BF2S Forums Compromise

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.

Remember that movie with Russell Crow, where he's the math genius who's schizo?  He developed a theory based on what happens if everyone talks with the hot chick, no one gets laid.  If they divide up, everyone gets laid. (didn't the guy who laid all this out get a noble prize for this theory?  whatever, i'm not looking it up)

The comparison is between ALL outcomes.

Option A - 100% of what you want
Option B - 80% compromise
Option C - 0% no agreement

If you do math on probabilities, where it's 50% chance of 100% outcome and 50% of no agreement, the average outcome is (100% x 50%) + (0% x 50%) = 50.  Versus 100% of 80% chance = 100% x 80% = 80.

Based on this, the zero sum game is more inefficient than a compromise.

Last edited by Pug (2010-01-20 09:19:03)

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

Let me stop you right there. People should be out to fairly exchange what they have, not get the maximum they can get. The current way of thinking is flawed.

CameronPoe wrote:

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'.

What constitutes "fair" doesn't have to be objective. The only thing that is important is that both parties feel they got a fair deal. Not that they got a bad deal or a good deal. If the feeling of fairness is mutual then that is the very definition of fairness, regardless as to how it may seem to an "objective" outsider.

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

This is not a compromise, this is how deals should work. Both parties started at different asking prices, but the value of the item in question was re-evaluated. The adjustment to the MSRP is appropriate because if the dealer can't move the fridge then it's not worth the MSRP - $ZZ is the actual value of the fridge.

Not making clear what constitutes a trade and what is a compromise is largely my fault, though it wasn't really the point of the OP. As I said it is part of a larger essay unrelated to this thread, so it doesn't make as much sense in context as it could. Still, just because a discussion takes place and numbers are changed doesn't mean a compromise took place, only that an agreement was reached. Seeing as we aren't a hive mind, we still have to get the other party to make sense of our position in terms of value or what is moral.

ruisleipa wrote:

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.

a) Relevant only in context.

b) If neither party has a leg to stand on then they're both going to fall over. The question of whether or not to compromise is irrelevant.

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

So far as the transaction itself though the value that is being traded is identical. Why each party feels they benefit from receiving a different good of the same value they possessed or what they plan to do with the new good after the transaction is irrelevant. Only the fact that they both feel the the benefit is in the allocation of goods, not the goods themselves.

It's not a compromise at all, not even in a way that might not be as easy to see like CameronPoe's example. It's just a trade.

Pug wrote:

Remember that movie with Russell Crow, where he's the math genius who's schizo?  He developed a theory based on what happens if everyone talks with the hot chick, no one gets laid.  If they divide up, everyone gets laid. (didn't the guy who laid all this out get a noble prize for this theory?  whatever, i'm not looking it up)

The comparison is between ALL outcomes.

Option A - 100% of what you want
Option B - 80% compromise
Option C - 0% no agreement

If you do math on probabilities, where it's 50% chance of 100% outcome and 50% of no agreement, the average outcome is (100% x 50%) + (0% x 50%) = 50.  Versus 100% of 80% chance = 100% x 80% = 80.

Based on this, the zero sum game is more inefficient than a compromise.

Nash equilibrium in A Beautiful Mind. _{chick was hot}

The problem is the theory assumes no person is "right" - in this case whoever has the best chance with the chick in the first place. If the whole pack of wolves was rational about it they would pair up in order of sexy-level from hot to the uggos - but because each and every one of them wants the most out of the deal, not what they should get out of the deal, they have to compromise and the leader of the pack gets screwed out of what should be his.

Get married first.  Only then will you truly understand what compromise means.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

So far as the transaction itself though the value that is being traded is identical. Why each party feels they benefit from receiving a different good of the same value they possessed or what they plan to do with the new good after the transaction is irrelevant. Only the fact that they both feel the the benefit is in the allocation of goods, not the goods themselves.

Trades, by their very definition are a compromise. It's impossible for both parties to get exactly what they want.

