6 ms·

The million-dollar question is interesting because it forces her to really decide what kind of girl she is. The question actually isn't very interesting a

The million-dollar question is interesting *because it forces her to really decide* what kind of girl she is. The question actually isn't very interesting at all, because the it suggests there is still a choice to be made. In reality, most people have made that choice long ago and we know that they have their consequentialist price. The price may be a million dollars, saving a hundred people's lives, getting revenge or another non-monetary reward, but there is a price. Already before the million-dollar question, we know that we may assume she definitely is 'that kind of girl'. Almost every girl, and every guy, is 'that kind of girl', because they will trade their affections for what the other party offers. Be it under the guise of love or not. Going into a business negotiation thinking either you or them are deontologists is selfdeception that will hinder you in your negotiations.

jimbokun 16y ago
"Going into a business negotiation thinking either you or them are deontologists is selfdeception that will hinder you in your negotiations." Maybe. But in practice, it might be a simplifying assumption that either you or them are "deontologists" in the context of the negotiations because there is nothing you have to offer that has any chance of budging their position. In other words, she may be that kind of girl for a million dollars, but you don't have a million dollars.
- ericb 16y ago
  True. Also, I've seen a number of negotiations broken off over pride--offers were made that were deemed "offensive." Don't be misled by treating everyone as "consequentialists" or you are very likely to step on a pride booby trap and cause the other party to sever negotiations. So in a practical sense, your simplifying assumption makes a lot of sense.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
    While I can't think of an instance where I've seen this myself, I remember my real estate agent warning me about this when I was buying my first house. Some buyers will simply not consider any offer you make if your first one is so far below what they are asking that they consider it insulting.
  - lsc 16y ago
    eh, I think in this case, 'pride' is really the other party saying 'this negotiation is not worth my time'. I know a while back I got some interest in someone buying out prgmr.com. Well, I listened to them, and they wanted to offer me a years revenue. I refused, of course, and broke off negotiations, but then I did some research, and come to find out, in my industry, that's a pretty average price. Why would anyone sell a company that's doubling every 6 months for a year's take? it seems quite irrational to me. But, like I said, it's normal for this industry. Now, knowing what I know now, my answer wouldn't change, I mean, the other party (and the market) obviously placed a dramatically lower value on my company than I did, but if I knew this was fair market value, I'd have said no to their initial feeler before hearing their offer. Of course, I'll sell, for a price... but my price is so far above the 'fair market value' of the company that for all practical purposes, you can think of me as being completely unwilling to sell. I mean, like everyone, I have my price, but I really, really like my company; my price is a /whole lot/ higher than one year's take. so, uh, yeah; I think a lot of times breaking off negotiations upon hearing an 'offensive' offer is the result not of a wounded pride but of a clear misunderstanding of the market value of the good at hand by one or both parties. If I'm willing to sleep with you for a million bucks and no less, if you offer me $100, it's probably not worth my time to try to talk you up. In that case, assuming that you are unable or unwilling to pay me the million bucks, there is /no difference/ between me being willing to sleep with you for a million bucks, and me not being willing to sleep with you for any amount of money at all.
ErrantX 16y ago
Agreed. Actually the question does still hold interest IMO because it forces her to acknowledge to herself that she may have a price. You say: In reality, most people have made that choice long ago and we know that they have their consequentialist price. And I agree; however I wonder how many people consciously know what their "price" decision they have made. I once actually conducted this experiment with a group of [volunteer] fellow students (both male and female) with interesting results. I pitched the question exactly as outlined here (a girlfriend asked the male members). The aim was to force this self-realisation of their "price" and subsequently we "bartered" for the real price they would accept. I realised a couple of things; firstly in realistic terms 1 million pounds is generally a lot lower than the "realistic price". When I followed up with the question "would you really sleep with me for a million" the answer was usually "no". The reason the girl says "maybe" in the initial instance is because she doesn't believe that I have a million pounds to offer. When I substituted £100,000 for a million the response rate tipped much harder towards "unlikely". To further test this theory I asked one of my more well of friends (who looked stereotypically rich) to conduct a similar survey - but this time to show them a cheque made of for £1 Million at the same time. Again the responses tended towards "unlikely" (and there was, actually, a larger amount of disgust at the idea). Once I got past this stage we bartered on what the "price" might be; invariably money was quickly removed from the table. Favours were preferred; for example attending as a date to a wedding was one price. When I forced conversations back to money the price went a lot higher. £10 Million was the minimum (this is possibly because 1 Million is not considered so much any more, I don't know). My well off friend had even more dramatic rises; one girl requested £5 Million a year for the next three years. More sex was generally offered in return for more complex rewards; for example in the above example (£5,000,0000/yr for 3 yrs) it was hashed out that a number of sexual encounters and "weekend breaks" were on the cards. For the men things were a lot simpler; they balked at any ides of being paid full stop. Almost to the man they refused payment and offered to sleep with the girl anyway. Out of interest I got a much plainer girl to ask the same question; there was still a general refusal to take money (although one or two "accepted" £100, preferring it to 1 Million) but also several outright refusals. With the plainer girl men offered to sleep with her (for no money), for my more attractive friend they offered to sleep with her and take her out to dinner. In fact dinner featured a lot in negotiations; there was actually a general aversion amongst the men (particularly, for some interesting reason, among the "jock" types) to simply having sex, a big majority preferred to offer a more complete "package". I have a partial theory that some were sidestepping the issue of money by proposing that the girl paid for dinner (or whatever date was agreed). This was conducted on a group of about 100 people I randomly grabbed outside our student union over a couple of afternoons :) there isn't a lot of structure to what we did, we just followed our noses. But I think there was some interesting stuff we discovered.

