June 7, 2019

Food for Thought

My lovely* wife has a small number of restaurants she loves and frequents. This one is her latest. (The others are Clinton, Kiki’s, and Cho-Ko) This is her fifth time in a short period and my first time. She has a more holistic view of restaurants where the food is only part of the equation. She likes the fact that this Thai restaurant gives you one free skewer for every drink. At first, I didn’t think anything of this offer but after experiencing it, I now see the charm of it.

Recently in New York, the idea of “izakaya” has caught on, but before that, we went to either a bar or a restaurant—the former being strictly about drinking and the latter being mostly about eating. There weren’t many choices for somewhere in between. I think being in-between is the main attraction for my lovely wife.

I have the opposite tendency of trying as many different restaurants as possible. I sometimes feel like I have ADHD even though my general tendency is Asperger (obsess over a few minor details). It’s possible that I have both—although I tried taking Ritalin to see what happens, and didn’t do anything other than to keep me up all night.

I think people who are more conceptually motivated like to try many different things whereas those who listen to their hearts are naturally drawn to their favorite places, although I see some exceptions. These behavioral patterns say a lot about how people’s minds work. My lovely wife tends to contrast everything I do, which can lead to conflicts but I have learned that doing things that I would not naturally choose to do has been overall positive, having a child being the biggest one.

In this sense, “compromising” in a relationship isn’t really a compromise. A more philosophical term for it would be “dialectic” where at the end of the conflict, there is a synthesis. From this perspective, a relationship full of conflicts is a good thing as long as they lead to synthesis

* I receive certain perks by inserting this type of words.