The first quote is very interesting information!
Regarding this topic, I found Richard’s discussion with Martin also quite illuminating. In response to Martin saying “I sometimes feel exposed though and this can prevent a relaxed intimacy”, Richard explains to him the necessity of being honest. This goes 180 degrees opposite to the core of male advice in man-woman intimacy to the extent men are trained to … umm … hide their feelings of vulnerability. So, instead of wasting further time in affectional intimacy we can literally take a step back and have “a lot of fun […] sincerely playing the game of finding out just what makes [one] tick”.
Richard, the identity, found a “trick” back then it seems:
RICHARD: Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-1981 first began finding out just who ‘he’ was, as-he-was in reality, via the guise of being ‘an eccentric artist’ (a socially-acceptable way of being a bit of an oddball) due to the total lack of any precedent and, therefore, of any praxeological publications.
(I wonder what the modern equivalent of it is, in the domain of man-woman intimacy 
)
And here’s the part mentioning naïveté:
MARTIN: And then I can be liking / naive?
RICHARD: The way to be both likeable and liking – to be as near to innocence as is possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – is to retrieve and resurrect your long-lost naïveté (locked away in childhood, per favour the scorn, ridicule and derision poured forth upon it by the worldly-wise cynics and sophisticates, due to an infantile/ juvenile inability to separate out being naïve from being gullible), nowadays made readily possible by virtue of your adult sensibilities, and operate and function in the world at large by being naïveté itself (thus by-passing/ over-riding that instinctually/ viscerally felt core-of-being centre of ‘self’).
Whatever that “modern equivalent” is … it surely must have something to do with this “by-passing/ over-riding” … ?