Locale: en
“If you could meet just one person in the entire world, who would it be?”
Ah yes.
You were having a perfectly normal conversation, and suddenly someone hands your brain a planet-sized candidate list and asks for a final answer in three seconds.
A completely reasonable response is:
“I’ve never really thought about that. Give me a second. What about you?”
That reply is better than it looks.
It buys thinking time, but more importantly, it turns a one-way interview into a two-way conversation. Now you can see whether the person who asked the question can answer it too, whether they can wait while you think, whether they are willing to disclose something about themselves, and whether they treat your answer as material for conversation or as a personality-test score.
That last part matters.
You are not only being evaluated. You are also evaluating the interaction.
This article is not going to claim that one answer reveals someone’s “true personality.” The research is much more modest and more interesting: reciprocal self-disclosure and good follow-up questions can help people feel closer, while a single quirky answer is not a validated personality assessment.
Still, the question is a fantastic conversational toy.
One person might choose a deceased dog because they want one more chance to pet that familiar fur. Another might choose Shohei Ohtani to ask how he structures his days. Someone else might skip Ohtani entirely, choose his dog Decoy, and ask what the dog does during the couple’s completely private at-home moments.
At that point the personality-test server has crashed, but the conversation has become excellent.
Let’s unpack the whole thing.
1. What was this kind of question originally for?
A famous research procedure very close to this question comes from Arthur Aron and colleagues’ 1997 paper on experimentally generating interpersonal closeness.
You probably know it as the “36 Questions.”
The first item is essentially:
“If you could choose anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?”
The important point is that the study was not designed as a magical personality detector.
Participants took turns answering questions that gradually became more personal. The mechanism was progressive, reciprocal self-disclosure.
UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action describes the practice in exactly that spirit: both people answer, both reveal something, and the depth increases gradually.
So the original architecture is not:
Interviewer → subject → diagnosis.
It is:
You share → I share → we understand each other a little better.
That difference changes everything.
2. What can “Who would you most want to meet?” tell you?
Suppose someone says “Shohei Ohtani.”
That alone tells you very little.
Maybe they love baseball. Maybe they want to ask about discipline. Maybe they are fascinated by elite performance. Maybe they just want a photo. Maybe they want to talk about dogs for twenty minutes.
Same name, different meaning.
The useful follow-up is:
“Why that person?”
Now you are closer to the selection criterion.
What do they admire? What do they miss? What do they want to learn? What experience do they want? What makes them laugh?
But do not turn it into fortune-telling.
“Deceased dog = kind person.” “CEO = greedy.” “Pop idol = shallow.”
No. That is not psychology. That is a horoscope wearing glasses.
One answer is an opening, not a verdict.
3. Why “Why did you choose them?” feels different from “Why do you think that?”
The wording shifts attention slightly.
“Why do you think that?” asks for the reasoning behind an opinion.
“Why did you choose that person?” highlights the selection process: out of all possible candidates, what made this one win?
That often pulls priorities into the conversation.
But there is no evidence that these exact words are a magical psychological key.
The important part is the follow-up itself.
A 2017 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper found that people who asked more questions, especially follow-up questions, tended to be better liked by conversation partners. In a speed-dating dataset, more follow-up questions were also associated with a greater likelihood of getting agreement to a second date.
A 2025 correction fixed several reporting errors, but the independent audit said the substantive conclusions remained valid.
So the real move is not merely:
“Who?”
It is:
“Why?” “What would you do if you met them?” “What would you ask?”
The follow-up shows that you actually used the other person’s answer.
4. Why does this tiny question feel so mentally expensive when it comes out of nowhere?
Because the sentence is short, but the task is not.
Your brain may need to:
- Interpret what “anyone in the world” includes.
- Decide whether deceased people count.
- Generate candidates from family, celebrities, history, fiction and personal life.
- Decide what criterion matters.
- Compare candidates.
- Pick one.
- Consider how your answer will sound socially.
- Explain it coherently.
Excuse me.
We were talking about lunch five seconds ago.
The popular System 1/System 2 language is useful as a metaphor here: you move from fast, intuitive, low-effort conversation into slower, more deliberate reasoning.
But it is a metaphor, not two literal departments inside the brain. Dual-process research distinguishes broad kinds of processing, and contemporary theory is more complicated than a cartoon of two separate mental machines.
A better everyday description is:
“You were driving in conversational automatic mode, and someone suddenly scheduled a strategy meeting.”
You are not stupid because you need time.
The task just had startup cost.
