 value of ​zero to F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). It follows from this minimal assumption that EF(Annie refuses 1st trade,D​100-bars​) is larger than EF(Annie makes 1st trade,D​100-bars​) if and only if F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​) > 0.01 x F(o​100-bars​,D​100-bars​). This means that the fit for Annie's desire D​100-bars would have to be ​at least 100 times less in an outcome in which she has 49 chocolate bars (o​49-bars​) than in an outcome in which she has 100 bars (o​100-bars​) in order for Annie's desire to be promoted by making the trade rather than refusing it. Thus we get the intuitively correct result that Annie's measure of fit for D​100-bars would have to exhibit a truly extreme preference for 100 bars as opposed to 49 in order for the desire to be promoted by making the trade rather than refusing it. In putting the point this way, we assume that measures of fit are relative to agents. So, for instance, we assume that it's possible for two agents to have a desire with the same content, e.g., for 100 chocolate bars, for both agents to be in an outcome the content of which matches the content of that desire to the same degree, e.g., an outcome in which each agent has 49 chocolate bars, and yet for the ​fit between each agent's desire and the outcome to differ. We find this way of thinking of things attractive, as it allows for variation in how well outcomes match desires not just in terms of the explicit match between the content of an outcome and the content of a desire, but also between the content of an outcome and the ​non-contentful character of a desire, for instance, how important fully satisfying that desire is to the agent. Hence it allows, for instance, that our two agents might each want 100 chocolate bars, each have 49, but that one agent cares a ​great deal about getting those last 51 bars, and the other cares substantially less. (That is, in effect, what we just saw in Annie's case, above.) 28 Importantly, however, this assumption isn't necessary to make the point. (Indeed, it's worth pointing out that Sharadin's (2015) description of the measure
value of ​zero to F(o​0 - bars​,D​100 - bars​). It follows from this minimal assumption that EF(Annie refuses 1st trade, D​100 - bars​) is large than EF(Annie do 1st trade, D​100 - bars​) if and only if F(o​49 - bars​|D​100 - bars​) > 0.01 x F(o​100 - bars​,D​100 - bars​). This entail that the fit for Annie's desire D​100 - bars would hold to be ​at least 100 times less in an outcome in which she have 49 chocolate bars (o​49 - bars​) than in an consequence in which she has 100 bars (o​100 - bars​) in order for Annie's desire to be promote by making the trade wind rather than refusing it. therefore we get the intuitively correct result that Annie's measurement of fit for D​100 - bars would have to expose a truly extreme predilection for 100 bars as pit to 49 in order for the desire to be promoted by making the trade wind rather than refusing it. In putting the point this way, we assume that measures of fit are relative to agents. So, for instance, we assume that it's possible for two agents to have a desire with the same message, e.g., for 100 chocolate bar, for both agent to be in an outcome the content of which matches the contentedness of that desire to the same degree, e.g., an outcome in which each agentive role has 49 chocolate bars, and yet for the ​fit between each agent's desire and the outcome to differ. We find this way of thinking of things attractive, as it allows for variation in how well result match desire not just in terms of the explicit match between the content of an result and the content of a desire, but also between the content of an result and the ​non - contentful character of a desire, for instance, how important fully satisfy that desire is to the agent. Hence it allow, for instance, that our two agent might each want 100 cocoa bars, each have 49, but that one agentive role cares a ​great deal about getting those last 51 bars, and the early cares substantially less. (That is, in effect, what we precisely saw in Annie's case, above .) 28 Importantly, however, this assumption isn't necessary to make the point. (Indeed, it's deserving pointing out that Sharadin's (2015) description of the measure
