, well-intentioned exchanges are predominant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhSlYfV ... 0RUUw-uXip

[karff]

In pursuit of brevity, I glossed over the core part of the game. So, I’ll elaborate a little more here.

Imagine a perspective as two things - a processor mental model, and the information it outputs. Many times, just the output is seen as the perspective. Also, many people are not aware of their own processor, or mental model.

The object of the game is not to understand the output of the model. It’s to install the other person’s model in your own mind. Add it to your inventory of perspectives.

That’s why hypothetical tests of the model are important.

After you think you have the other’s model in your mind, or a piece of it, you ask “In this novel hypothetical situation, If I’m seeing things like you, I would then react this way?”

The closer your reaction, or output of the model is, the closer your model is to theirs.

The goal is - your output, or reaction, when using their perspective, would be very similar to theirs, even if it was a novel and unfamiliar situation.

I think I should also contrast this with debate. In a single debate, the object is to promulgate your own perspective. In a single perspective exchange, the idea is to incorporate another perspective into your mind. The side effect of doing this well, is you get asked to play more often, with better perspective-takers, thus promulgating your own perspective (over multiple exchanges).

It’s more like a dance, or improv comedy, where you are relying on the other person to do their part. Or, in a single exchange, you actively help them promulgate their perspective, without worrying so much about your own. The object is definitely not to prove anything as wrong. Or right. Actually, the object is not to prove anything. It’s to understand a particular way of thinking, no matter if you think that thinking is flawed or not.

From the larger picture, even if a perspective is wrong, it’s still useful to grok, as it still exists, as a force in the world. Maybe I’m not using these terms quite correctly, but it’s taking a perspective from the inter-subjective into the inter-objective. The perspective might be “wrong”, but it’s still a real object you have to deal with. As such, you need to understand it. The game is a way to do this.

I hope that clarifies.

If you can find a willing partner, anyone can jump in and play, if they want. I’m interested in seeing how any exchanges work.

I’ll post more on the pizza exchange in a little bit.

[karff]

I don't like any oregano, but a little bit is okay. When I cook myself, I generally either substitute basil for oregano or leave it out. I can't think of a dish in which I enjoy the taste of oregano. I don't like too much sauce on pizza or lasagne or just about any pasta dish, even if there is no oregano in the sauce. I don't like it because it makes the cheese too wet and floats it away from the crust or the pasta. When I make pasta at home, I put a bit of olive oil and the cheese on first so that it sticks to the pasta, then I add a moderate amount of sauce which I usually make with onion, garlic, basil, crushed red pepper, balsamic vinegar and other fresh vegetables on hand, and tomato paste to thicken it. Too much sauce also reminds me of walking home for lunch when I was in elementary school and being served burnt Spaghettios by my distracted mother.

So, using your preferences, if I encountered any dish where the sauce caused disunity - the other elements to become separated, I wouldn't like it? Also, if the sauce was not complex, or too sweet, it would be associated with an unpleasant memory?

Anchovies are extremely salty and, obviously, fish-flavored. So, although I like anchovy pizza, it's not the kind of thing I like to eat very often. I don't drink alcoholic beverages very often either, but anchovy pizza kind of cries out to be consumed with a dry alcoholic beverage. If you do not like to mix sweet and savory, you probably would not like to mix anchovy pizza with, for instance, a rootbeer float.

Yes, nearly any example of mixing sweet and savory is terrible to me.

What pizza toppings do you like? How much cheese do you prefer? Would you choose extra cheese as one of your toppings if you only had 3 choices? Thin or thick crust? What other foods strike you as too sour or savory and sweet at the same time?

I like a variety of toppings - as in most any kind, as long as there is variety, and doesn't violate the sweet/savory principle. Because of my preference for variety, I would not choose extra cheese, unless it had a distinctly different taste from the initial cheese. The thinness or thickness of the crust doesn't matter. If there were two pizzas, one with thick and one with thin, I would alternate between eating slices of each, for variety. With non-pizza foods, I almost always try to eat a little bit of everything available, even if some of it isn't the best tasting, my preference for variety is that strong.

