If they pick a boring topic, go a little meta and do a perspective-taking exercise: what might it be like to be interested in this? What about it would fascinate you?
Wow, this seems kinda hard. I think I know what you mean, but topics like soccer( or sports in general), celebrities or TV-shows ( with some exceptions ) seem to be "immune" to this exercise;)
Is the person interested in sports as a substitute for war? As a presentation of the capacities of the human body? As a tribal bonding activity with eir friends? Does the person like celebrities because ey can gossip about them with impunity? Because there is more information about them than there would ever reasonably be about other people ey didn't know? Because ey respects or admires their talents at whatever they are celebrities for? Does the person like TV because of the storylines? Because of the visual effects? Because of the illusion that they are present with those celebrities that they find so interesting?
(I don't recommend asking these questions directly, but keep these curiosities in mind and ask questions that get at them obliquely: "How long have you supported Team X?" "Do you think it's more fun to hear about actors, or people who are just plain famous?" "What's your favorite thing about the show?")
I don't think any topics that humans are genuinely interested in are immune to the exercise. If you're immune to the exercise, by all means get your daily dose of socialization from places like here.
Is the person interested in sports as a substitute for war? As a presentation of the capacities of the human body? As a tribal bonding activity with eir friends? Does the person like celebrities because ey can gossip about them with impunity? Because there is more information about them than there would ever reasonably be about other people ey didn't know? Because ey respects or admires their talents at whatever they are celebrities for? Does the person like TV because of the storylines? Because of the visual effects? Because of the illusion that they are present with those celebrities that they find so interesting?
But, I don't care! I will try my luck on Lesswrong, I guess;)
This is a supplement to the luminosity sequence. In this comment, I mentioned that I have raised my happiness set point (among other things), and this declaration was met with some interest. Some of the details are lost to memory, but below, I reconstruct for your analysis what I can of the process. It contains lots of gooey self-disclosure; skip if that's not your thing.
In summary: I decided that I had to and wanted to become happier; I re-labeled my moods and approached their management accordingly; and I consistently treated my mood maintenance and its support behaviors (including discovering new techniques) as immensely important. The steps in more detail:
1. I came to understand the necessity of becoming happier. Being unhappy was not just unpleasant. It was dangerous: I had a history of suicidal ideation. This hadn't resulted in actual attempts at killing myself, largely because I attached hopes for improvement to concrete external milestones (various academic progressions) and therefore imagined myself a magical healing when I got the next diploma (the next one, the next one.) Once I noticed I was doing that, it was unsustainable. If I wanted to live, I had to find a safe emotional place on which to stand. It had to be my top priority. This required several sub-projects:
2. I re-labeled my moods, so that identifying them in the moment prompted the right actions. When a given point on the unhappy-happy spectrum - let's call it "2" on a scale of 1 to 10 - was labeled "normal" or "set point", then when I was feeling "2", I didn't assume that meant anything; that was the default state. That left me feeling "2" a lot of the time, and when things went wrong, I dipped lower, and I waited for things outside of myself to go right before I went higher. The problem was that "2" was not a good place to be spending most of my time.
3. I treated my own mood as manageable. Thinking of it as a thing that attacked me with no rhyme or reason - treating a bout of depression like a cold - didn't just cost me the opportunity to fight it, but also made the entire situation seem more out-of-control and hopeless. I was wary of learned helplessness; I decided that it would be best to interpret my historically static set point as an indication that I hadn't hit on the right techniques yet, not as an indication that it was inviolable and everlasting. Additionally, the fact that I didn't know how to fix it yet meant that if it was going to be my top priority, I had to treat the value of information as very high; it was worth experimenting, and I didn't have to wait for surety before I gave something a shot.