>>724215342
Consider the nexus between two planes: One is the cost-benefit analysis, where things can be anywhere along the axes of high-to-low cost and high-to-low risk, and the other plane is a reaction-type plane, where the two axes are one of low-to-high acceptance (that is, both initial and contemplated reactions to a given prompt) and low-to-high response effect potential (that is, how much ANY GIVEN response might have to change things). In this particular intersection, you see that on the axis labeled "risk" we have absolute 0; that means any given response would be acceptable and cause us no harm. Benefit-wise, we'll put a pin in it, and come back to it. The other plane, such a prompt would not incur an immediate revulsion response because the suggestion isn't anything we would feel moral disgust or rejection at, nor any sense of obligation, nor frustration. It's low, not necessarily 0, but low. So now we have a situation where the last axis and the first axis might be tied together: what is the end-result highest-potential outcome of any given response, AND what is the POSSIBLE benefit? Well, if you (or him, whatever) WERE to go through with what he suggested, we would have instigated work in an individual, gleaned SOME level of entertainment, and felt involved in the process regardless. So SOME level of benefit, and potentially high response effect. Which means there's absolutely no reason to NOT say "yeah, go ahead".