As for too sour foods, it's where the sour is mixed with savory where it's problematic. Too acidic tomato sauces, or vinegar based condiments used too generously. With savory foods, acidity should be tangy, but not sour. But a mix of sweet and sour is fine. Pineapple by itself is good, but not mixed with savory.

Again, will be some time tomorrow before I can reply again.

[daylen]

That’s why hypothetical tests of the model are important.

The object is definitely not to prove anything as wrong. Or right. Actually, the object is not to prove anything. It’s to understand a particular way of thinking, no matter if you think that thinking is flawed or not.

I suppose I do not quite understand how to reconcile these two guidelines. Are you saying that hypothetical tests should be shared during the game but not explored within the game? How can a model be understood by a player if it has internal inconsistencies or inclarities that cannot be alleviated through something like proof or the logical structuring of arguments?

It feels like I'm falling into a trap of trying to understand where you are coming from without being able to pull apart what you mean. It looks as if I am trying to disprove or test your perspective because this is somewhat required for me to feel like I understand it. It's like in order to understand something I need to break it apart and put it back together again and this is aided by lots of cross-confirmation to figure out what you mean each step of the way.

I might not be a good candidate player for this game.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Thanks for the youtube recommendation. It does look very interesting. I think that maybe what karff is suggesting is that, for example, there is value for me in incorporating the perspective of a young student who is struggling to learn third grade math, even if I know his perspective is objectively wrong or incomplete. Part of his learned perspective is that the word "altogether" indicates that the numbers provided in a story problem should be added, whereas to the extent that the story problem at hand reflects reality, the word "altogether" is actually indicating that the numbers provided should be multiplied together. It is useful for me to anticipate that "altogether" will often be interpreted this way by those who have not yet mastered this level of mathematical thinking; I can encompass this perspective without allowing for the possibility that if Joe has 4 boxes of 12 donuts, he has 16 altogether.

In other contexts that might be more likely to lead to debate or discussion between adults, statistics may be offered as proof or defense of a particular perspective, and part of understanding the perspective at the meta-level would be comprehending the overall cultural mindset that attaches validity to statistics at various levels of comprehension.

@karff:

So, using your preferences, if I encountered any dish where the sauce caused disunity - the other elements to become separated, I wouldn't like it? Also, if the sauce was not complex, or too sweet, it would be associated with an unpleasant memory?

Yes, also if the sauce lends too much "wetness" to the overall dish. In simplest terms, I do not like any dish that could be described as "drowning in sauce", even if I do very much like the elements individually. OTOH, there is a boundary beyond which "sauce" becomes 'soup", and I do very much like soup, and I don't dislike the disunity of the elements in soup. It is not the case that any too sweet, simple sauce would be associated with an unpleasant memory for me; I very much dislike a dish to be drowning in Asian sweet and sour sauce, but I do not strongly associate any Asian food with the bland American cuisine of my childhood.

NOTE: Even though this is such a trivial topic, thinking this way is causing me to become more self-aware about my food preferences. For instance, I now realize that my dislike for too much gravy is related to my dislike for too much sweet and sour sauce and too much pizza sauce, etc.

I like a variety of toppings - as in most any kind, as long as there is variety, and doesn't violate the sweet/savory principle. Because of my preference for variety, I would not choose extra cheese, unless it had a distinctly different taste from the initial cheese. The thinness or thickness of the crust doesn't matter. If there were two pizzas, one with thick and one with thin, I would alternate between eating slices of each, for variety. With non-pizza foods, I almost always try to eat a little bit of everything available, even if some of it isn't the best tasting, my preference for variety is that strong.

Based on this, I might form the hypothesis that you would enjoy buffet dining and potluck get-togethers. I might also form the hypothesis that you would rather cook more often than benefit from the efficiency of cooking in large batch to be consumed in consecutive meals. Am I correct?