And no, the value added after the trade is not irrelevant at all. The trade allowed both companies to proceed with things that wouldn't be possible without the trade, so that value must be included at least partially.

Btw, you're insistence that every transaction is zero-sum is coming very close to invoking the fallacy of Say's Law.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-20 11:07:53)

Pochsy wrote:

So, to make sure I understand correctly, you're trying to argue that realist thinkers

Not realist thinkers, establishment thinkers.

Pochsy wrote:

...are wrong because relative gains (trying to make sure you get more than the next guy,

Not trying to get more than the next guy, trying to get more than you have through uneven trade.

That is to say there is no problem with having $1000 of yams before the trade and then $1000 of yams and brown sugar, but there is a problem having $1000 worth of yams and then screwing someone over for $1500 worth of yams and brown sugar.

Pochsy wrote:

...however you subjectively define 'more')

More is more. You don't have to define original value to know you have more than you used to.

Pochsy wrote:

...are less efficient than the absolute gains (we all rise together, lets hold hands) of liberal thinkers?

I don't know about the liberal thinkers part but sure. Greed is a by-product of human nature not right-wing capitalism.

Pochsy wrote:

And all this surrounding a poor definition of compromise without a proper context?

The dictionary definition of compromise is fine and the argument doesn't really need any context. I was only apologizing to Poe in that I did not explain examples of what most would (wrongly) consider compromise in the first place and save everyone some trouble. Usually I try to either use the word as others on the forum use the word, regardless as to its true meaning or issues I have with the word, or I hash out my issues with how the word is typically used in the first place. I failed to do so in this instance.

Pug wrote:

Ahh, so are you arguing there is no such thing as a compromise, because it's the maximum value is what everyone gets anyway?  aka the only deal possible is the compromise?

All true when both minds are fair.

The issue I take is when someone abuses the idea of compromise to get more than they should. The only time compromise exists is when there is a snake in the equation, in which case it is unequivocally bad.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Trades, by their very definition are a compromise. It's impossible for both parties to get exactly what they want.

And no, the value added after the trade is not irrelevant at all. The trade allowed both companies to proceed with things that wouldn't be possible without the trade, so that value must be included at least partially.

Btw, you're insistence that every transaction is zero-sum is coming very close to invoking the fallacy of Say's Law.

uh, no. You of all people should know what you want has nothing to do with it. You go to the store and buy gum for a quarter. You might want the gum to be free, fact is it's not. If you felt the trade wasn't fair you wouldn't make it. Compromise never enters the equation.

That value is what makes the parties want to trade in the first place, as I said. That is the allocative value of the goods. Going from $1000 worth of yams to $1000 of yams and brown sugar is awesome and delicious because now you can make candied yams. Fuck the guy with the brown sugar doesn't care what the yam guy is going to use the brown sugar for, the yam guy could roll around in it for all he cares. The important part is the trade is even in both minds and the value added is from whatever reason the yam guy feels its in his best interest to have $1000 of both yams and brown sugar instead of just yams.

Every transaction should be zero-sum. Didn't say they were all zero-sum. Quite the opposite really, there wouldn't be a point to the thread if I thought all transactions were zero-sum.

Pug wrote:

If this inefficiency was solved, wouldn't that mean there's nothing leftover on the table?  If that happened, have you thought about the impact this would have on technology - aka we only do what is asked and nothing more?

wat

Are you saying the economy would halt because there would be no scarcity? Why?

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

If this inefficiency was solved, wouldn't that mean there's nothing leftover on the table?  If that happened, have you thought about the impact this would have on technology - aka we only do what is asked and nothing more?

wat

Are you saying the economy would halt because there would be no scarcity? Why?

By definition, if the bare minimum requirements were met in every transaction, there would be no reason to innovate.  People would not ask for something better than the supplier could supply and suppliers would not supply more than what was required.

aka breeds mediocrity and does not provide any incentive to innovate - since everything is predefined before the deal is struck.  In other words, without this inefficiency there would be no technological advancement because the consumer already knows what exactly the supplier can supply and vice versa.

