Compromise

2010-01-19 20:24:31

#1

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Compromise – one of the most revered words in the history of civilization; a word that evokes warm feelings of fairness and brotherhood. What the connotation leaves out is the weasel in the equation. The side that got more than it reasonably deserved out of the confrontation, what was gained undeservingly at the expense of what was deserved. If all that was gained was with complete justification, with utter appropriateness, then we wouldn’t use the word compromise. There are already words that mean an equal exchange, words such as trade. Compromise has the unique quality of uneven quantity of goods, where one person is getting more than they have earned and deserve.

If the two people in business are both of the mindset that they want an even exchange, if they want to take off the table no more and no less than what they put on it, then there is no compromise. Perhaps there is some disagreement in value or other terms of an agreement, but that can’t stop a fair deal from being made. The only thing that stands in the way of fairness is when one or both parties feel entitled to anything but what they already have. When the idea that one is out to get more than what they give up enters the equation, then compromise walks in on its heels. Then and only then is the situation not about what is fair, but what everyone can get away with.

2010-01-19 20:27:06

#2

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

Never compromise, not even in the face Armageddon.

2010-01-19 20:51:27

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

Seriously though I don't get what this thread is about, are we supposed to debate the definition or something?

2010-01-19 20:53:26

#4

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

It's the first couple paragraphs for an essay I'm writing. Figured I could get some humanists to shit themselves.

They looooooooooooove compromise.

2010-01-19 21:04:44

#5

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6967|Disaster Free Zone

lol, I think you need to read up on the definition. Everything you have written is just utter bullshit.

2010-01-19 21:11:07

#6

Yellowman03: Once Again, We Meet at Last; +108|6521|Texas

DrunkFace wrote:
lol, I think you need to read up on the definition. Everything you have written is just utter bullshit.

"connotation" not denotation

2010-01-19 21:11:19

#7

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

See Macbeth?

compromise - n. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

2010-01-19 21:14:31

#8

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6285|The Mitten

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
See Macbeth?

compromise - n. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

nourrong
/puts on tinfoil hat

EE (hats

2010-01-19 22:03:54

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

In Congress, compromise is also known as porkmongering.

2010-01-20 00:23:14

#10

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

c- for effort tbh. From those two paragraphs it's a poor essay. Must try harder. Or actually try making a point.

[]threadworthy

2010-01-20 03:39:45

#11

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

tl;dr
In a good negotation both parties should walk away feeling like they've won.
Screwing the last concession or cent out of the other guy usually comes back to hit you, as does giving too much away.

Fuck Israel

2010-01-20 06:00:52

#12

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...

2010-01-20 06:10:20

#13

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:
Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...

psych?

2010-01-20 06:12:23

#14

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7096|Nårvei

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Pug wrote:
Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...
psych?

Group-psychology I believe ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-01-20 06:16:01

#15

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Pug wrote:
Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...
psych?

yes. negotiations are not a zero sum game. it's the first thing you learn in mba school.

2010-01-20 06:17:52

#16

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6576|Éire

What's your point? Are you merely pointing out that the concept of compromise has somewhat negative connotations? I think most people are aware of that.

Compromise generally alludes to a concession of some sort made by one or more parties in an agreement, usually on the grounds that what is achieved as a result of accepting the concession is a situation that is more preferable to the situation that would exist if all parties were to continue as they were in the first place. For example, power-sharing in Northern Ireland, where both major parties have to forego some of the more hardline elements of their political agendas in order to have a situation where militants aren't running around killing each other on both sides.

2010-01-20 07:56:47

#17

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Compromise is bad.

Discuss.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Is this DST now?

2010-01-20 07:59:06

#18

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

I disagree

Compromise is good

your turn

2010-01-20 08:01:43

#19

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5985

I disagree. Compromise is nor good or bad. Its neutral.

E.g. Superman=good, Lex Luthor=bad, law abiding citizen=neutral.

Beat that example.

2010-01-20 08:03:34

#20

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Varegg wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Pug wrote:
Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...
psych?
Group-psychology I believe ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt

I know what Gestalt Psych is, at least I studied it. I don't see what that has to do with compromise or group psych at all.

Pug wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Pug wrote:
Discuss the gestalt idea in terms of compromise...
psych?
yes. negotiations are not a zero sum game. it's the first thing you learn in mba school.

This is my point. Negotiations should be a zero sum game. Businessmen that make profit off of business not work are looking to take more than they give. Economic inefficiency at its worst.

