Pure Coordination

Multiple equilibria, no conflict of interest — the whole problem is agreeing which one.

Schelling's insight is that solutions come from salience rather than from reasoning: an option that stands out for any reason at all, however arbitrary, becomes the answer because each side expects the other to reach for it. Standards, conventions, schedules, file formats and most of the shared infrastructure of ordinary life are settled focal points, and their arbitrariness is not a defect — the value was in agreeing, not in choosing well.

How it feels

• Nobody actually disagrees about what they want.
• The cost of the mismatch falls on everyone equally.
• Somebody says 'I don't mind which, let's just pick one'.
• An arbitrary rule would fix it completely, and nobody has made one.

Who is playing

Everyone who must land on the same square — plus whoever has the standing to simply declare the answer. Coordination problems are usually solved by authority rather than by agreement, and the missing player is the one who could announce.

Where it lands

Either a convention that sticks and is then invisible, or repeated costly mismatches that everybody blames on somebody's attitude.

What moves it

Declare a default. Publish a standard. Make one option obvious. The value is in the common knowledge, not in the merits — which is why a mediocre standard everyone follows beats a superior one nobody adopts.

Not to be confused with

Nearly every misread in practice is a shape mistaken for its neighbour — and each of those mistakes points you at the wrong fix.

Where you have already met it