Since we are discussing improbabilities and absolutes, this should be considered.

I don't understand why equal transactions precludes innovation. Just because I only have $10 to trade doesn't mean I want to earn $20, and just because I got exactly what I need doesn't mean I won't work for everything I want.

DrunkFace wrote:

"Fair" is subjective.

What's the transaction, when the buyer thinks the fair price is $150, and the seller thinks the fair price is $100?

Then it's worth $150 and the seller is retarded.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't understand why equal transactions precludes innovation. Just because I only have $10 to trade doesn't mean I want to earn $20, and just because I got exactly what I need doesn't mean I won't work for everything I want.

You're thinking in hard terms, I'm talking about soft terms.

Beyond cash, compromise involves the features and specifications of the buyer and what the supplier can provide.  If both parties have already a preconceived deal on the table, the behavior of both parties will be based on what's available.  What's available is much different than what's possible.  Neither party will strive to inconvenience the other if everything is predefined.

For a single deal. The needs and desires of the buyer still evolve.

FM...two posts up

Since the buyer never asks for more than what is supplied, there is no reason to innovate.

If the buyer's behavior changes, this would mean the supplier must agree.  Which means if you are in the "agree to innovate stage" there's a built in lag...

A compromise because delivery can't happen fast enough...or so they wait (compromise on delivery), or settle for the soon-to-be obsolete product (compromise on product).  Wouldn't the buyer then ask for a lower price on the inferior product?

Last edited by Pug (2010-01-20 12:20:33)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Let me stop you right there. People should be out to fairly exchange what they have, not get the maximum they can get. The current way of thinking is flawed.

People 'should be out to fairly exchange' is a very quaint and subjective statement. The current way of thinking isn't necessarily flawed - it's reality, it's basic human and animal nature. You will get principled people who will act in a selfless fashion, but I don't believe they are in the majority. In dealing with other human beings you can expect nothing less than a strict adherence to the selfish pleasure principle.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What constitutes "fair" doesn't have to be objective. The only thing that is important is that both parties feel they got a fair deal. Not that they got a bad deal or a good deal. If the feeling of fairness is mutual then that is the very definition of fairness, regardless as to how it may seem to an "objective" outsider.

And the basic point made in my comment is that both parties can get a net benefit out of compromising.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-20 14:50:06)

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Let me stop you right there. People should be out to fairly exchange what they have, not get the maximum they can get. The current way of thinking is flawed.

People 'should be out to fairly exchange' is a very quaint and subjective statement. The current way of thinking isn't necessarily flawed - it's reality, it's basic human and animal nature. You will get principled people who will act in a selfless fashion, but I don't believe they are in the majority. In dealing with other human beings you can expect nothing less than a strict adherence to the selfish pleasure principle.

There are no people who act in a selfless fashion, but that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for people who act for themselves while abiding by natural laws. That's not really so much to ask for is it? If it is I mean...fuck.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What constitutes "fair" doesn't have to be objective. The only thing that is important is that both parties feel they got a fair deal. Not that they got a bad deal or a good deal. If the feeling of fairness is mutual then that is the very definition of fairness, regardless as to how it may seem to an "objective" outsider.

And the basic point made in my comment is that both parties can get a net benefit out of compromising.

Both parties can get a net benefit from a lot of different things. The idea is that compromising isn't right.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You keep talking like the same people never do business twice. In nearly every industry the buyer is going to go back again and/or the seller wants to give the buyer a reason to come back again.

The buyer asking for a lower price on what is now an inferior product happens all the time. Like, all the time. For a BF2S pertinent example, watch the prices on Newegg for a couple years. Why else are the prices going down.?

Yes, but you aren't including all the factors involved in consumer behavior.  The REASON why inferior products are purchased is because the supplier is unwilling to compromise and sell at a lower price.  In other words, the buyer will not purchase the higher priced product because they feel it's not worth the money.  Therefore, it's a primary failure in negotiation.  The result (buying the inferior product) goes back to the decision tree I posted earlier (50% versus 80%), where the inferior product represents the 80%.