I share this preference for variety, and would also forgo extra similar cheese, unless I had to choose more than 5 different toppings. I suppose my preference for complexity is at similar level as my preference for variety, because 1 slice from three different pizzas with two varying toppings each versus 3 slices from 1 pizza with 6 different toppings would be pretty close. This preference for complexity and variety is also reflected in my reading and dating habits.

As for too sour foods, it's where the sour is mixed with savory where it's problematic. Too acidic tomato sauces, or vinegar based condiments used too generously. With savory foods, acidity should be tangy, but not sour. But a mix of sweet and sour is fine. Pineapple by itself is good, but not mixed with savory.

So, you would also abhor an over-dressed salad, with high ratio of vinegar to oil? Do you enjoy cottage cheese mixed with a bland food such as cottage cheese? Cottage cheese mixed with fruit such as apples, pineapple, or peaches and walnuts, pecans, or sunflower seeds is something I eat fairly often. Do you find that your preference for tangy, but not sour, in any way translates to human personalities you find appealing?

[Jean]

i agree with daylen. When you try to understand someones perspective, and end up asking a question that makes the other person realise his model is inconsistent, the conversation often stops being pleasant.

[karff]

I should have elaborated more on the purpose of the hypothetical test. It's not to test the validity of the model, but to test whether you actually understand it, even if it's wrong.

If someone believes that mice turn into rats, and housecats turn into pumas, you might assume that the model is that smaller species turn into larger similar species.
To test it, you ask "If I'm using your model, and I encounter a whitetail deer, I would assume it would grow into an elk?"
If they say yes, then you've successfully understood their model.
With that understanding, you then could conclude if they encountered an iguana, they would then believe it would turn into an alligator. This knowledge would be useful in communicating with them in future. Disabusing them of the notion or testing the model against reality is not the point of the game.

I'll post more a little later when I have more time.

[karff]

Possible topics for an exchange

Human progress
How do you think about the progression of changes in human society? Is it actual “progress”? How do you think about where you fit into it? How do you think about how other people think about it?

Community
How do you think about community? Your relationship with communities? How others think about communities?

Consumerism
How do you think about purchasing goods and services? Producing them yourself? Being given them? How do you think others think about those things?

Minimalism
How do you think about the number or quantity of things you own? Your relationship to them? Logically, or more emotionally? How do you think others think about them?

Sustainability
How do you think about human resource use? Your part in that resource use? How do you think about how others think about that?

Systems
How do you think about systems? Would be interesting to see an exchange between someone who had a high technical knowledge of systems and someone who uses the word in the general sense. How much of the technical perspective could the layman understand?

Specialism/Generalism
How do you think about your system of life skills? How do you think others think about them?

Freewill, determinism, agency
How do you think about those concepts? The relationship between them? How do you think others think about them?

Plato’s cave.
How do you think about the cave or caves out there? That you might be in? That others might be in?

Perspective
Getting meta. What’s your perspective on perspective? How do you think about how you think? How do you think about how others think about others thinking?

The Perspective Exchange Game
Getting even more meta. How do you think about the game? A confusing bunch of ramblings by some crank on the internet? That’s fine.


I actually don’t have much of a perspective on some of these things, but they may be of some interest to the denizens of this subforum.

[karff]

NOTE: Even though this is such a trivial topic, thinking this way is causing me to become more self-aware about my food preferences. For instance, I now realize that my dislike for too much gravy is related to my dislike for too much sweet and sour sauce and too much pizza sauce, etc.

Me too. I did not realize how strong my preference for variety was until I asked myself “Why don’t I care whether the crust is thin or thick? Why don’t I have much of a preference for toppings, as long as they’re many?” I did suspect the game might cause better insight into one’s own perspectives.

Based on this, I might form the hypothesis that you would enjoy buffet dining and potluck get-togethers. I might also form the hypothesis that you would rather cook more often than benefit from the efficiency of cooking in large batch to be consumed in consecutive meals. Am I correct?

