That is a request from an MR reader. Getting past the “because I am weird” answer, I will offer a few observations:
1. I think my view, or broadly speaking some version of it, is in fact pretty popular, though far from dominant.
2. The eating and dining of many people is geared toward socializing and also drinking. So when I write “go where the diners look grim, not smiling and happy,” or “avoid the beautiful women and the riverfront views,” many people don’t listen. They like beautiful women, too much perhaps, and they like being surrounded by smiling others. I have more of a single-minded obsession on the food, at least when I am seeking food. So you can think of my methods as a form of extreme compartmentalization and unbundling of quests.
Of course there may be other methods related to beautiful women, and yes you should hold a diverse portfolio of methods, so think of me as someone who is suspicious of “method-blending,” as instead I prefer an intertemporal substitution of methods for different goals. The time for food is a time for food, not for pursuing some weighted average of goals summed into a mediocre total, “…and a time to every purpose under heaven.” Call it the Ecclesiastes approach. Ultimately this may involve preferring a certain kind of focus over indiscriminate attention-switching.
NB: This hypothesis also may imply that those who are good at intertemporal substitution may miss out on some of life’s integrative experiences, such as riding a bicycle along a bridge with the wind blowing in your hair; “intertemporal substitution” and “integration” may in some ways stand in tension, and perhaps developing a propensity for one limits our ability to engage in the other.
3. My dining methods are in fact wonderful for socializing, but only if you are with either a) the oblivious, b) those who lexically prefer food quality, or c) those who enjoy talking analytically about food. Most of my friends fall into one of these categories, but that is not the case for most people.