Perhaps because we were subject to distinct external conditions (a smelly neighbor or different salaries), or because genetically our palates prefer other flavors. But the same events lead to opposite outcomes — in this case, probably, reviews. In my experience a combination of perspective and poor definition, often implicitly assumed, is what leads to misunderstanding or disagreement, which in turn prevents progress. Person A can see a circle from one angle, and person B a rectangle from another angle, even when they both look at the same cylinder. I am fascinated by this type of mismatch, and figuring out the underlying reason.

It's probably why I like physics: problem statements and boundary conditions are usually clearly defined, and a system's analytical behavior can be described differently only if we make distinct assumptions (perspective) through e.g., some effective field theory. On the other hand, it's also why I am interested in topics like politics, international relations and journalism, where shaping or communicating a perspective is far more effective than a precise definition of the context. Throughout my studies and work in different environments I found that being explicit in terms of these two concepts, definition and perspective, is the foundation of any successful relation or pursuit.