Yes. Buffets and potlucks result in me having a plate populated by a dozen small dollops of different dishes. I do have a desire to cook more different dishes, but that desire also competes with laziness and strategy. Sometimes I compromise by cooking a large number of dishes for a single meal, or doing it for both lunch and dinner on a single day, thus ensuring a variety of leftovers in the fridge for days to come (I did not realize my preference for variety was why I did that - I just did it as if there was no other option).

So, you would also abhor an over-dressed salad, with high ratio of vinegar to oil?

Yes, too acidic salad dressing is not preferable.

Do you enjoy cottage cheese mixed with a bland food such as cottage cheese? Cottage cheese mixed with fruit such as apples, pineapple, or peaches and walnuts, pecans, or sunflower seeds is something I eat fairly often.

Even though cottage cheese is fairly neutral, I have a childhood association with it being savory. It was served as a side with the main meal, and we ate it with pepper on it. So, I strongly associate it with savoriness, and cannot abide eating it with anything sweet.

Do you find that your preference for tangy, but not sour, in any way translates to human personalities you find appealing?

Maybe. I do seem to prefer personalities that are not too intense, but not bland either - a middle “tanginess”, perhaps. I don’t normally associate preferences from different domains of perception, but it’s not irrational. They could easily have the same neurological basis.

Yes, also if the sauce lends too much "wetness" to the overall dish. In simplest terms, I do not like any dish that could be described as "drowning in sauce", even if I do very much like the elements individually.

So too much sauce, like too much ranch dressing on a salad, too much gravy in a pot pie, or liquid/sauce in a casserole is not good? If the pieces of pasta were floating in the lasagna sauce, that would not be good, I presume?

It is not the case that any too sweet, simple sauce would be associated with an unpleasant memory for me; I very much dislike a dish to be drowning in Asian sweet and sour sauce, but I do not strongly associate any Asian food with the bland American cuisine of my childhood.

Could you give some more examples of the bland American cuisine of your childhood? I’m not sure I could predict what would be in that category or not.

I share this preference for variety, and would also forgo extra similar cheese, unless I had to choose more than 5 different toppings. I suppose my preference for complexity is at similar level as my preference for variety, because 1 slice from three different pizzas with two varying toppings each versus 3 slices from 1 pizza with 6 different toppings would be pretty close. This preference for complexity and variety is also reflected in my reading and dating habits.

I would assume that you desire condiments and toppings on a sandwich or hamburger. If you had a bun, a patty, and cheese, you would feel it to not be a complete cheeseburger?

[7Wannabe5]

So too much sauce, like too much ranch dressing on a salad, too much gravy in a pot pie, or liquid/sauce in a casserole is not good? If the pieces of pasta were floating in the lasagna sauce, that would not be good, I presume?

Yes, I do not like any of these. I also do not like too much fudge on a hot fudge sundae, too much syrup on pancakes, or cake/pie served a la mode with ice cream melting next to it. Although, I do like an apple-dumpling served with cream; somehow that strikes me as being more like a hot pot which I also enjoy.

would assume that you desire condiments and toppings on a sandwich or hamburger. If you had a bun, a patty, and cheese, you would feel it to not be a complete cheeseburger?

Correct, even though my early childhood training was that it was wrong to put condiments such as ketchup on "good meat" such as premium beef, I was only allowed to put ketchup on "bad meat" such as hotdogs served at a summer barbeque.

Could you give some more examples of the bland American cuisine of your childhood? I’m not sure I could predict what would be in that category or not.

Breakfast: Cheerios and milk
Lunch: Cream cheese on processed white bread, Red Delicious apple. (the cream cheese would have been peanut butter, but I have severe allergy.)
Dinner 1: Broiled sirloin steak, iceberg lettuce and tomato salad, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter, French dressing.
Dinner 2: Broiled chicken, frozen peas, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter.
Dinner 3: Broiled pork chops, frozen square of squash, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter.

