Conference turris::womannotes-v3

> In view of the different negotiation styles that abound (winning through
> intimidation, win-win negotiation, etc) what do you think about this?

I sometimes bluff, particularly in a zero-sum situation where bluffing is
expected. For example, I am in the process of buying a house, part of that
process is negotiating the price of the property - a classic zero-sum situation.
(For every dollar we reduce the price I win a dollar and they lose a dollar.)
I've bluffed at least twice in the negotiations so far, been called once, and
caught the seller bluffing at least once. We've also negotiated some things on
a win-win basis - but not the price.

I also bluff when driving - especially in Boston.

In other situations I never bluff and would be outraged to find the person I was
negotiating with was bluffing, non-zero sum negotiations where trust and full
disclosure was assumed. Note that bluffing can never really occur where there
is complete information (in the game theoretic sense.)

Bluffing in negotiations is pretty pervasive - budgets, schedules, deliverables,
things like that. Budgets we bluff about how much we really need to get a job
done, in schedules where two components are late they bluff about how close to
the deadline they'll go before announcing a slip (hoping the other component
will slip the schedule first "launch pad chicken" we call it, after the NASA
practice of waiting to see who would call the launch hold), we bluff about what
we can deliver when (corporations do this a lot, thus the term "vaporware.")

Bluffing is certainly endemic. Is it ethical? Hmmm - that's a good question, I
dunno. It's certainly ethical if all the players agree that it may occur, it may
not be if they haven't. Bluffing in Poker is certainly ethical (and necessary -
Poker would be a very different and boring game if bluffing were eliminated)
bluffing by a doctor discussing your treatment options is probably not.

	-- Charles

    Negotiation is, by definition, bluffing.  It is like fighting to boxing
    matches.  
    
    Eugene

> Negotiation is, by definition, bluffing.  It is like fighting to boxing
> matches.  
    
> Eugene

I disagree. Negotiation can be a process where both sides fully disclose their
capabilities and limitations and work towards a solution that satisfies the
contstraints of the problem. Bluffing comes in when some of the capabilities
or limitations are lied about. It is possible to negotiate without bluffing,
in some overconstrained problems choosing to relax constraints in order to 
solve the problem - the negotiation is which constraints to relax. A win-win
situation is where all participants are trying to maximize the total return
for everyone (or maximize the smallest return that any individual gets or some
other such criterion.)

The problem with bluffing is that it, by it's nature, is adversarial, and not
all negotiation situations are adversarial - some are cooperative.

	-- Charles

    r .3,
    
    When two sides go into a negotiation, they already know that the other
    side has something it needs.  If no bluffing is involved,
    there wouldn't be any negotiation at all.  One side will set a fair price
    and the other will gladly pay for it.  The problem comes in when one
    side tries to pay as less as it can get away with and the other tries
    to maximize the profit of the sale.  Hence, negotiation.
    
    Eugene     

    How do they decide what a fair price is? I claim they negotiate. If you
    define negotiation as adversarial and zero-sum (whatever I win you must
    lose) then yes, negotiation will involve bluffing. But I don't (and I
    don't believe the original author doesn't) define negotiation that way.
    
    Given that I agree with your original note, given your definition,
    would you answer the question from my point of view?
    
    (Are we negotiating? Is one of us bluffing?)
    
    	-- Charles

    A fair price is the price that is the production cost plus the market
    rate interest.  Life would be a lot easier if everyone plays
    straight-forwardly, but being the way we are, there is nothing unethical
    about bluffing in wheeling and dealing.  I still remember how I bought 
    my car.  I knew I was out of my league.  Fortunately, I knew someone 
    who could really do that kinda thing.  Negotiation is always a 
    zero-sum game.  Business transaction is always a "zero-sum" deal.  
    
    Eugene

        re .6,
        
>> A fair price is the price that is the production cost plus the market
>> rate interest.
        
        A fair price is what the owner and buyer mutually agree to.
        
        Dan
        

    Fair.

    A negotiation, as part of a larger business transaction, ought to be
    conducted with honesty, in my opinion, because business ought not to be
    treated as a poker game with the rules known by the players.  
    
    A negotiation by itself, not in such a context, fine... bluff...just so
    long as everyone knows (or ought to know) the rules of the game.
    
    mdh

    "because business ought not to be treated as a poker game with the
    rules known by the players."
    