2010-01-20 08:04:07

#21

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6841

Compromise is only what you describe if it's only one of the two parties that is compromising. Generally both parties have to compromise to reach a mutually beneficial agreement - otherwise an agreement isn't or is rarely reached. Your comment about 'unequal quantity of goods' is not strictly binding in all instances, nor is life so black and white that it is possible to state who 'got the best deal' in many instances. Compromise is pivotally important in resolving some of the most thorny issues on this planet.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-20 08:06:59)

2010-01-20 08:07:12

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Braddock wrote:
What's your point? Are you merely pointing out that the concept of compromise has somewhat negative connotations? I think most people are aware of that.

Compromise generally alludes to a concession of some sort made by one or more parties in an agreement, usually on the grounds that what is achieved as a result of accepting the concession is a situation that is more preferable to the situation that would exist if all parties were to continue as they were in the first place. For example, power-sharing in Northern Ireland, where both major parties have to forego some of the more hardline elements of their political agendas in order to have a situation where militants aren't running around killing each other on both sides.

Compromise has positive connotations, but I'm saying it is objectively bad.

Compromise only to keep people from killing each other means the party in the right is giving up more than it should. If anyone is correct at all. Just because it stops immediate killings doesn't justify compromise as the best option.

CameronPoe wrote:
Compromise is only what you describe if it's only one of the two parties that is compromising. Generally both parties have to compromise to reach a mutually beneficial agreement - otherwise an agreement isn't or is rarely reached. Your comment about 'unequal quantity of goods' is not strictly binding in all instances, nor is life so black and white that it is possible to state who 'got the best deal' in many instances. Compromise is pivotally important in resolving some of the most thorny issues on this planet.

"Who got the best deal" has to be viewed not from an outsider's perspective, but from the perspective of each party. In which case a party, one or both, that wants compromise is aiming to get more than they should. If the goods exchanged are viewed as equal and the positive net effect is seen to be in the allocation of goods then there is no need for compromise.

2010-01-20 08:19:37

#23

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6841

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"Who got the best deal" has to be viewed not from an outsider's perspective, but from the perspective of each party. In which case a party, one or both, that wants compromise is aiming to get more than they should. If the goods exchanged are viewed as equal and the positive net effect is seen to be in the allocation of goods then there is no need for compromise.

But if you are to view things objectively then you should be viewing things from an outsider's perspective, no? Both parties are aiming to get the maximum that they can get, which is the same in any trade. Neither party may be willing to enter a deal until concessions are made by both parties. They may realise that a net win could be achieved from a mutually beneficial transaction so both can elect to enter a negotiation where concessions are made by both parties - each attempting to maximise their perceived return/end result - such that they both perceive the deal to be fair in their own eyes (not entering into a deal if perceived otherwise). The sealing of the deal itself is dependent on the perspective of each party but it may also appear to be a good deal to an outsider if both parties obtain a net benefit. Also, as with a great many things in life, it may not be possible to objectively assess whose net gain is greater or what constitutes 'fair'.

Take the compromise involved in the purchase of a commodity for instance: one person would like to spend $XX for say, a fridge. The owner of the fridge is selling it for $YY > $XX. He can't shift the thing - he finds that nobody will buy it. The man unwilling to pay $YY has food that is going off. They cut a deal, the latter agreeing to sell the fridge to the other man for $ZZ, $XX < $ZZ < $YY. The latter now has $ZZ to play with and the former has a valuable item that he can use to store his food. Without both parties compromising no deal would have taken place and neither would be reaping the gains made in the deal.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-20 08:34:36)

2010-01-20 08:20:27

#24

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6508|teh FIN-land

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Compromise only to keep people from killing each other means the party in the right is giving up more than it should. If anyone is correct at all. Just because it stops immediate killings doesn't justify compromise as the best option.

a) how do you decide which party is 'right'.

b) you say that it may aslo be the case that no-one is 'right'. So compromise IS the best solution if neither party has a leg to stand on and is talking bollox.

2010-01-20 08:27:05

#25

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5644|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This is my point. Negotiations should be a zero sum game. Businessmen that make profit off of business not work are looking to take more than they give. Economic inefficiency at its worst.

Nothing is ever zero-sum.

If company A sells part of it's business to company B it's more than just a cash transaction. Company A is then free to invest that money elsewhere and generate a profit, or return that money to the shareholders, or buy back stock or whatever else they wish to do. The net gain for company A would be far more than just a zero sum equation involving the cash.

Company B gains the piece of company A and can spin it off, or liquidate it or whatever else. It's also not zero sum.

Both companies received something they wanted in the compromise (assuming that company A received fair value) but both receive more than just an equation of the sum of the parts involved.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

BF2S Forums Compromise

DrunkFace wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Board footer