I think the useful part of ultimatums is the revealing of one’s preferences. Transmitting the information that e.g. “I’d rather be single than in a mono relationship.” The partner probably already knows that you prefer poly to mono, but not that you actually prefer nothing to mono.
The problem I see with making ultimatums is that it is described as a one party’s move. Why couldn’t both sides reveal their preferences at the same time? Then the situation would feel more fair, more symetrical, wouldn’t it? (Well, there would still be the asymetry that one party thinks it is useful to reveal the preferences now, while the other party may think otherwise.)
I can imagine two reasons to hide one’s preferences:
1) Cheating at negotiating the compromise. Let’s say that both partners measure their utility on a scale from 0 to 100. Neither is able to find a partner where they would get 100 points from the relationship, and they both decide that an outcome of 80 or higher is acceptable. There are two ways how they could arrange their relationship. Option A gives 90 points to both. Option B gives 80 points to partner #1, and 95 points for partner #2. Assuming linear scale, A seems like a fair solution. However, if the partner #2 will lie about their preferences and say that option A only gives 50 points to them, partner #1 would probably agree on the option B.
2) Preferences about other person’s preferences. Imagine that partner #1 prefers poly relationships to mono relationship, but would still prefer mono relationship with partner #2 to not having a relationship with partner #2. On the other hand, partner #2 dislikes polyamory so much they wouldn’t stay in a relationship with a person who has a preference for it. In such situation, partner #1 by exposing their preferences would get the worst outcome for them.
Yeah, the simultaneity thing would make a lot of sense! In my experience, these realizations have been pretty spontaneous, and then articulated immediately. But you could potentially do it better if you were planning this sort of thing from the outset.
Wait. If you were planning it (“it” being knowledge and communication of immutable preferences) from the outset, why wouldn’t you communicate from the outset?
Only in cases of unreliability and distrust does simultaneity matter. If you’re just telling the truth, and there is mutual trust that each is doing so, then you should make the statements as soon as you know the facts underlying them.
Right, yeah, I think this has to do with trust and immutability of preferences. I guess, the simultaneity thing would make sense for cases with definitely-immutable preferences, and less trust.
I think the useful part of ultimatums is the revealing of one’s preferences. Transmitting the information that e.g. “I’d rather be single than in a mono relationship.” The partner probably already knows that you prefer poly to mono, but not that you actually prefer nothing to mono.
The problem I see with making ultimatums is that it is described as a one party’s move. Why couldn’t both sides reveal their preferences at the same time? Then the situation would feel more fair, more symetrical, wouldn’t it? (Well, there would still be the asymetry that one party thinks it is useful to reveal the preferences now, while the other party may think otherwise.)
I can imagine two reasons to hide one’s preferences:
1) Cheating at negotiating the compromise. Let’s say that both partners measure their utility on a scale from 0 to 100. Neither is able to find a partner where they would get 100 points from the relationship, and they both decide that an outcome of 80 or higher is acceptable. There are two ways how they could arrange their relationship. Option A gives 90 points to both. Option B gives 80 points to partner #1, and 95 points for partner #2. Assuming linear scale, A seems like a fair solution. However, if the partner #2 will lie about their preferences and say that option A only gives 50 points to them, partner #1 would probably agree on the option B.
2) Preferences about other person’s preferences. Imagine that partner #1 prefers poly relationships to mono relationship, but would still prefer mono relationship with partner #2 to not having a relationship with partner #2. On the other hand, partner #2 dislikes polyamory so much they wouldn’t stay in a relationship with a person who has a preference for it. In such situation, partner #1 by exposing their preferences would get the worst outcome for them.
Yeah, the simultaneity thing would make a lot of sense! In my experience, these realizations have been pretty spontaneous, and then articulated immediately. But you could potentially do it better if you were planning this sort of thing from the outset.
Wait. If you were planning it (“it” being knowledge and communication of immutable preferences) from the outset, why wouldn’t you communicate from the outset?
Only in cases of unreliability and distrust does simultaneity matter. If you’re just telling the truth, and there is mutual trust that each is doing so, then you should make the statements as soon as you know the facts underlying them.
Right, yeah, I think this has to do with trust and immutability of preferences. I guess, the simultaneity thing would make sense for cases with definitely-immutable preferences, and less trust.