    Why? If the rules are known? I could understand if you personally
    didn't like those rules - I know I don't sometimes - but if the rules
    are known by the players, what's the problem? I guess what I'm asking
    is what's the moral or ethical reason that we should be "honest" in
    negotiations? Learning true things about the other person's position
    has real value to me in a negotiation, should they be required to give
    that to me for free? I can bluff by witholding information as well as
    teling lies - is that unethical? Must I disclose my weaknesses in a
    negotiation?
    
    I claim it depends on what we're trying to accomplish. If we're trying
    to cooperate to a common goal, yes you should tell your weaknesses as
    well as your strengths. If we're competing for a goal that only one of
    us can win, I would be a fool to reveal my weaknesses - and that could
    well be considered bluffing.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. Eugene - if you want to define "negotiation" as always zero-sum
    that's fine, change the question: under what circumstances is bluffing
    ethical, and what circumstances not? Is bluffing always ethical in a
    zero-sum situation (where whatever I win, you lose)? Is it ever ethical
    in a non-zero sum situation (where we can both lose, or both win,
    depending on our combined actions?)

    
    Yes - I usually bluff when I'm negotiating.
    
    I believe that, in business, there's the "old school" of negotiating
    which was to do with confrontation, agression, notch-scoring and
    a winner/loser model.....and there is an emerging new school of
    negotation which is to do with openness, honesty, and a win/win
    situation.
    
    The former method requires bluffing - the latter doesn't.
    
    I believe that the key to whether you use method 1 or method 2
    with a customer is TRUST. Trust built up though time, through
    a relationship, through both sides having proven their commitment
    to a mutual non-ripoff policy. I don't believe that we are usually
    in this kind of relationship with our customers for various reasons
    that I won't get heated about here....
    
    Basically, unless I have good reason to believe that I am entering
    a "new" negotiation I will assume that it's an "old style" one
    and play up, bluff, parry, shadow box, duck and dive and assume
    all the "normal tactics".
    
    'gail

    >Why? If the rules are known?
    
    Because business is not a distinct entity; it is part of the fabric of
    society.  Consider, on any given day, the people with whom DIGITAL,
    f'rinstance, interacts:  customers, vendors, shareholders, employees,
    local communities, competitors, government, plus the fact that we are
    an integral part of the local and global economic community.  Now, do
    you still think it's possible for everyone of those to "know the rules"
    if a company is not open?
    
    mdh

    "Klingons never bluff" he says as he lays down 4 aces.
    
    Actually, bluffing is perfectly OK _IF_ you are ready to accept 
    that your bluff may be called. If you are willing to accept the
    loss that may come from that, go ahead. But if you can't stand to
    lose (whatever) then don't risk it on a bluff. 
    
    As an (extreme) example, don't threaten your SO with "If you insist 
    that we dine with the Jones's I'll file for divorce" unless you're truly
    ready to handle the single life :-)/2
    

    
    
    	RE: 11 
    
    	The comment about TRUST bears some discussion I think.
    	I will concede that the "old school" of negotiating
    	is what is more commonly used. However, it is this
    	same "old school" style that causes me to get ready
    	for a battle when I go out to transact any kind of
    	business. Be it buying a new car, 'negotiating' with
    	a physician as to whether certain tests, etc. are
    	necessary and if so, for what reason and for whos good?
    
    	I think that the ethics of the whole thing come in when
    	we consider the long run results of the type of negotiation
    	we have entered into with those we do business with. If
    	we charge a customer 'what the traffic will bear' after
    	running a bluff during contract negotiations, will that
    	customer be real easy or willing to do business with us
    	later? Will we have gotten a short term gain only to suffer
    	a long term loss? Credibility is a thing you have going in
    	to a negotiation. You must prove yourself worthy to retain 
    	it. 
    							kim
    

    I think bluffing is all part of the "art of the deal" being negotiated.
    In business, it's expected and even sometimes, respected as in one
    up-man-ship.  I think it depends on the situation whether or not it's
    ethical.  I would say that bluffing or bargaining, if you will, goes
    back as far as time and probably will continue until the end of time
    or until we humans develop esp and can ferret out each other's 
    thoughts.  I, personally, would probably bluff when negotiating
    business but would not do so in a personal situation as with SO or
    friends unless it was just for fun and I told the other person what
    I was doing - after the fact.
    