5. “I’ve never thought about it. Let me think. What about you?” is a strong response
That sentence does four things at once.
First, it removes the pressure to answer instantly
You explicitly claim thinking time.
Second, it makes the question reciprocal
“What about you?” ends the examiner-versus-candidate setup.
Third, it reveals the expected answer format
If the other person says, “My late grandfather. I’d like one more conversation,” you know this is a sincere question.
If they say, “Doraemon. I’m getting a gadget out of this deal,” you know the rules have already collapsed in a productive way.
Fourth, you get to observe the asker
Can they answer their own question? Do they dodge it? Can they wait? Do they ask follow-ups? Do they start grading your answer?
If you are getting to know someone, those interactional details can be more useful than the famous name they pick.
It goes both ways.
6. In dating, what happens after you return the question can be more revealing than the answer itself
These questions are common on dates because they are better than talking about the weather forever.
Fine.
But dating is not a hiring panel.
Both people are deciding whether they enjoy the interaction.
When you answer with, “What about you?”, you may see whether the other person:
- discloses as much as they ask you to disclose;
- gives you time to think;
- treats uncertainty as normal;
- shows curiosity rather than judgment;
- turns the answer into a conversation rather than a score.
That is very close to the original logic of the 36 Questions: both people answer.
Closeness is not data extraction.
Human beings are not questionnaires with legs.
7. What does “I want to see my deceased dog and pet them again” suggest?
This is a useful example because there is no obvious instrumental gain.
No business advice. No autograph. No secret to success. No networking.
The person wants the relationship itself for one more moment.
That can open a conversation about attachment, sensory memory, irreversibility and what the person treasures.
You might reasonably say:
“So the value is not what the dog could give you. It’s getting that shared feeling back.”
That is interesting.
What you cannot reasonably say is:
“You chose a dog, therefore you are objectively a good person.”
Slow down, Sherlock.
The dog is not a validated moral-character test.
8. Now choose Decoy, and the entire interpretation changes
Shohei Ohtani’s dog is known as Dekopin in Japanese and Decoy in English.
Suppose the answer is:
“I’d meet Decoy.”
At first that sounds like a dog-lover answer.
Then comes the reason:
“I want to ask what he does when Ohtani and his wife are having completely private couple time at home.”
And there goes the server.
But even this silly answer tells you something about the style of engagement.
Instead of choosing the famous person, the speaker chooses the peripheral observer who might possess impossible insider information.
They are not simply answering the prompt. They are playing with the premise.
That can reflect curiosity about hidden details, a preference for unusual angles, or simply a desire to make the conversation funny.
One boundary: the actual private life of Ohtani and his wife is not known to outsiders, and neither is what Decoy does in hypothetical private moments.
So this stays exactly where it belongs: a “what if the dog could talk?” joke.
9. Answer atlas: same question, wildly different routes
| Choice | Possible reason | What the conversation may open |
|---|---|---|
| A deceased dog | “I want to pet them one more time.” | Attachment, memory, irreversibility |
| Shohei Ohtani | “I want to ask how he structures every day.” | Discipline, excellence, routines |
| Shohei Ohtani | “I just want a photo.” | Fandom, memorable experiences |
| Decoy/Dekopin | “I want impossible insider gossip.” | Peripheral observation, absurd curiosity |
| Anpanman | “Why do you keep helping people with no reward?” | Altruism, justice |
| Anpanman | “What does your face actually taste like?” | World-building curiosity, sensory experience |
| Comdot | “How do friends keep creating together?” | Community, creators, teamwork |
| Snow Man | “I want to see my favorite member once.” | Fandom, emotional experience |
| Snow Man | “How do you manage relationships in a big group?” | Group dynamics |
| A viral singing older guy | “I want the live version in front of me.” | Memes, shared fun |
| Poop Man | “The name was enough.” | Prompt sabotage, humor-first processing |
| Future self | “I want to check whether my decisions worked.” | Optimization, uncertainty |
| Childhood self | “I’d just play together.” | Nostalgia, self-understanding |
| Doraemon | “There is a nonzero chance I get a gadget.” | Expected-value hacking |
| An alien | “You said anyone. I’m stretching the rules.” | Rule-bending, curiosity |
| Nobody | “I’d rather keep the time for myself.” | Autonomy, low hero-worship |
| The person asking | “You’re already here.” | Flirting, intimacy, attention to the moment |
Even joke answers contain choices.
The joke is part of the data.
Just do not treat it as a diagnosis.
