Parpuzio's dilemma

This is a good recording. But in regard to roleplay, I like it at about 9:20
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2013/12/12/the-fools-dilemma/

How you don't see someone so much as angry as a configuration of muscles on their face.

It ties into the recent Parpuzio stuff and probably either baffled readings of my saying it's always happening in roleplay, or alternative 'omg, his play must be like that!'. Actually the recording goes into an idea of attributing to others before attributing to oneself, but anyways...

I think some people figure that when they say their character grabs the can of peaches (that someone else has spoken some fiction about being on a table), much like we think we see anger when we actually see a  configuration of muscles on the face, they think they actually interact with that can of peaches they are thinking about. The number of interactions, like the facial configuration, slips past us. We short cut. Just like the recording gives the example of, if in the distant past a lion jumped out at us, would we pause to consider maybe this is a false possitive and it's something else, or do we scream lion? Even as the latter is a short cut?

To get the can of peaches, it's all parpuzio.

You can dial down the amount of parpuzio.

Dial it down to zero and you have a boardgame.

I swear, 5 to 6 years ahead and you'll be onboard with this anyway. You'll use different names, say it in your own words. But you'll be on board anyway.

I'm offering a shortcut.