    Sue
    

    In the most recent "Ms." there was an article on a study done on
    automobile purchase.  Racism and sexism were strongly evidenced
    in the price the participants were able to end up with.  I
    recommend reading it; I don't recommend using it as a (favorable)
    example of negotiation.
    
    						Ann B.

    Look fellas, what ought to be is different from what is.
    As -b said, if you lay all your cards on the table, there isn't
    anything to negotiate about.  You either take it or leave it.  But real
    people don't work like that.  What really happens is this.  A has
    something B wants to buy.  A set a lower limit of 1 million bucks, and
    ask for 2 million.  So the art of negotiation begins with bluffing.
    B is willing to pay as much as 2 million, but returns an offer of 1 
    million.  A then counter offers 1.8, and B returns with 1.2.  They
    finally settle at 1.5.
    
    It is an institutionaized adverserial system like the justice system
    where you get lawyers and prosecutor fighting and bluffing each other.
    They even have plead bargains.
    
    .17,
    
    I think you are right that car dealers take advantage of women, but I
    won't call it sexism.  This is all about money.  These guys will take
    whatever advantage they can over anyone they can.  Refusing to serve
    Blacks/women/Asians in the coffee shop is racism.  Try to sell you
    something you don't want at the twice the price is not. 
    
    Eugene 

    > I think you are right that car dealers take advantage of women, but I
    > won't call it sexism.  This is all about money.  These guys will take
    
    Consistently picking women and minorities as targets for harder
    negotiating is certainly sexism.
    
    DougO

I hear that Porter Honda in Cambridge doesn't negotiate on cars.  They say
this is our invoice cost - we charge you x (where x is low, someimes $200
or so) over invoice.  Period.  No negotiation, no discussion, everyone gets
the same low price.

When I first heard that (unfortunately *after* I bought my car) I said
"What a marvelous idea!"  If I had known I would have bought my car there.
I wonder why more dealerships don't do that?  My first reaction on
that was that if more people knew about it, then *everyone*would buy their
cars at Porter Honda. Then I realized that some people like negotiating and
some people think they really pay less that way.  Not me - I figure, the
car sellers are pros, they decide how much they want, and they'll get it.
I would rather just pay it up front, rather than having to go through the
neogitiation ritual.

So I don't like negotiation, and I especially don't like bluffing. (No
car dealer even expects to get what they ask for.)  Do I think it is
unethical?  No, not if everyone is aware of the rules.  However, it tends
to be unethical, because when is *everyone* aware of the rules?  How many
first time car buyers pay full price because they don't even know that
negotiation is an option?

D!

    Yeah, D!, I prefer straightforwardness too.  It's true about Porter
    Chevy/Honda and the $200 over factory invoice.  There are a number
    of dealers in the country who do this and they came under fire a
    while back, when the other dealers tried to put pressure on the 
    Detroit automakers not to do business with dealerships like Porter.
    I heard that for a while at least Porter found it difficult to
    get their orders for cars filled from GM.
    
    Mary

    re .19,
    
    I don't know about minority.  My friend who negotiated my car deal
    is an Indian.  I first had another friend do the bargaining and he is a
    White Anglo-Saxon Episcopalian, and he couldn't get the deal to go below
    $6600.  My Indian friend asked me how much lower I wanted to get and I 
    told him that of course I wanted to be as low as possible but I would be 
    happy at $6400.  He got that deal within 10 minutes.  Come on fellas, 
    those guys are really after money, and that ain't no sexism.  What is 
    consistant about those guys is they target everyone who doesn't negotiate 
    well even if they are WASP Episcopalians.  That is why there are
    professional negotiators for Leverage Buy Outs or any form of business deals
    even though almost all the people in charge are white male.  It is a
    jungle out there as they say it, and wolfs eat every sheep they can
    find regardless of the color of their wool, white or black.  Is it
    ethical?  Sure, this is called business ethics taught in Ivy business
    school.
    
    Eugene

    re .20, 21,
    
    They will get my next car deal.
    
    Eugene

    Eugene,
    
    I think you should read the article before denying its conclusions,
    especially since you have only one data point.
    
    						Ann B.

