5 ms·

> "Real" negotiation takes place when there is no such equilibrium. For example, hostage negotiations, car sales, or a negotiation between a landlord and the te

by zeveb 7y ago

> "Real" negotiation takes place when there is no such equilibrium. For example, hostage negotiations, car sales, or a negotiation between a landlord and the tenant are of this sort. Maximizing your utility minimizes the other's utility, and vice versa. Ummm, hostage negotiations probably don't have a win-win, but I think that it's at least arguable that car sales and landlord-tenant negotiations do. After all, it's a win-win for the car buyer to have a car and the car dealer to have some dollars (lose-lose would be for the car-wanter to have no car, and the dealer to have no dollars). Likewise with landlord-tenant negotiations: the tenant wins by getting a place to use, and the landlord wins by getting money. Sure, the tenant would like to use the place with no restrictions whatsoever, and the landlord would like all the money of the richest tenant ever, but there's a point where each gets enough of what he wants to make the deal worth making.

LanceH 7y ago
The mistake in gp is that a car buyer and a tenant are not in a zero sum negotiation. If you look solely at the car purchase a buy and seller are. But there is more to that -- there is the time spent shopping and the advertising to acquire a customer. The clock is constantly running on both of those. So it is a positive (or elimination of a negative) to complete a deal. This is why it is easiest to negotiate when you don't actually need to.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
I agree, I'm not sure the car salesman example was good. With the landlord-tenant example I should have been more specific. I meant a case that I experienced myself, the ownership had changed and the new landlord wanted to raise the rent. I wanted to keep the old rent, which was my right. In the end I faltered, although I made an overall good deal for me, he managed to raise the rent by using the usual threat: We're going to have to build a balcony. He also cut off my phone cable. A really charming guy. Back then I didn't know the tricks of how to negotiate in such adversarial situations. Our goals were really just "raise rent vs. keep rent as is". You could say that it was still win-win, though, for example by pointing out that our secondary goals were to maintain good relations and not have any lawsuit.

by zeveb 7y ago

LanceH 7y ago

The mistake in gp is that a car buyer and a tenant are not in a zero sum negotiation. If you look solely at the car purchase a buy and seller are. But there is more to that -- there is the time spent shopping and the advertising to acquire a customer. The clock is constantly running on both of those. So it is a positive (or elimination of a negative) to complete a deal. This is why it is easiest to negotiate when you don't actually need to.

jonathanstrange 7y ago

I agree, I'm not sure the car salesman example was good. With the landlord-tenant example I should have been more specific. I meant a case that I experienced myself, the ownership had changed and the new landlord wanted to raise the rent. I wanted to keep the old rent, which was my right. In the end I faltered, although I made an overall good deal for me, he managed to raise the rent by using the usual threat: We're going to have to build a balcony. He also cut off my phone cable. A really charming guy. Back then I didn't know the tricks of how to negotiate in such adversarial situations. Our goals were really just "raise rent vs. keep rent as is". You could say that it was still win-win, though, for example by pointing out that our secondary goals were to maintain good relations and not have any lawsuit.