Seating Preference Has Been Officially Denied
A person who does not care where they sit is already sitting in their preferred direction.
To: The Person Who Said They Don't Mind Where to Sit From: The Restaurant, Observing Re: The Seat That Was Actually Preferred
This letter concerns the seating arrangement at Table 7 on the evening in question.
Upon arrival, both parties stated that they had no seating preference. One party gestured toward the booth. The other party said: "either is fine." Both parties then spent approximately eight seconds distributing themselves, during which the party who had gestured toward the booth selected the booth seat facing the room, and the other party sat facing the wall.
The party now facing the wall has a known preference for facing the room. This preference has never been stated at this restaurant or any other.
Under the governing rule, a social inconvenience may continue indefinitely if ending it would require naming the inconvenience.
Naming it would require one person to say: "actually, I would prefer the other seat," which would require the other person to either accommodate or decline, and either outcome would make visible a preference that everyone had agreed did not exist.
This is not an unusual situation. A survey of restaurant seating arrangements conducted over fourteen months found that people who claim no preference select the same side of a two-sided table approximately seventy percent of the time.
Preference is present. Its presence is not acknowledged. This is the arrangement.
The meal was enjoyed by both parties.