	Not to rathole too badly, but I've found the best way to negotiate
with car dealers is to be incredibly stubborn.  I sat in a dealership I
wouldn't recommend to anyone and when asked repeatedly "How much do you want
to pay for the car?" answered, "The least amount you'll sell it to me for."

	(I did say "Consumer Reports tells me the car costs you approximately
$x and I know you need to make a profit - what will you sell me the car for?")

	In the end, I got them to agree to sell me the car for 22% off the list
(plus throw in fog lights) and then I turned and took that offer to a dealer I
liked better and they matched it.

	It's an ugly method, and if it weren't for my feeling that the guy I
was dealing with at the not-recommended dealership was lower than pond scum,
I might not have pushed so hard.

	On the general topic.  I usually don't bluff, but I don't show all
my cards up front either.

						--Doug

	

RE:         <<< Note 722.22 by HPSTEK::XIA "In my beginning is my end." >>>

>    well even if they are WASP Episcopalians.  That is why there are
>    professional negotiators for Leverage Buy Outs or any form of business deals
>    even though almost all the people in charge are white male.  It is a
>    jungle out there as they say it, and wolfs eat every sheep they can
>    find regardless of the color of their wool, white or black.  Is it
>    ethical?  Sure, this is called business ethics taught in Ivy business
>    school.
    
Are you saying that because it is taught at Ivy League Business
schools, that it is right?  If so, I disagree.  Also, I'm not sure
that dog eat dog is exclusively taught at business school.  More
enlightened people are now studying and researching things like
win-win negotiations.  Another point is that if you want to continue
to have a long-standing business relationship with someone, you aren't
likely to try and get them for everything you can all the time.

Of course, the aggressive, competitive model economic behavior where
the role purpose is to increase capitol is not the only model around
altough it seems to be the dominant one these days.

john

    re .25, that reminds me of the last time I bought a car.  One dealer I
    went to kept asking me, "What do you want to pay for the car?" and I
    kept replying, "What are you willing to sell it to me for?" and this
    went on for about 6 replies back and forth!  Finally, I got so sick of
    it I yelled out, "I'd really like you to give it to me, okay?!!!"
    
    I ended up leaving and not buying a car there.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    	So, to move to another situation, what about divorce
    	and child custody "negotiations"? How would you perceive
    	the ethics of a bluff (maybe maybe not) by the opposition
    	to win custody (or support)?
    							kim
    

    re .24,
    
    I think it is obvious that these guys are after our money and couldn't
    care less about whether one is male or female.  Many car dealers are
    among the worst of the wolfs.  If they can make more money out of white
    with XYZ tactics, they will do it.  If they can make more money out
    of blacks with ABC tactics, they will do it.  If they can make more
    money out of me with UVW tactics, they will do it.  If they can make
    more money out of women with IJK tactics, they will do it.  Now, they
    sure use different tactics on men and women.  You might call that
    sexism, but the bottom line motivation is not racial prejudice.  It is
    because men and women react differently in negotiations and those guys
    design different tactics for the different sexes.
    
    re .26,
    Look, I am not talking about right or wrong here.  I am telling the
    truth and facts as I see them.  I don't very much like the way it is
    either, but I figure out the games a long time ago.  If
    push comes to shove, I can hold my ground as well as anyone, but I
    don't thrive on them and would like to avoid these games as much as
    possible.  That is why I haven't made big in business.  
    
    Those adverseral systems are designed to mold people's greed into something
    productive.  If everyone were honest and perfect, communism would have
    been a prefered system.  So instead of talking about what everything should
    be, we should first learn what it is and how to make it better in a
    realistic way.  As one pray says "I pray that God
    grants me the courage to change what I can change and accept what I
    cannot and the wisdom to know the difference."... or something like
    that. 
    
    Eugene

    re: bluffing in general
    
    First off, what's a negotiation?  Is it a contest or people
    working toward a common end?  Either way, bluffing seems like
    a waste of time to me.
    
    Looking at it from one angle, I see bluffing as taking advantage
    of someone's ignorance/good nature/mistakes/inexperience.  I
    don't think I can find a lot of satisfaction doing that.  [I
    don't equate money and happiness and I'm not overly competitive 
    (except with myself).]
    
