Interesting thought. Could I crudely summarize the above contribution like this?
If the mutual willing price range includes $0 for both parties, in some situations there is a discrete cheerfulness downside to settling on $nonzero
It has the interesting corollary that
Even if there exists a mutual cheerful price range excluding $0, in some situations it might be more net cheerful to settle on $0
Where does the discrete downside come from?
The following is pure speculation and introspection.
I guess we have ‘willing price ranges’ (our executive would agree in this range) and ‘cheerful price ranges’ (our whole being would agree in this range).
If we all agree (perhaps implicitly) that some collective fun thing should entail $0 transaction, then (even if we all say it’s a cheerful price) some of us may be cheerful and others merely willing. It’s a shame but not too socially damaging if someone is willing but pretending to be cheerful. There is at least common knowledge of a reasonable guarantee that everyone partaking (executively) agrees that the thing is intrinsically fun and worth doing which is a socially safe state.
On the other hand, if we agree that some alleged ‘collective fun thing’ should entail $nonzero transaction, similarly (even if we all say it’s a cheerful price) some of us may be cheerful and others merely willing at that price point. But while it’s still consistent that we all executively agree the thing is intrinsically fun and worthwhile it’s no longer guaranteed (because it’s consistent to believe that someone’s willing price excludes $0 and they are only coming along because of the fee). Perhaps even bringing up the question of a fee raises that possibility? And countenancing that possibility can be socially/emotionally harmful? (Because it entails disagreement about preferences? Especially if the collective fun thing is an explicitly social activity, like your party example.)
Further speculative corollary
More cheerful outcomes can expected if the mutual willing price range obviously (shared knowledge) excludes $0 than if it ambiguously excludes $0. So be careful about feeding your guests ambiguously-expensive pizza?
Interesting thought. Could I crudely summarize the above contribution like this?
It has the interesting corollary that
Where does the discrete downside come from?
The following is pure speculation and introspection.
I guess we have ‘willing price ranges’ (our executive would agree in this range) and ‘cheerful price ranges’ (our whole being would agree in this range).
If we all agree (perhaps implicitly) that some collective fun thing should entail $0 transaction, then (even if we all say it’s a cheerful price) some of us may be cheerful and others merely willing. It’s a shame but not too socially damaging if someone is willing but pretending to be cheerful. There is at least common knowledge of a reasonable guarantee that everyone partaking (executively) agrees that the thing is intrinsically fun and worth doing which is a socially safe state.
On the other hand, if we agree that some alleged ‘collective fun thing’ should entail $nonzero transaction, similarly (even if we all say it’s a cheerful price) some of us may be cheerful and others merely willing at that price point. But while it’s still consistent that we all executively agree the thing is intrinsically fun and worthwhile it’s no longer guaranteed (because it’s consistent to believe that someone’s willing price excludes $0 and they are only coming along because of the fee). Perhaps even bringing up the question of a fee raises that possibility? And countenancing that possibility can be socially/emotionally harmful? (Because it entails disagreement about preferences? Especially if the collective fun thing is an explicitly social activity, like your party example.)
Further speculative corollary