16 ms·

On the face of it, this sounds like a modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money". Which is prob

by maeil 2y ago

On the face of it, this sounds like a modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money". Which is probably correct in 95% of modern business transactions. But surely a skilled negotiator should be able to tell when they're dealing with a party for whom this assumption does not hold. That's one of the main things that being a skilled negotiator is about; the ability to adapt to this particular counterparty in this particular negotiation, instead of adhering to blanket rules.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money"1 This is not a modern-capitalism take, maybe just a modern-capitalism phrasing. If you read "money" as common unit of value (which it is), not just dollars in hand specifically, then the statement is effectively true for 99%+ of people; the few for which it doesn't hold are considered insane[0], and we try to fix them or lock away in institutions, for the safety of everyone else[1]. There's no absolute value you won't compromise if the cost of keeping it is high enough, or equivalently, the benefit of breaking it is high enough. Having principles, integrity, is a way to boost the cost of some behaviors ahead of time, so you won't be tempted to engage in them even if presented with substantial rewards. It's particularly effective if other people know your stated principles and will hold you accountable. But it's still a finite threshold that can be overcome (especially with of companies, where principles generally are just pure marketing). A skilled negotiator understands that everyone will sell out on their principles if the reward is big enough - but they also understand that it cuts both ways. Negotiation is a dance of allocating costs and benefits so that everyone actually gets something out of it[2]. It makes little sense otherwise. -- [0] - Absolute principles are like probabilities 0 and 1 in probability theory - they break the math. Or zero in general whenever you want to do multiplication or division. You don't want absolute principles, or anything you do will be defined purely by them. [1] - And/or stuck in cults as followers; notably cult leaders tend to be very much pragmatic and money-oriented. [2] - Relative to the non-negotiated/fought outcome. "Your money or your life" sucks for the mugging victim either way, but the victim prefers being alive to being dead and the mugger prefers theft to theft + murder, so a negotiation is still worthwhile for both.
- Kinrany 2y ago
  The carrot and the stick cannot increase indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much money you lose once it's more than everything you have, and it doesn't matter how much you gain if it's enough to get everything you want except for what you're trading away.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Money is a token for value, but it is not the only such token, and different kinds of power are not fully fungible.
- maeil 2y ago
  The principle is the basis of the reward/value and the reward/value is the basis of the principle. They're so intertwined, they can't be separated. The fact that one can always conceive a theoretical "more valuable thing" is trivially true, but does not seem practically meaningful. The idea of a principle here is that the perceived value of sticking to it, or the perceived negative value of abandoning it, is so large that realistically the counterparty will not be able to offer anything that will surpass it.

by maeil 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money"1 This is not a modern-capitalism take, maybe just a modern-capitalism phrasing. If you read "money" as common unit of value (which it is), not just dollars in hand specifically, then the statement is effectively true for 99%+ of people; the few for which it doesn't hold are considered insane[0], and we try to fix them or lock away in institutions, for the safety of everyone else[1]. There's no absolute value you won't compromise if the cost of keeping it is high enough, or equivalently, the benefit of breaking it is high enough. Having principles, integrity, is a way to boost the cost of some behaviors ahead of time, so you won't be tempted to engage in them even if presented with substantial rewards. It's particularly effective if other people know your stated principles and will hold you accountable. But it's still a finite threshold that can be overcome (especially with of companies, where principles generally are just pure marketing). A skilled negotiator understands that everyone will sell out on their principles if the reward is big enough - but they also understand that it cuts both ways. Negotiation is a dance of allocating costs and benefits so that everyone actually gets something out of it[2]. It makes little sense otherwise. -- [0] - Absolute principles are like probabilities 0 and 1 in probability theory - they break the math. Or zero in general whenever you want to do multiplication or division. You don't want absolute principles, or anything you do will be defined purely by them. [1] - And/or stuck in cults as followers; notably cult leaders tend to be very much pragmatic and money-oriented. [2] - Relative to the non-negotiated/fought outcome. "Your money or your life" sucks for the mugging victim either way, but the victim prefers being alive to being dead and the mugger prefers theft to theft + murder, so a negotiation is still worthwhile for both.

Kinrany 2y ago
The carrot and the stick cannot increase indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much money you lose once it's more than everything you have, and it doesn't matter how much you gain if it's enough to get everything you want except for what you're trading away.
ben_w 2y ago
Money is a token for value, but it is not the only such token, and different kinds of power are not fully fungible.
maeil 2y ago
The principle is the basis of the reward/value and the reward/value is the basis of the principle. They're so intertwined, they can't be separated. The fact that one can always conceive a theoretical "more valuable thing" is trivially true, but does not seem practically meaningful. The idea of a principle here is that the perceived value of sticking to it, or the perceived negative value of abandoning it, is so large that realistically the counterparty will not be able to offer anything that will surpass it.