    From another angle, I think of bluffing as a form of gambling;
    I never bet what I can't afford to lose and I determine
    beforehand when it's time to walk away.
    
    From still another angle, if someone is trying to bluff me
    and I know said person is bluffing, I'm likely to get quite
    annoyed.  If I get really annoyed, I'd call the person on
    it, just to be nasty (not one of my better traits).
    
    n(asty)la
    

> From still another angle, if someone is trying to bluff me
> and I know said person is bluffing, I'm likely to get quite
> annoyed.  If I get really annoyed, I'd call the person on
> it, just to be nasty (not one of my better traits).

Ahh - but if I know that about you, as I might in a poker game, I would
deliberately try to convince you that I was bluffing when I was not, just
so that you would call me on it - and lose. A "meta-bluff" is still a bluff...

I suspect your reaction would be to not play poker with me, and to be mad at
me for it - which is the point that other people were making about bluffing,
that the scope of the game is larger than the participants might think.

> First off, what's a negotiation?  Is it a contest or people
> working toward a common end?  Either way, bluffing seems like
> a waste of time to me.

I don't understand this. If a negotiation is a contest, then why is bluffing
a waste of time? I can see that if a negotiation is working to a common end
then it might be a waste of time - or counterproductive, but in a contest?

> Looking at it from one angle, I see bluffing as taking advantage
> of someone's ignorance/good nature/mistakes/inexperience.  I
> don't think I can find a lot of satisfaction doing that.  [I
> don't equate money and happiness and I'm not overly competitive 
> (except with myself).]

That's fine - but what about the person who is solely focused on making money?
Is it ethical for them to take advantage of your ignorance and good nature, in
order to make more money? Bluffing might be unethical for you - but what about
them? Is the bluffing unethical for everyone? Even for those whose goal is to
"win" regardless of the consequences? I might feel sorry for those people for
other reasons, but I don't think their bluffing would be one of them.

	-- Charles

    

I believe you can have negotation with "all the cards on the table". Is it
bluffing to say you can have it "fast, cheap, easy, pick two"? Only so much can
be done in x amount of time and effort. Software developement schedules seem the
classic example. I liked Charles' "launch pad chicken" example. I've seen it
done often. It does seem a bit unethical but it's not really negotiation.

Should every buyer get exactly the same price always? Is it "fair" to sell each
unit for less to a volume buyer who "negotitates" a deal? I think it is. The
volume buyer gives the manufaturer more than the single unit purchaser. It's
not bluffing to offer a better deal. liesl

    In this month's "Changing Times" in a section on cars, I found the
    following:
    
    	"Blacks and women pay the highest prices for new cars, according
    	to a widely reported study by Ian Ayres, an assistant professor
    	at the Northwestern University School of Law. The study found
    	that dealers in Chicago routinely quoted higher prices to black
    	researchers and white female researchers than to white male
    	researchers during bargaining. The differences ranged from $142 to
    	$875."
    
    The article goes on to discuss civil rights implications, and
    bargaining strategies. It also discussed other factors that affected
    the final price people paid. Among the less obvious: not taking a test
    drive *reduced* the final price by about $200, presumably because the
    dealer assumed that you were already familiar with the car, and were
    shopping around. People who said they did not own a car ended up paying
    several hundred dollars more - presumably because it was assumed that
    they would have a harder time shopping, or were less experienced car
    shoppers. The article also discusses strategies for minimizing these
    differentials, and recommends that people who are poor negotiators
    consider goint through an auto broker. They will do the haggling, and
    provide a genderless, racially unbiased, negotiation. They generally
    get cars for several hundred dollars over dealer invoice.
    
    	-- Charles
    

    
    Question:
    
    Do you apply different rules for whether you bluff in negotiation or not
    depending on whether the deal is "business" or "personal"?
    
    For example - if you're a salesperson for DEC, do you happily bluff
    on company "deals", but prefer to keep personal "deals" more 
    straightforward?
    
    Or is it "once a bluffer, always a bluffer"?
    
    'gail

    Re: .34  'gail
    
    Thanks for bringing up the issue of different rules.  Yes I do apply
    different rules.  When dealing with a friendship or intimate
    relationship there is a trust that the other person also has your
    interests in mind.  I like to apply an analogy from team sports.
    There's a different set of rules for your teammates and the opposing
    team members; you play win-win with your teammates and win-lose with
    the other team.  For me its not a strict business/personal difference;
    in some business relations you have teammates, too.
    
