A lot of commenters have let their imaginations run wild and turned "travel/camping trip" into some kind of "survival of the fittest/Navy SEALs/I WILL BREAK YOU" type endurance test. This was not the case at all.
An example of what I'm talking about... The next time you're traveling, watch how the other travelers react if things don't go exactly according to plan, like an unexpected delay. You'll see all kinds of reactions, from calm and taking it in stride to completely loosing it. It's incredible how some people will let even the tiniest inconvenience throw them off of their game completely. That type of person is not someone who will be an ideal cofounder, because nothing about a startup is going to go exactly as planned.
Also watch what happens when things get boring. Once the initial excitement of starting a company has passed, there will be many, many days that just aren't that exciting. Disney World is exciting, but driving from LA to Orlando in the shortest time possible can either be a blast or drudgery depending on who you're with.
Some commenters are also reacting negatively to the idea of "testing" someone. Let's be clear here: Every question you ask your potential cofounder is a "test" of some sort, since too many wrong answers will result in their rejection.
Loosing a cofounder is so traumatic to a startup that you really should put good effort into learning whether your potential cofounder is just "talking the talk" and will jump ship at the first sign of trouble, or if they can actually "walk the walk", and stay committed to the venture for the long haul.
Maybe because the person doing the 'test' would always (at the back of their mind, etc.) know that it was being done deliberately. And this kind of informational asymmetry is, simply put (imho), not ethical. (Nor does it sound sexy or spontaneous or groovy or really interesting.)
Then again, maybe this is just, uh, institutional ludditism ;) (i.e., everyone has their own process, some have simply industrialized it a bit (e.g. for want of a more spontaneous set of filters, as you said.) But this metaphor probably doesn't work that well.)
I studied marketing (among other things), and it's essentially the study of manipulating people to achieve a desired effect. And while I noticed that knowledge about manipulation doesn't automatically translate to a practice of manipulation/persuasion (in the same way that knowing a lot about addiction might not shield you from being an addict), having this knowledge, at least for me, feels like an uncomfortable responsibility.
Take approaching a potential romantic interest. There are some very effective techniques to increase your chances of 'success' (however you would define it). We generally frown upon doing this (too) explicitly; it very quickly seems sleazy. And yet 'womanizers' (or the opposite equivalent) apply these techniques without really thinking about it and we don't judge these people as strongly.
Is this unfair? If someone who is naturally less skilled at flirting uses 'techniques' to do better, is that worse than someone who does this naturally, assuming that in both individuals have the same 'pure' (or 'impure') goals? Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?
I think about that a lot, and I haven't found an answer yet.
For me personally, I'm lucky, in a way, that I feel guilty very quickly. I simply cannot lie very well, for example, not because I cannot lie, but because I have trouble facing myself when I do so. So I try not be too conscious about manipulation and persuasion. And yet I know that applying well-tested techniques is very effective.
If anyone here can point me to literature on this subject (I suppose it's a matter of ethics), I'd greatly enjoy exploring that.
> Or is it perhaps better because the individual in question is at least conscious of his persuasion or manipulation, and can question his motives?
That's also a fair point, it makes a certain amount of sense.
Again and again I wonder how much of our ethics is derived from 'folk psychology' which is itself biased towards 'intuitive' behaviours (whatever they may be; but in this case it would e.g. include unconscious/natural flirting, whatnot), and is biased against 'uncanny valley' reflexive mindstates (e.g. "i am aware `(that she is aware that i am aware)^n` that i am currently deliberately employing subtext in the current dialogue", etc.)
..and this could simply be a kind of aesthetic bias (that might make sense for us, humans), but whether it says anything about ethics is a wholly different question, say.
..this might have been a bit of a ramble. Interested in pointers towards literature, too.
I think that sounds very plausible. We generally don't seem to like it when someone 'pulls aside the curtain' when it comes to things that feel hard to control or define.
For example, the best way to escalate a fight is to say something like "are you on your period?" or "did you not get enoug sleep last night?" They are perfectly valid questions in themselves, but asking them (assuming you mean well, of course) is not a good idea.
It makes sense that our minds don't like being treated like the often irrational, physical organs that they really are.
For example, while I feel perfectly comfortable treating a 'physical' headache with pills, I feel much less comfortable taking medication that alters my mood (although doing so for fun, and being 'in control' makes it significantly more acceptable).
Camping or other intense travel that raises the level of discomfort (no running water/flush toilets/electricity/internet/air conditioning etc.) reveals someone's true nature very quickly. You'll see whether they get cranky or stay optimistic, whether they're disorganized or not, whether they carry more or less of their fair share of the load, whether they get on your nerves, etc.