Annual Review of Restaurant Choice Deference

Year in review: restaurant selection behavior. Documented group dining occasions: approximately forty. Occasions where first person asked chose: eight. Occasions where choice transferred to second person: sixteen. Occasions where choice transferred to third person or beyond: twelve. Occasions where choice was made by whoever lost patience: four.

The Annual Pattern

The pattern is consistent. When a group of two or more people needs to choose a restaurant, the first response to "where do you want to go" is: "I'm happy with anywhere." This is sincere. It is also a transfer of the choice to the other party.

The other party is also happy with anywhere. The choice returns.

The Transfer Chain

The choice passes between parties in a chain that is determined not by restaurant preference but by each person's threshold for remaining in an open decision state. The person who eventually chooses is the person who reached their threshold first.

This person did not particularly want to choose. They chose because the alternative was continued non-choice, which had become more uncomfortable than making a choice that others might not prefer.

The others agreed with the choice. They would have agreed with most choices. The choice was not the issue. The choosing was the issue.

The Findings

Twenty-seven of forty group dining occasions were resolved by deference exhaustion rather than preference expression. The restaurants chosen were suitable in all twenty-seven cases. No significant dissatisfaction was recorded.

The process was inefficient. The outcome was adequate. The pattern will repeat.

The Recommendation

State a preference. The preference is probably acceptable. The group is trying to match your preference. The matching fails because the preference is being withheld.

The annual review does not expect this recommendation to be implemented. The pattern will continue. The most patient person will choose.