    The hard part is figuring out who is on your side, who to trust. 
    Nothing more exasperating than trying to play win-win with someone who
    is determined to play win-lose.
    
    Mary

    re .34
    
    Absolutely, there is a world of difference.  One should never bluff a
    friend.  In fact, even in business, I never bluff first.  I give everyone
    a chance (even to car salesman).  Essentially, I am sending a message
    saying that I think if we are both being honest, things will be much
    easier for everyone involved.  However, if I am sensing someone is
    playing game with me, I will stand my ground.  Fortunately, so far, the
    need of bluffing hasn't rised except in dealing with a few car salesmen.
    
    Eugene

> One should never bluff a friend.

Oh Eugene, it is so refreshing to find someone who sees the world in such
crisp shades of black and white. Some of my friends and I *like* bluffing each
other. They'd be shocked and angry to find that I hadn't made the effort and
had denied them their little pleasure.

Gads, I'd never play poker without bluffing, and I don't play poker with anyone
but friends. Diplomacy on the other hand - I'd never play Diplomacy without
bluffing, but I NEVER play Diplomacy with friends. At least they aren't friends
after we're done playing...

Lest you get the wrong idea about our poker games, it's not just "for fun." We
play poker for less than we can afford to lose, but more than you'd be happy
giving away.

	-- Charles

    re .37,
    
    Now Charles, poker game is a different beast.  I had my second poker
    game last Friday and won big (or rather small, or as you said it much 
    "less than we could afford to lose").  Part of the reason being that 
    everyone else was drinking beer, but I think it is also a tribute to my 
    natural talent and skill.  After all I was playing with a group of 
    friends of poker veterans, and this is only the second time I played.
    
    Eugene

    a personal observation on poker
    
    I have been playing poker for more than 36 years.
    I don't believe I have EVER sat in on a poker game where it was not
    obvious to one or more players that X, or X & Y are 'fish'. Where 'fish'
    is defined as those people whose purpose it is to give money to the
    rest of the players. (almost never discussed).
    
    Each of you who has played regular poker I'm sure can attest to the
    fact that their are 'chronic' winners and 'chronic' losers in your
    poker playing group.
    
    As in poker, bluffing in negotiation on works when all the parties
    concerned are playing with the same deck (and each of the parties is
    playing with a full deck. (which is not typically the case in either
    poker or auto purchasing)

> I have been playing poker for more than 36 years.
> I don't believe I have EVER sat in on a poker game where it was not
> obvious to one or more players that X, or X & Y are 'fish'. Where 'fish'
> is defined as those people whose purpose it is to give money to the
> rest of the players. (almost never discussed).

    I have a poker saying I like to quote:

	"If you sit down at a poker table, and can't spot the 'fish', get
	up... you're it."

    The funny thing is that the people who are 'fish' never seem to think
    it applies to them... Now me, I sometimes play even when I'm the 'fish',
    because that's how I learn.

What does this have to do with bluffing? Well, not a lot except that poker is
the classic place where bluffing is expected. I would have to say that when
faced with a win/lose (zero-sum) negotiating session, the first thing I try
(if I can) is to turn it into a win/win situation. That's not always possible.
If not - I negotiate as best I can, and that almost always includes some kind of
"bluffing". Either hiding material information, misrepresenting my goals,
understating my desire, overstating their negatives, and I expect them to do
likewise.

		-- Charles

    yeah, bluffing in poker is as vital as bluffing when playing some
    aliens in Cosmic Encounters!  heck - if you're given the ability - use
    it to your best advantage where you feel it's most required.
    
    I don't think I bluff very well, nor do I lie well, and I really don't
    appreciate or enjoy either very much.  I play it straight a vast
    majority of the time in real life.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I'm surprised that no one's mentioned the wonderful little book
    called _Getting_to_Yes_ by Roger Fisher and William Ury, of the
    Harvard Negotiation Project.
    
    This is a great little book, very readable, and packed with real-life
    examples: negotiating a settlement with an insurance company,
    buying a car, divorce settlements, settling landlord-tenant issues,
    international peace agreements, and more.
    
    The most important thing about this book is how it shows how to turn
    what may look like a win-lose situation into a win-win situation.
    
