It's a real thing.
A whole deal, actually. Complete with pop psychology dribblings of raving lunatics.
Here's the truth: well done, even slightly burnt, steaks taste better than this blood filled disgusting rubbish. How do I know? Because I've actually eaten both.
Unlike the pop psychology raving dribblers, who clearly haven't. (That person is so lacking in self-awareness it's truly hilarious. "Don't get huffy" they cry but then go on to write hundreds of words in a huff, so sure, so convinced that there is meaning in steak. There isn't and never was. Most things don't mean anything. It's childishly immature to imagine otherwise.)
It's probably not even the case that you want risk taking individuals in charge of the so called "nuclear football". Because that's the only possible pop psychological lesson to be drawn from consistent food choices: people eat stuff they like because it's actually risky to not do so.
Now, maybe, people want to claim that the risks of eating food you don't like are so low as to not matter. Here's another truth for anyone who claims that: check your privilege.
It's fun, I have to say, to try something new. But you can only try something new from a place of privilege where it is actually low stakes. If you buy this it doesn't matter if you don't like it... you're not going to miss the money and you're not going to miss the meal. And if you're a God damn billionaire with the sensible cost/benefit assessment that's a God damn good thing. It is, simply, more pleasurable to have the privilege of eating something you like than wondering whether or not some complete loser has ruined a perfectly good meal by adding cheese or fish or whatever.
(And, by the way, if you think the cheese hasn't got any taste there's a reason for that... it's called tolerance you dumb arse.)
Let's say, for a minute, that there are no other forces compromising this... that there are no costs associated, harms to avoid, in trying new foods (especially other ways of eating steaks; if you can't chew your meat, are you even eating?) that we can generate some kind of consistent meaning which is, "If you won't try something new, you can't entertain the idea that there might be something better". Is this true with those (completely unrealistic, horrible naive at best and, if we're being honest, utterly insane) assumptions? Well, probably not.
Think about it.
People do things one way, and one way only, whilst cursing that there "must be" a better way all the time. In fact, a lot of these people know there's a better way... they get tripped up by the costs. It turns out, unlike the lunatic dribbler, most people have this thing called imagination. I'll say that again for the cheap seats. Imagination. It lets us entertain all sorts of things intellectually that have absolutely no connection to our lived experiences.
Eat your steak however you damn well please. But the moment you try to make a Thing about it, you reveal yourself to be a complete tosser. And, if you then try to derive this particular moral lesson from it, not only are you a wanker, but you're a stupid and parochial one at that. How do I know? Because if you weren't, you couldn't exhibit the thought pattern you've just revealed to us.
Also, people have memories. Memories. As with imagination, actual psychologists care about it quite a lot.