My test goes like this:
"Before I open my mouth about role-playing games, am I talking about my preferred style of play, with depth of immersion, heavy intrigue and conspiracy, lots of social encounters, etc., or can what I say be true of most TTRPG experiences. Would what I say be true if I were at the table with Stephen Grodzicki, in a game that starts at the Dungeon entrance, where we kick in some doors, kill some Minotaurs, loot the bodies, and suck back a lot of rum & cokes?"
This minimalist style of game is, after all the original baseline method of playing Dungeons & Dragons, it defines the technology of immersive narrative as medium for play.
If what I say is true for me, but not for Stephen, I need to figure out how to make sure I am respectful of this form of play. Before I say immersion is a core mechanism of TTRPGs, I have to ask if what I mean by "immersion" happens at the kick-in-the-door style table.
Otherwise I am being solipsistic in my approach.
Humility is not a natural Virtue to me. I often need to cultivate tools like these. I am tentatively calling this one the "Grodzicki Test", but I reserve the right to change that if Stephen hates the idea.
Applied carefully, it can help me spot where I am and am not being open-minded, intellectually honest, sufficiently humble, and above all - helpful. And it can be applied to reading the discussions in front of me as well.