    I make it a point to reread this book every so often.
    

re .-1
    
    
    <As in poker, bluffing in negotiation on works when all the parties
    <concerned are playing with the same deck (and each of the parties is
    <playing with a full deck. (which is not typically the case in either
    <poker or auto purchasing)
    
    Or in most other activities where negotiation is involved, and where
    the outcome is a lot less innocuous than losing or winning $5 or $10 .

    Or in most other activities where negotiation is involved, and where
    the outcome is a lot less innocuous than losing or winning $5 or $10 .

Sometimes the importance the various players attach to the results can confound
even strict zero-sum accounting. If I have nothing, $5 can be the difference
between starving today, or living till tomorrow. If I'm negotiating on a
$300,000 mortgage, $5 isn't even worth negotiating about - it's less than
two hours worth of interest on the loan. So even theoretical "zero-sum" is
often actually not - this can help turn win/lose into win/win.

	-- Charles

        re .44,
        
>> If I'm negotiating on a $300,000 mortgage, $5 isn't even
>> worth negotiating about - it's less than two hours worth
>> of interest on the loan.
        
        He's right, I checked.  At 10% per year that comes out to
        $3.42 per hour, so two hours worth exceeds $5.  Two hours
        worth equals $5 at 7.3% per year.

        Dan

re: .31

Poker's just a game to me (I know, that's sacrilege to a lot of folks) and,
in the scheme of things, the outcome doesn't matter much.  I play games for
fun, don't care much if I win or lose; hence, in this instance, it's
unlikely I'd get annoyed, much less mad.  Even after reading the ensuing
replies, I'd play poker with you, Charles, (though you may not enjoy
playing with me 8*)).


>I don't understand this. If a negotiation is a contest, then why is bluffing
>a waste of time?

Because bluffing is a maybe (it might work, it might not); if I am out to
win (the objective of a contest), I won't waste my time with a maybe, I'll
go straight for the win.  [I guess this has to do with my discomfort at
"competing"--I want to get it over with as soon as possible! Unfortunately
for me, life doesn't always work that way, does it?]


>That's fine - but what about the person who is solely focused on making money?
>Is it ethical for them to take advantage of your ignorance and good nature, in
>order to make more money? Bluffing might be unethical for you - but what about
>them? Is the bluffing unethical for everyone? Even for those whose goal is to
>"win" regardless of the consequences?  I might feel sorry for those people for
>other reasons, but I don't think their bluffing would be one of them.

The constant here is this:  any action that doesn't meet my standard for
ethics is indeed unethical *to me*.  It may not be unethical to you or
anyone else--and that's OK.  I don't really expect the world to live by my
standards (especially since I don't always myself 8*)) but I'm not going to
do something I think is wrong or that makes me uncomfortable, just because
it's "acceptable" to others.

I'm sure you noticed that my behavior and my feelings (in note .xx)
changed considerably, from feeling bad about bluffing someone else to
feeling annoyed--even vengeful--at being bluffed myself.  Bottom line
is, they depend on the situation and my role in it (not to mention my
mood).  Funny thing, though, bluffing doesn't leave me feeling any better
about myself or the world in general so it's something I try to avoid doing.

nla
    

> I'd play poker with you, Charles, (though you may not enjoy playing
> with me 8*))

Au contraire! I too employ different standards when playing any game "for fun"
or when playing seriously. I would enjoy taking your money... :-)

>> I don't understand this. If a negotiation is a contest, then why is bluffing
>> a waste of time?

> Because bluffing is a maybe (it might work, it might not); if I am out to
> win (the objective of a contest), I won't waste my time with a maybe, I'll
> go straight for the win.  [I guess this has to do with my discomfort at
> "competing"--I want to get it over with as soon as possible! Unfortunately
> for me, life doesn't always work that way, does it?]

Bluffing is indeed a maybe, it may improve your result or it may not. Not
bluffing is guaranteed to not improve your result. My contention is that in
fact, in zero-sum (win/lose) negotiations bluffing over time results in a higher
payback. Your milage may vary.

> any action that doesn't meet my standard for ethics is indeed unethical
> *to me*

Ah - universal morality. I'm familiar with the philosophy, I disagree with it.
That's ok, we can talk about something else.

	-- Charles