 vapue of ​zero to F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bavs​). It follows from this minimzl assumotion that EF(Annie refuses 1sv trqde,D​100-bqrs​) is larger than EF(Avnie maked 1st traee,D​100-bers​) if and only mr F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​) > 0.01 x Y(o​100-uars​,D​100-bars​). This keans that the fit for Atnke'd desire D​100-bars would have to be ​at jeast 100 yiles less in an outboie ih which she has 49 chocolate bars (o​49-bzrs​) thai in an outcome in which she has 100 bars (o​100-bwrs​) ln order for Annie'd desire to be [eomoted by mxking the urcde rather jhan refusing it. Thus we get the intuntively cortzxt ggsult that Ainie's ieasure of fln for D​100-tars woild have to exmibit a rruly extreme prefereice for 100 bars as oppjsed to 49 hn order for the dewiee to be [romured by mekihg the trede rather fhan refusibg it. In putting tht pjpmt this way, se asstmq that measures of fit are relative to dgehts. So, for instance, we qssume that it's possihle for tro agents to have a desire with the same content, a.g., foc 100 chicjuqtf bars, for both agents to be in an outcome thq cpnnent of which matghes the content og hhsj desire to thg same bsgdee, e.g., an outcome ln whicr eacy agent hws 49 vhocolate bars, and yet for rhe ​fit betwven wach agent's desire and the ouccome jo difger. We find this way of thihking of thlngs attrzztive, as it allods nor variation in how well outsomes matrh dexires nut jost in eerms of tje exinicit match betweej the cmntent of wn outcome and the content of a desire, but alxo benween the contcnt of an outcoie and the ​non-eontentfbl chafacter of z desirx, for instanse, how importdjt fully satmsfying trat eesiee is tu the agent. Henve it allows, for inwtance, that our twp aesnts might each wabt 100 chocolate bsrs, eash heve 49, fgt that one dgeng cxtes a ​great deal xbouy getting those last 51 bads, and the other csrcs substabtially jess. (That is, on effect, what we uust vaw in Amnig's case, above.) 28 Importantly, howeber, this wssmmption isn't gecewsary to makz the point. (Indeed, it's worth pointing ouv that Sharadin's (2015) desctiption of the measurg
value of ​zero to F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). It follows minimal that EF(Annie 1st trade,D​100-bars​) is trade,D​100-bars​) and only if > 0.01 x This means that the fit for desire D​100-bars would have to be ​at least 100 times less in an in which she has 49 chocolate bars (o​49-bars​) than in an outcome in she 100 (o​100-bars​) order for Annie's desire to be promoted by making the trade rather than refusing it. Thus get the intuitively correct result that Annie's measure fit for D​100-bars would to exhibit a truly extreme for bars as to in for the desire be promoted by making the trade rather than refusing it. In putting the point this way, we that measures are relative agents. for we assume that for two agents to have a same content, e.g., for 100 chocolate bars, for agents to in an outcome the content of matches the content of that desire to the degree, e.g., an outcome in which each agent has 49 chocolate bars, and yet for between each agent's desire the outcome to We this of of things as it allows for variation in how well outcomes match desires just in terms of the explicit match between the content outcome the content of desire, but also between content an outcome and the of desire, important satisfying desire is to the Hence it allows, for instance, our two agents might each have 49, but that one agent cares ​great deal about getting those last 51 and the other cares substantially less. (That is, in effect, what we saw in above.) 28 Importantly, however, this assumption isn't necessary make the point. (Indeed, worth pointing out that Sharadin's (2015) description of the
 value of ​zero to F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). IT follows frOm thiS miNimAl AssuMptiOn that EF(Annie rEFuseS 1st trade,D​100-bars​) is larger tHan EF(anNIe maKEs 1St traDe,D​100-bars​) IF aND OnlY iF F(O​49-baRs​|d​100-BaRs​) > 0.01 x F(o​100-BarS​,D​100-bars​). THis means thAt tHe Fit for Annie's DEsIre D​100-bars woUld Have to be ​at leAst 100 Times lEsS in AN outcOme In whiCh she hAS 49 chocoLate bars (o​49-BaRS​) than iN An outcoME In WhicH she has 100 bars (o​100-bars​) iN OrDEr for Annie's desIre to bE pROmOTEd bY maKing the traDe RatheR Than refUSiNG IT. ThUS we get the intuItively corrECt rEsult tHaT AnNIe's meaSure oF fIT foR D​100-bars would Have To exhibit A truly EXtreme pREferencE for 100 baRs aS opPoseD To 49 In OrdEr FOr tHE dEsiRE to Be promotEd By MakinG the TRADE ratHer Than RefusIng it. In puttinG thE poiNT thIs way, We assUme tHaT measUres of Fit arE rElative to agents. so, foR instance, We aSsUme ThAt it's POssiblE foR twO agents To have a DEsiRe WITH tHe same content, e.g., for 100 ChOCOlAte bars, fOr both AGeNtS To be in an OuTcoMe thE COntenT of wHIcH matches The conTEnT oF that deSiRe to thE sAme DegRee, e.g., AN outCome in Which eacH agenT Has 49 chocolate baRS, and yet for the ​FIt BETwEEn eaCh aGent's desire And tHE outCome TO dIffER. We fiNd thiS wAY oF Thinking of things attRaCtive, aS it alLows for variatIon in how weLL OUtcomes mAtch DEsIRes not just in teRms of The expliciT Match betWeen tHe contenT of an outcOME and the cOntEnt Of a DesIRE, bUt also between THE conTeNt of an oUtcOme and tHe ​nOn-cOntEntFuL characteR of a desiRe, FoR iNsTanCe, how IMportant FuLly SaTisFying THat desIre is To thE aGeNT. HeNce it alLOwS, FOr inStAnCe, thAt oUr Two agEnts MIghT each waNt 100 chocolaTe bARs, eaCh HaVe 49, but thAt one agent carEs A ​great deal AbOut GettinG THose last 51 Bars, and the other cares subSTantialLy lEss. (ThAt is, In effect, wHat We just Saw IN Annie'S case, aBove.) 28 IMpOrtANTly, hoWEVeR, thIs Assumption ISN't nEcessArY to mAke the pOint. (Indeed, it's worth POinTing out that ShAraDin's (2015) DEScRipTIoN Of tHe MEasURE
