For example, when discussing gender-related problems, it seems inevitable that some proposed solutions will generally be better for men, and other solutions will generally be better for women. If people are selfish, then they will each prefer the solution that’s individually best for them, even if they can agree on all of the facts. (It’s unclear whether people should be selfish, but it seems best to assume that most are, for practical purposes.)
But isn’t it possible that in any given bargaining situation there may also be a win-win solution that makes the pie bigger and leaves everybody better off than the status quo? Discussion, debate, and further exchange of information could at least theoretically lead to a previously unrecognized win-win situation being found.
“Leaves everyone better off” (i.e., making a Pareto improvement) is a tall order if there are more than a few people involved. Just “making the pie bigger” is much more plausible, but in general people will disagree about what counts as making the pie bigger, since we don’t have an agreed-upon way of doing interpersonal comparison of utility.
I’m not saying that discussion/debate can’t serve the purpose of joint optimization, but it often doesn’t, and we can mostly see why.
But isn’t it possible that in any given bargaining situation there may also be a win-win solution that makes the pie bigger and leaves everybody better off than the status quo? Discussion, debate, and further exchange of information could at least theoretically lead to a previously unrecognized win-win situation being found.
“Leaves everyone better off” (i.e., making a Pareto improvement) is a tall order if there are more than a few people involved. Just “making the pie bigger” is much more plausible, but in general people will disagree about what counts as making the pie bigger, since we don’t have an agreed-upon way of doing interpersonal comparison of utility.
I’m not saying that discussion/debate can’t serve the purpose of joint optimization, but it often doesn’t, and we can mostly see why.