I would recommend a revision (close to a re-write) of the second vow for four reasons:
First, negotiations theory has progressed past game theory solutions to a more psychologically based methodology. This approach has been demonstrated to be more effective in two well tested and well studied environments: FBI hostage negotiations (I’d recommend starting with Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss as a light, entertaining but still useful introductory work), and intelligence community asset recruitment. You can look up the transition from the relatively explanatory MICE—money, ideology, compromise, ego—to RASCLS—reciprocity, authority, scarcity, consistency, liking, social proof. Note that in RASCLS all approaches essentially link to ego, though they may use the other MICE factors to get there.
Essentially, a lot of the time a dispute isn’t about the outcome, but about the process and establishing understanding for respective points of view. I understand that a less mathematically rigorous approach may at first seem less rational and less desirable. But ultimately from a utilitarian viewpoint, it’s most rational to choose the most effective method, even if that method is less “rational” than an alternate method.
Second, the second vow focuses too much on the target (a KS solution bargain to the disagreement) and too little on the process. Agreeing on how you will dispute is more important for maintaining concord than how you determine the outcome. Using a more specific procedure for arguments (especially serious ones) is useful, as it makes both parties know that they will have a fair opportunity to express themselves.
I would recommend sourcing from debate standards at least for the most serious arguments, possibly recorded so you can both review afterwards (British parliamentary debate rules are quite good, and there are various shortened forms). But even within the framework of searching for a KS solution, it’s important to have a pre-established method of presenting possible solutions, establishing scores for how desirable those solutions are for each party, etc., without further escalating the disagreement. Essentially some analogue to how facts and evidence can be established in a legal dispute.
Periodic (perhaps weekly) check ins to air grievances and make sure everyone is on the same page can also be useful.
Third, KS systems (like other game theory approaches) are difficult to quantify. It’s hard to assign a dollar value to taking out the trash versus doing the dishes. Time is a possible approach, but difficult to reconcile with how much you like/dislike an activity. Accompanying your partner for 30 minutes of listening to screaming metal on full blast may not be equivalent to 30 minutes of manual labor (in either direction). Adding in a scale of love <-> hate (say, 0-10) that then multiplies by that time is similarly a poor approach because people may prefer a short sharp pain to a longer but milder pain, but absolutely avoid a very short agonizing pain. Like most approaches that require a useful quantitative score, KS breaks down in the messy (and often inconsistent!) application of preferences.
Fourth, a KS/game-theory negotiations approach to disputes promotes an accounting approach to your relationship. “You should do X because I did Y...” and so on. This will provide a constant state of two parties keeping their own track of relative performance, which even without taking into account the likely bias towards their own viewpoints is likely to have fair divergence due to differences in accounting for various actions. Though small, there will be countless and never ending disagreements and dissatisfaction due to this approach, providing for a grit which will slowly (or not so slowly) erode your relationship.
The exact wording is something you may want to work out with your partner. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to refer to some agreement between you on methods of dispute resolution which can be changed at a later date with both parties’ agreement. But I think you’d find this sort of approach more effective and more rewarding.
First, negotiations theory has progressed past game theory solutions to a more psychologically based methodology.
Hmm. Do you have a reference which is not, like, an entire book?
Second, the second vow focuses too much on the target (a KS solution bargain to the disagreement) and too little on the process.
Well, the process is important, but I feel like the discourse norms exemplified by this community already have us covered there, give or take.
Third, KS systems (like other game theory approaches) are difficult to quantify. It’s hard to assign a dollar value to taking out the trash versus doing the dishes.
It’s not dollar value, it’s utilon value. I agree that quantification is challenging, but IMO it only reflects the complexity of the underlying reality that we have to deal with one way or the other. In principle, you can always quantify the utility function by asking enough questions of the form “do I prefer this lottery over outcomes to that lottery over outcomes”.
Fourth, a KS/game-theory negotiations approach to disputes promotes an accounting approach to your relationship.