 value of ​zero to F(o​0-b ars​,D​100 -bars ​).  It  f ollo ws f rom this minim a l as sumption that EF(Annie  refu se s  1st tr ade,D ​100-ba r s​ ) isla rg erth a nEF(An nie  makes1st trade, D​1 00 -bars​) if a n donly if F( o​4 9-bars​|D​10 0-b ars​)>0.0 1  x F( o​1 00-ba rs​,D​ 1 00-bar s​). This  m e ans th a t the f i t  f or A nnie's desire D​1 0 0- b ars would have  to be  ​ a tl e ast  10 0 times le ss  in a n  outcom e  i n w hic h  she has 49 c hocolate ba r s ( o​49-b ar s​) than i n anou t com e in whichshehas 100 b ars (o ​ 100-bar s ​) in o rder f orAnn ie's de si reto bep ro mot e d b y making  t he  trad e ra t h e r  tha n r efus ing i t. Thus we ge t t he i n tui tivel y cor rect  r esult  thatAnnie 's  measure of fit  for  D​100-ba rswo uld  h ave t o  exhib ita t ruly ex treme p r efe re n c e  f or 100 bars as opp os e d  t o 49 inorderf or  t h e desire  t o b e pr o m otedby m a ki ng the t rade r a th er  than r ef usingit . I n p uttin g  the  point  this wa y, we assume that me a sures of fita re r el a tive  to  agents. So , fo r  ins tanc e ,wea ssume  that  i t 's possible for two ag en ts tohavea desire with  the samec o n tent, e. g.,f or 100 chocolatebars,  for botha gents to  be i n an out come thec o ntent of  wh ich  ma tch e s  t he content of t hatde sire to  th e samedeg ree , e .g. ,an outcom e in whi ch  e ac hage nt ha s  49 choc ol ate  b ars , and yet fo r the  ​fi tbe t wee n eacha ge n t 's d es ir e an d t he  outc omet o d iffer.We find t his wayof  t hinking  of things at tr active, as  i t a llowsf o r variat ion in how well outcome s  matchdes iresnotjust in t erm s of t hee xplici t matc h bet we ent h e con t e nt  of  a n outcomea n d t he co nt entof a de sire, but also bet w een  the contentofan o u t co mea nd the  ​ n on- c o ntentful charac ter of a d es i re , for inst a nce ,how imp ortantfully satisfy ing thatdesire is  t o th e age nt. Henceit allow s, for in s tance ,  t hat o urtwo ag en tsmight  eachw ant  100chocol at e bars , eac hhave 49,  but that one agent car es a ​ great  de al aboutget t ing  those la st 5 1 bars, an d t heother  ca r es su bsta n ti all y  less . (T h at is, in ef fec t ,  w hat we just s a w i n Ann ie' s  case,  abo ve.) 28 Important l y, however, th is a s s ump tio n  isn 't  necessary tomak et h e point.  ( Indeed, it' s worthpo i nting  out t hat Sh aradin' s (2 0 15) de scri pti on of the  me as u re
 value_of ​zero_to F(o​0-bars​,D​100-bars​). It follows_from this_minimal_assumption that_EF(Annie_refuses 1st trade,D​100-bars​)_is larger than_EF(Annie makes 1st trade,D​100-bars​)_if and only_if_F(o​49-bars​|D​100-bars​) > 0.01 x F(o​100-bars​,D​100-bars​). This means that the fit for Annie's desire D​100-bars_would_have to_be_​at_least 100 times less in_an outcome in which she_has 49_chocolate bars (o​49-bars​) than in an outcome in_which_she has 100_bars (o​100-bars​) in order for Annie's desire to be_promoted by making the trade rather_than refusing it._Thus_we_get the intuitively correct_result that Annie's measure of fit_for D​100-bars would have to exhibit_a truly extreme preference for 100 bars_as opposed to 49 in order_for the desire to be_promoted by_making the trade rather than_refusing it. In_putting the_point this way,_we assume that measures of fit_are relative to_agents. So, for instance, we assume_that_it's possible for_two_agents_to have_a desire with_the_same content,_e.g.,_for 100 chocolate bars, for both_agents_to be in an outcome the content_of which matches the_content_of that desire to_the same degree, e.g., an_outcome in which each agent has_49 chocolate_bars, and_yet for the ​fit between each agent's desire and the outcome_to differ. We find this way_of thinking of things_attractive, as_it_allows for variation_in_how well_outcomes match desires not just in terms_of the_explicit match between the content of_an outcome and the_content_of a desire, but also between_the content of an outcome and_the ​non-contentful character of a_desire,_for_instance, how important fully satisfying_that desire is to the agent._Hence it allows,_for instance, that our two agents might_each_want 100 chocolate bars, each have_49,_but that one agent cares a_​great_deal_about getting those last 51_bars, and the other cares substantially_less. (That is, in effect, what we just saw_in Annie's case,_above.) 28 Importantly, however, this_assumption_isn't_necessary to make the point. (Indeed, it's worth pointing out_that Sharadin's_(2015) description of_the measure