I think the important value here is not the assets changing hands as part of the exchange, but rather the value each party stands to gain from the exchange. Both parties are aligned that shaking hands on the current terms is acceptable to them, but they will both lie about that fact if they think it helps them move towards C or D.
Or to put it another way, in your frame I don’t think any kind of collaboration can ever be in anyone’s interests unless you are aligned in Every Single Thing.
If I save a drowning person, in a mercenary way it is preferable to them that I not only save them but also give them my wallet. Therefore my saving them was not a product of aligned interests (desire to not drown + desire to help others) since the poor fellow must now continue to pay off his credit card debt when his preference is to not do that.
For me, B > A > D > C, and for the drowning man, A > B > C > D (Here A = rescue + give wallet, B = rescue, no wallet, C = no rescue, throw wallet into water, D = walk away)
What matters in the drowning relationship (and the reason for our alignment) is B > C. Whether or not I give him my wallet is an independent variable from whether I save him and the resulting alignment should be considered separately.
In your example, I’m focusing on the alignment of A and B. Both parties will be dishonest about their views on A and B if they think it gets them closer to alignment on C and D. That’s the insincerity.
Hmm, the fact that C and D are even on the table makes it seem less collaborative to me, even if you are only explicitly comparing A and B. But I guess it is kind of subjective.
It’s a question of whether drawing a boundary on the “aligned vs. unaligned” continuum produces an empirically-valid category; and to this end, I think we need to restrict the scope to the issues actually being discussed by the parties, or else every case will land on the “unaligned” side. Here, both parties agree on where they stand vis-a-vis C and D, and so would be “Antagonistic” in any discussion of those options, but since nobody is proposing them, the conversation they actually have shouldn’t be characterized as such.
As I understood it, the whole point is that the buyer is proposing C as an alternative to A and B. Otherwise, there is no advantage to him downplaying how much he prefers A to B / pretending to prefer B to A.
I think the important value here is not the assets changing hands as part of the exchange, but rather the value each party stands to gain from the exchange. Both parties are aligned that shaking hands on the current terms is acceptable to them, but they will both lie about that fact if they think it helps them move towards C or D.
Or to put it another way, in your frame I don’t think any kind of collaboration can ever be in anyone’s interests unless you are aligned in Every Single Thing.
If I save a drowning person, in a mercenary way it is preferable to them that I not only save them but also give them my wallet. Therefore my saving them was not a product of aligned interests (desire to not drown + desire to help others) since the poor fellow must now continue to pay off his credit card debt when his preference is to not do that.
For me, B > A > D > C, and for the drowning man, A > B > C > D (Here A = rescue + give wallet, B = rescue, no wallet, C = no rescue, throw wallet into water, D = walk away)
What matters in the drowning relationship (and the reason for our alignment) is B > C. Whether or not I give him my wallet is an independent variable from whether I save him and the resulting alignment should be considered separately.
In your example, I’m focusing on the alignment of A and B. Both parties will be dishonest about their views on A and B if they think it gets them closer to alignment on C and D. That’s the insincerity.
Hmm, the fact that C and D are even on the table makes it seem less collaborative to me, even if you are only explicitly comparing A and B. But I guess it is kind of subjective.
It’s a question of whether drawing a boundary on the “aligned vs. unaligned” continuum produces an empirically-valid category; and to this end, I think we need to restrict the scope to the issues actually being discussed by the parties, or else every case will land on the “unaligned” side. Here, both parties agree on where they stand vis-a-vis C and D, and so would be “Antagonistic” in any discussion of those options, but since nobody is proposing them, the conversation they actually have shouldn’t be characterized as such.
As I understood it, the whole point is that the buyer is proposing C as an alternative to A and B. Otherwise, there is no advantage to him downplaying how much he prefers A to B / pretending to prefer B to A.