10. A joke answer can still reveal how someone handles a prompt
People play with questions differently.
One answers sincerely. One expands the fictional universe. One searches for loopholes. One converts the problem into expected value. One chooses the funniest possible answer. One throws the question back.
Those differences can be conversationally informative.
But remember: someone can joke today and answer seriously tomorrow.
A momentary style is not a permanent personality label.
11. The real strength of the question is the chain of self-disclosure it can create
“Shohei Ohtani.”
“Why him?”
“I want to ask how he stays consistent.”
“What part is hardest for you?”
“I start things, but I don’t always keep them going.”
Look what happened.
We are no longer talking about Ohtani.
We are talking about the person.
That is the value of a good follow-up.
The first answer is a doorway.
Do not kick it down.
Enter only as far as the other person opens it.
Pacing is part of social skill.
12. The “36 Questions” are not a spell that makes people fall in love
The internet often oversells them.
Aron and colleagues tested whether a structured, gradually deepening set of mutual self-disclosure tasks could create greater interpersonal closeness than small-talk tasks.
That is not the same as guaranteeing romance.
Berkeley’s presentation explicitly frames the questions as useful for friends, family members, coworkers and other relationships, not just romantic partners.
Another important detail: the questions gradually deepen.
So if you meet someone and immediately fire off:
“Who would you meet?” “What is your greatest regret?” “Which family death would devastate you most?”
that is not scientifically reproducing the procedure.
That is an interrogation speedrun.
13. What about job interviews?
As an icebreaker, this kind of question can be fine.
As a scoring instrument, be careful.
Personnel-selection research has repeatedly found advantages for more structured interviews: standardized, job-related questions and clearer scoring criteria generally produce more reliable and useful evaluations than free-form intuition.
So:
“Deceased dog? Empathetic. Hire.” “Poop Man? Cultural misfit. Reject.”
No.
Please remove the crystal ball from HR.
Use whimsical questions to build rapport if appropriate. Use job-relevant structured evidence to make selection decisions.
14. How to use the question without making the other person’s CPU scream
Add one line of setup.
“I saw a weirdly interesting question earlier.” “Can I ask you a slightly random one?” “I’ve never really thought about this myself, but…”
That warning matters because it tells the listener: a reflective question is coming.
If they hesitate, let them hesitate.
If you are the one hesitating, say:
“I’ve never thought about it. Let me think. What about you?”
Then use one follow-up:
“Why that person?” “What would you do if you met them?” “What would you ask?”
One, not all three in rapid succession.
The goal is not to maximize question throughput.
The goal is to grow the conversation from the answer you actually received.
15. So what does this question really reveal?
Can “Who would you most want to meet?” expose someone’s complete true personality?
No.
Can it create a surprisingly rich conversation?
Absolutely.
It can surface:
- currently accessible admiration and attachment;
- what someone wants to gain, recover or experience;
- the criterion they used to choose;
- whether they answer seriously, playfully or by exploiting the premise;
- how comfortable they are with an abrupt reflective task;
- whether disclosure is reciprocal;
- how they respond to follow-up questions;
- whether they respect your pace.
The most informative part is not the first noun.
It is everything that happens afterward.
A deceased dog? Ask why that touch matters.
Ohtani? Ask what they want to learn.
Decoy? Laugh first, then ask how their brain even arrived there.
Poop Man?
Accept defeat.
This is not a personality test.
It is a conversation device.
And while the other person is learning about you, you are learning about them too.
References (9)
- Aron A, Melinat E, Aron EN, Vallone RD, Bator RJ. The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1997;23(4):363-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003
- UC Berkeley Greater Good in Action. 36 Questions for Increasing Closeness. https://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/36_questions_for_increasing_closeness
- Huang K, Yeomans M, Brooks AW, Minson J, Gino F. It Doesn't Hurt to Ask: Question-Asking Increases Liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017;113(3):430-452. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28447835/
- Correction to Huang et al. (2017). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2025;128(3):669. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40111841/
- Evans JStBT. Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59:255-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
- Augusto R. Two Kinds of Process or Two Kinds of Processing? Disambiguating Dual-Process Theories. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2024;15:277-298. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-023-00673-1
- Wiesner WH, Cronshaw SF. A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1988;61:275-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00467.x
- Schmidt FL, Zimmerman RD. A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004;89(3):553-561. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15161412/
- MLB. Shohei Ohtani reveals his dog's name. https://www.mlb.com/marlins/news/shohei-ohtani-dog-name