I think that all relationships are already accounting, people are just not always honest about it. Problems arise from people having different expectations / standards of fairness that they expect others to follow while never negotiating them explicitly. The latter is what we want to avoid here.
I would recommend a revision (close to a re-write) of the second vow for four reasons:
First, negotiations theory has progressed past game theory solutions to a more psychologically based methodology. This approach has been demonstrated to be more effective in two well tested and well studied environments: FBI hostage negotiations (I’d recommend starting with Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss as a light, entertaining but still useful introductory work), and intelligence community asset recruitment. You can look up the transition from the relatively explanatory MICE—money, ideology, compromise, ego—to RASCLS—reciprocity, authority, scarcity, consistency, liking, social proof. Note that in RASCLS all approaches essentially link to ego, though they may use the other MICE factors to get there.
Essentially, a lot of the time a dispute isn’t about the outcome, but about the process and establishing understanding for respective points of view. I understand that a less mathematically rigorous approach may at first seem less rational and less desirable. But ultimately from a utilitarian viewpoint, it’s most rational to choose the most effective method, even if that method is less “rational” than an alternate method.
Second, the second vow focuses too much on the target (a KS solution bargain to the disagreement) and too little on the process. Agreeing on how you will dispute is more important for maintaining concord than how you determine the outcome. Using a more specific procedure for arguments (especially serious ones) is useful, as it makes both parties know that they will have a fair opportunity to express themselves.
I would recommend sourcing from debate standards at least for the most serious arguments, possibly recorded so you can both review afterwards (British parliamentary debate rules are quite good, and there are various shortened forms). But even within the framework of searching for a KS solution, it’s important to have a pre-established method of presenting possible solutions, establishing scores for how desirable those solutions are for each party, etc., without further escalating the disagreement. Essentially some analogue to how facts and evidence can be established in a legal dispute.
Periodic (perhaps weekly) check ins to air grievances and make sure everyone is on the same page can also be useful.
Third, KS systems (like other game theory approaches) are difficult to quantify. It’s hard to assign a dollar value to taking out the trash versus doing the dishes. Time is a possible approach, but difficult to reconcile with how much you like/dislike an activity. Accompanying your partner for 30 minutes of listening to screaming metal on full blast may not be equivalent to 30 minutes of manual labor (in either direction). Adding in a scale of love <-> hate (say, 0-10) that then multiplies by that time is similarly a poor approach because people may prefer a short sharp pain to a longer but milder pain, but absolutely avoid a very short agonizing pain. Like most approaches that require a useful quantitative score, KS breaks down in the messy (and often inconsistent!) application of preferences.
Fourth, a KS/game-theory negotiations approach to disputes promotes an accounting approach to your relationship. “You should do X because I did Y...” and so on. This will provide a constant state of two parties keeping their own track of relative performance, which even without taking into account the likely bias towards their own viewpoints is likely to have fair divergence due to differences in accounting for various actions. Though small, there will be countless and never ending disagreements and dissatisfaction due to this approach, providing for a grit which will slowly (or not so slowly) erode your relationship.
The exact wording is something you may want to work out with your partner. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to refer to some agreement between you on methods of dispute resolution which can be changed at a later date with both parties’ agreement. But I think you’d find this sort of approach more effective and more rewarding.
Hmm. Do you have a reference which is not, like, an entire book?
Well, the process is important, but I feel like the discourse norms exemplified by this community already have us covered there, give or take.
It’s not dollar value, it’s utilon value. I agree that quantification is challenging, but IMO it only reflects the complexity of the underlying reality that we have to deal with one way or the other. In principle, you can always quantify the utility function by asking enough questions of the form “do I prefer this lottery over outcomes to that lottery over outcomes”.
I think that all relationships are already accounting, people are just not always honest about it. Problems arise from people having different expectations / standards of fairness that they expect others to follow while never negotiating them explicitly. The latter is what we want to avoid here.