In real life, do you feel high-status or low-status? High-status people feel like they deserve more, so it would be probably natural for them to extract as much value as possible, while “the bare minimum is good enough for me” would be a natural attitude of a low-status person.
High-status people feel like they deserve more, so it would be probably natural for them to extract as much value as possible, while “the bare minimum is good enough for me” would be a natural attitude of a low-status person.
I question that analysis.
High status can certainly create a sense of entitlement in some people, like how rich people generally leave awful tips, but at the same time you can see a sort of noblesse oblige in others which leads to huge charitable donations and voluntarily forgoing chances to improve their position (like sending their kids to public schools). Low status people generally have a lot less to lose and thus tend to be a lot more pragmatic in my experience.
Thank you, this has prompted some very useful thoughts.
you can see a sort of noblesse oblige in others which leads to huge charitable donations and voluntarily forgoing chances to improve their position
This feels close to my situation. I come from a high-privilege family with a long tradition of self-sacrifice and doing good works.
I thought of a theory to explain my situation. Part of my problem is not really wanting to win in negotiations. I do want to win, just not as much as I want to avoid feeling socially awkward and grasping. When the negotiation stakes are small for me, I would rather spend more money and feel better. When the stakes are negligible for all, like in games, I play to win. When the stakes are very high for me, it would be rational to negotiate hard, but I don’t do that as much as I want to, out of habit learned on smaller stakes and because I do hyperbolic discounting and weigh feeling awkward now higher than losing lots of money long term.
The stakes in the role play negotiation were negligible, but I still did badly. However, it felt real enough while I was doing it. I was feeling very awkward.
Exposure and deliberate practice seem like good ways of reducing the awkwardness. Another line is to work on the hyperbolic discounting. I could think of the decision in Timeless terms: “I’m making the awkwardness vs profit decision for all similar negotiations.” Or I could think what I would advise a needy friend to do.
High-status people feel like they deserve more, so it would be probably natural for them to extract as much value as possible, while “the bare minimum is good enough for me” would be a natural attitude of a low-status person.
That may be a factor, but that’s one factor out of many.
Let me offer a similar argument but one that points in a different direction:
High-status people feel secure in their position so there’s less pressure on them to “win” and they would be more willing to give up some stuff for warm fuzzies.
Or another one:
Rich people don’t care about monetary rewards as much so in negotiations they would be willing to exchange financial benefits (the common subject of negotiations) for other things not usually measured as outcomes (time, status or, again, warm fuzzies).
I am not particularly attached to these two assertions, the point is the ease of making them and others like them.
I definitely feel high-status. I’m in a high income percentile, and have substantially higher net worth than that most people with my income history, because I’ve made good decisions about how to use my income. Obviously, I know people who are higher status and wealth than me, but I mostly compare myself to people who are not. (Partly a deliberate choice to try to boost happiness and life satisfaction.)
There might be a status connection. To exaggerate, it feels more like “someone of my status shouldn’t stoop to grubbing around with low-status arguments about money” rather than “someone of my status doesn’t deserve money”. That might be a contributory factor, but it feels like the effect size is small.
In the negotiations I feel regret about, I definitely felt like the higher-status participant, but the less experienced at negotiation. Or rather, the less effective one.
An idea: Next time, before you start playing, precommit to converting the game money to real money by some nice coefficient, sending it to an effective charity, and writing about it (including the specific sum) on LessWrong. Then imagine that you are the only person who will ever send money to that charity, and that this is your only opportunity for sending.
That sounds worth trying. Thanks. Intuitively it feels as though it would make me care about the game outcome like I care about real-money negotiations. It also feels as though it would make me suck at the game. But that’s progress, because I have a known route to practicing at games.
At first I wanted to say “That’s going to cost me money!”. But I was fine with the idea of paying for training courses to get better. Financially it comes to the same thing, but loss aversion is at work here.
Thinking that through made me realise I’m muddled about my utility function here. If I play the game to win, I end up spending more money. I already give as much to charity as I feel comfortable with, so it would mean some discomfort.
In real life, do you feel high-status or low-status? High-status people feel like they deserve more, so it would be probably natural for them to extract as much value as possible, while “the bare minimum is good enough for me” would be a natural attitude of a low-status person.
I question that analysis.
High status can certainly create a sense of entitlement in some people, like how rich people generally leave awful tips, but at the same time you can see a sort of noblesse oblige in others which leads to huge charitable donations and voluntarily forgoing chances to improve their position (like sending their kids to public schools). Low status people generally have a lot less to lose and thus tend to be a lot more pragmatic in my experience.
Thank you, this has prompted some very useful thoughts.
This feels close to my situation. I come from a high-privilege family with a long tradition of self-sacrifice and doing good works.
I thought of a theory to explain my situation. Part of my problem is not really wanting to win in negotiations. I do want to win, just not as much as I want to avoid feeling socially awkward and grasping. When the negotiation stakes are small for me, I would rather spend more money and feel better. When the stakes are negligible for all, like in games, I play to win. When the stakes are very high for me, it would be rational to negotiate hard, but I don’t do that as much as I want to, out of habit learned on smaller stakes and because I do hyperbolic discounting and weigh feeling awkward now higher than losing lots of money long term.
The stakes in the role play negotiation were negligible, but I still did badly. However, it felt real enough while I was doing it. I was feeling very awkward.
Exposure and deliberate practice seem like good ways of reducing the awkwardness. Another line is to work on the hyperbolic discounting. I could think of the decision in Timeless terms: “I’m making the awkwardness vs profit decision for all similar negotiations.” Or I could think what I would advise a needy friend to do.
That may be a factor, but that’s one factor out of many.
Let me offer a similar argument but one that points in a different direction:
High-status people feel secure in their position so there’s less pressure on them to “win” and they would be more willing to give up some stuff for warm fuzzies.
Or another one:
Rich people don’t care about monetary rewards as much so in negotiations they would be willing to exchange financial benefits (the common subject of negotiations) for other things not usually measured as outcomes (time, status or, again, warm fuzzies).
I am not particularly attached to these two assertions, the point is the ease of making them and others like them.
Interesting question.
I definitely feel high-status. I’m in a high income percentile, and have substantially higher net worth than that most people with my income history, because I’ve made good decisions about how to use my income. Obviously, I know people who are higher status and wealth than me, but I mostly compare myself to people who are not. (Partly a deliberate choice to try to boost happiness and life satisfaction.)
There might be a status connection. To exaggerate, it feels more like “someone of my status shouldn’t stoop to grubbing around with low-status arguments about money” rather than “someone of my status doesn’t deserve money”. That might be a contributory factor, but it feels like the effect size is small.
In the negotiations I feel regret about, I definitely felt like the higher-status participant, but the less experienced at negotiation. Or rather, the less effective one.
An idea: Next time, before you start playing, precommit to converting the game money to real money by some nice coefficient, sending it to an effective charity, and writing about it (including the specific sum) on LessWrong. Then imagine that you are the only person who will ever send money to that charity, and that this is your only opportunity for sending.
Then start playing...
That sounds worth trying. Thanks. Intuitively it feels as though it would make me care about the game outcome like I care about real-money negotiations. It also feels as though it would make me suck at the game. But that’s progress, because I have a known route to practicing at games.
At first I wanted to say “That’s going to cost me money!”. But I was fine with the idea of paying for training courses to get better. Financially it comes to the same thing, but loss aversion is at work here.
Thinking that through made me realise I’m muddled about my utility function here. If I play the game to win, I end up spending more money. I already give as much to charity as I feel comfortable with, so it would mean some discomfort.
Yep. I might want to add that such an attitude is much more common in Europe than in the US.