Table manners were fairly strictly enforced at dinner, so eating was a bit of an ordeal for a young child; having to cut up all the meat, deal with the starchy enormity of the baked potato, and the ick of processed vegetable. A certain amount had to be consumed before asking, "May, I please be excused from the table?" in order to get back to our play.

Treats were also made available fairly often, but were not kept in the home or served regularly as dessert after lunch or dinner, because my mother was always on a diet, and my father didn't have much of a sweet tooth. For instance, I was very often taken out for ice cream after the ordeal of getting my allergy shots, we were given an allowance we could spend on candy after ballet class or if the ice cream truck came by, and our father would buy us treats when he took us out ice skating, toboganning, kite-flying, swimming, etc. on the weekend.

Yes. Buffets and potlucks result in me having a plate populated by a dozen small dollops of different dishes. I do have a desire to cook more different dishes, but that desire also competes with laziness and strategy. Sometimes I compromise by cooking a large number of dishes for a single meal, or doing it for both lunch and dinner on a single day, thus ensuring a variety of leftovers in the fridge for days to come (I did not realize my preference for variety was why I did that - I just did it as if there was no other option).

Interesting. I share your preference for variety, but my lazy strategy tends more towards multiple levels of food processing and preservation. Some apples stay apples, some apple is chopped into a salad, some becomes applesauce, some applesauce becomes applecake, some apple cake is stored in the freezer. Soak black beans, cook black beans, put some black beans in corn salsa, refry some black beans, make bean burritos, freeze some of the bean burritos. etc.etc. then I pretty quickly wind up with a good variety of food processed/prepared/preserved to varying levels of complexity on hand. I keep Eat/Cook/Shop-Scavenge-Harvest/Ideas list on my refrigerator. Although, I must admit I was much better at maintaining this creative cycle when I was cooking for humans other than just myself. Do you think a strategy like this could work for you?

With very slim evidence, based on the strategy you described, I am going to hypothesize that maybe you are more of a work hard/play hard perspective, so this sort of constantly revolving cycle of cooking wouldn't be as appealing as just cooking a lot of different things and then being done with it?? By extension, maybe you also approach housework by getting everything accomplished on a Saturday morning vs. cleaning as you go over the course of the week?

Maybe. I do seem to prefer personalities that are not too intense, but not bland either - a middle “tanginess”, perhaps. I don’t normally associate preferences from different domains of perception, but it’s not irrational. They could easily have the same neurological basis.

Well, I must admit my perspective towards forming this conjecture has been recently influenced by reading Sapolsky's recent book on neuro-biology and the non-existence of free will, in which he offers evidence for such connections both superficial and hard-wired. For instance, a study was done in which humans tended towards describing the personality of somebody they just met as "cold", if they were holding a cold beverage in their hand when they first encountered the stranger.

It's difficult for me to compose an intense to bland continuum of famous humans with other factors held similar in order to further test this hypothesis, and my personal celebrity database is quite dated, but on the Charlize Theron- Gwen Stefani- Reese Witherspoon- Kate Hudson continuum, I will guess you would prefer to hang out with Gwen or Reese?

[karff]

Hmmm, I thought there would be more interest in playing. I think it's a good way to learn the intricate details of how another person thinks. Details they would hide in normal discussion. You can also learn more about your own thinking, too.

Sometimes I think I come across as a condescending patronizing asshat when posting on the internet. Don't let that stop you from playing. You don't have to interact with me. You just interact with your exchange partner. And you can pick your own topic. What perspective of your own would you like to describe without being guarded against nitpicking? What sort of subject would you like to understand from another's point of view? Anything's game (Jacob might frown on culture war issues).

[daylen]

From my perspective the game doesn't seem all that different than communication in general. Which can be done within an existing context. Not to say that I wouldn't participate if the right context within this thread emerged.