The chef doesn't cook what they like.
They cook for you.
This is the restaurant analogy. A Michelin chef has extraordinary personal taste. But the best meal they have ever made was made for a specific person, on a specific night, at a specific moment in that person's life.
Taste without audience awareness is not taste. It is preference. Preference served with confidence.
The difference between work that moves people and work that merely impresses is almost always this: one of them forgot who was sitting at the table.
This is where the builder's taste and the artist's taste part ways. Rick Rubin is famous for insisting the artist should not make for an audience, that making for someone else corrupts the work. For pure art, he may be right. For everything else, he isn't. The PM, the designer, the product writer, the marketer: their work exists to serve someone who is not them. Taste that ignores that person is not taste at all. It is self-expression wearing taste's clothes.
Which person, exactly, depends on the discipline. For a product leader, it is the user. The one in the flow, mid-task, whose day your decision enters. For a marketer or growth lead, it is often the buyer, not the same person as the user, and motivated by different fears. For a writer, it is the reader. The one skimming at a distance, deciding in seconds whether to stay. For an AI builder, it is usually the operator. The one who will trust, override, or abandon the system depending on whether it behaves predictably under pressure.
What the frame demands, regardless of which of these you are serving, is specificity. Not "the user," not "the reader," not "the market." A single person you can picture. Their role. Their recent failures. The last tool that burned them. The thing they most fear happening again. If you cannot name that person, you are not deciding on their behalf. You are making for the version of yourself that happens to be holding the pen.