The consumer is making a compromise in the product they select if it is an inferior product.  They are not getting what they want, but what they are willing to accept.

It has nothing to negotiation. Newer products are worth more. They have a higher inherent value compared to old products. Buying an inferior product is not a "compromise", it's trading less value for less value. Just because you don't have the means or the will to pay for a better product doesn't mean there is a "failure in negotiation".

Flaming_Maniac to JG wrote:

uh, no. You of all people should know what you want has nothing to do with it. You go to the store and buy gum for a quarter. You might want the gum to be free, fact is it's not. If you felt the trade wasn't fair you wouldn't make it. Compromise never enters the equation.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There are no people who act in a selfless fashion, but that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for people who act for themselves while abiding by natural laws. That's not really so much to ask for is it? If it is I mean...fuck.

Not wanting as much as you can get is not abiding by natural law. Winning the biggest slice of the pie is the very essence of human and animal nature. With reference to the natural world, alpha males in Gorilla society take as many mates as they can into their harem and beat any pretender male to death for attempting to access even one female.

The alpha is naturally in the right to mate as many times as possible. In the same way any sort of compromise for the alpha male to say relinquish some of his females in exchange for political security wouldn't be right. It could benefit both parties, but compromise from the alpha male doesn't follow natural law and isn't the best circumstance for the species as a whole.

You see, all the individuals in the equation can each pursue selfish ends, and that means the inferior males would want a compromise. If they were human, they would negotiate for it. The fact is it's not in the best interest of the alpha male to compromise at all, and it's not right for him to.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Both parties can get a net benefit from a lot of different things. The idea is that compromising isn't right.

That's not exactly the best argument I've ever heard. If two parties benefit from an agreement where they don't get everything they want but do get something good that they otherwise wouldn't then it can be nothing else but right.

Example above fits pretty well.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The alpha is naturally in the right to mate as many times as possible. In the same way any sort of compromise for the alpha male to say relinquish some of his females in exchange for political security wouldn't be right. It could benefit both parties, but compromise from the alpha male doesn't follow natural law and isn't the best circumstance for the species as a whole.

You see, all the individuals in the equation can each pursue selfish ends, and that means the inferior males would want a compromise. If they were human, they would negotiate for it. The fact is it's not in the best interest of the alpha male to compromise at all, and it's not right for him to.

The inferior males will continually try and get as much of the pie as possible by challenging the other until they win. The basic premise of what I was talking about: everyone will attempt to get the biggest cut of the pie as they possibly can. The example I gave doesn't show a situation where a compromise would bring mutual benefit/gain. There is and never will be any compromising or negotiation in the example. So the latter point is irrelevant. You seem to be fixated on there being a winner and a loser in any given compromise situation, which there does not necessarily have to be. If both parties did not have something to gain from a particular deal then a compromise by either party would never be entertained under any circumstance. It all boils back to the fact that such negotiations are not a zero sum game.

Yes, they will continue to try and win a piece of the pie as they should. Eventually the alpha will grow old and weak, and someone will challenge and overtake him. All good.

I don't see how the example I provided isn't pertinent. If some of the up and coming alphas were instead offered a cut of the females, and in exchange the social drama was kept to a minimum, that would provide benefits to all involved. The younger ones get to spread their seed, the alpha maintains his place without risk.

I'm saying that there is a winner and loser in every compromise situation, as that is a fact dependent on a compromise period. If there are only positives, no winner and loser only equal trade then it's not a compromise it's just a deal. Negotiations should be a zero sum game, I am differentiating compromises in that they aren't.

edit: You fleshed out the alpha male compromise in your edit very well. My only extension is that while the compromise is a compromise, I am still saying that it doesn't abide by natural law.

I know they won't. I know there are positives on each side of a compromise. I am saying the negatives make the idea of a compromise unethical and detrimental.