The million-dollar question is interesting *because it forces her to really decide* what kind of girl she is. The question actually isn't very interesting a

jimbokun 16y ago

"Going into a business negotiation thinking either you or them are deontologists is selfdeception that will hinder you in your negotiations." Maybe. But in practice, it might be a simplifying assumption that either you or them are "deontologists" in the context of the negotiations because there is nothing you have to offer that has any chance of budging their position. In other words, she may be that kind of girl for a million dollars, but you don't have a million dollars.

ericb 16y ago
True. Also, I've seen a number of negotiations broken off over pride--offers were made that were deemed "offensive." Don't be misled by treating everyone as "consequentialists" or you are very likely to step on a pride booby trap and cause the other party to sever negotiations. So in a practical sense, your simplifying assumption makes a lot of sense.
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
  While I can't think of an instance where I've seen this myself, I remember my real estate agent warning me about this when I was buying my first house. Some buyers will simply not consider any offer you make if your first one is so far below what they are asking that they consider it insulting.
- lsc 16y ago
  eh, I think in this case, 'pride' is really the other party saying 'this negotiation is not worth my time'. I know a while back I got some interest in someone buying out prgmr.com. Well, I listened to them, and they wanted to offer me a years revenue. I refused, of course, and broke off negotiations, but then I did some research, and come to find out, in my industry, that's a pretty average price. Why would anyone sell a company that's doubling every 6 months for a year's take? it seems quite irrational to me. But, like I said, it's normal for this industry. Now, knowing what I know now, my answer wouldn't change, I mean, the other party (and the market) obviously placed a dramatically lower value on my company than I did, but if I knew this was fair market value, I'd have said no to their initial feeler before hearing their offer. Of course, I'll sell, for a price... but my price is so far above the 'fair market value' of the company that for all practical purposes, you can think of me as being completely unwilling to sell. I mean, like everyone, I have my price, but I really, really like my company; my price is a /whole lot/ higher than one year's take. so, uh, yeah; I think a lot of times breaking off negotiations upon hearing an 'offensive' offer is the result not of a wounded pride but of a clear misunderstanding of the market value of the good at hand by one or both parties. If I'm willing to sleep with you for a million bucks and no less, if you offer me $100, it's probably not worth my time to try to talk you up. In that case, assuming that you are unable or unwilling to pay me the million bucks, there is /no difference/ between me being willing to sleep with you for a million bucks, and me not being willing to sleep with you for any amount of money at all.

ErrantX 16y ago

Agreed. Actually the question does still hold interest IMO because it forces her to acknowledge to herself that she may have a price. You say: In reality, most people have made that choice long ago and we know that they have their consequentialist price. And I agree; however I wonder how many people consciously know what their "price" decision they have made. I once actually conducted this experiment with a group of [volunteer] fellow students (both male and female) with interesting results. I pitched the question exactly as outlined here (a girlfriend asked the male members). The aim was to force this self-realisation of their "price" and subsequently we "bartered" for the real price they would accept. I realised a couple of things; firstly in realistic terms 1 million pounds is generally a lot lower than the "realistic price". When I followed up with the question "would you really sleep with me for a million" the answer was usually "no". The reason the girl says "maybe" in the initial instance is because she doesn't believe that I have a million pounds to offer. When I substituted £100,000 for a million the response rate tipped much harder towards "unlikely". To further test this theory I asked one of my more well of friends (who looked stereotypically rich) to conduct a similar survey - but this time to show them a cheque made of for £1 Million at the same time. Again the responses tended towards "unlikely" (and there was, actually, a larger amount of disgust at the idea). Once I got past this stage we bartered on what the "price" might be; invariably money was quickly removed from the table. Favours were preferred; for example attending as a date to a wedding was one price. When I forced conversations back to money the price went a lot higher. £10 Million was the minimum (this is possibly because 1 Million is not considered so much any more, I don't know). My well off friend had even more dramatic rises; one girl requested £5 Million a year for the next three years. More sex was generally offered in return for more complex rewards; for example in the above example (£5,000,0000/yr for 3 yrs) it was hashed out that a number of sexual encounters and "weekend breaks" were on the cards. For the men things were a lot simpler; they balked at any ides of being paid full stop. Almost to the man they refused payment and offered to sleep with the girl anyway. Out of interest I got a much plainer girl to ask the same question; there was still a general refusal to take money (although one or two "accepted" £100, preferring it to 1 Million) but also several outright refusals. With the plainer girl men offered to sleep with her (for no money), for my more attractive friend they offered to sleep with her and take her out to dinner. In fact dinner featured a lot in negotiations; there was actually a general aversion amongst the men (particularly, for some interesting reason, among the "jock" types) to simply having sex, a big majority preferred to offer a more complete "package". I have a partial theory that some were sidestepping the issue of money by proposing that the girl paid for dinner (or whatever date was agreed). This was conducted on a group of about 100 people I randomly grabbed outside our student union over a couple of afternoons :) there isn't a lot of structure to what we did, we just followed our noses. But I think there was some interesting stuff we discovered.