In Reply to: There are no answers that make sense, but... posted by Gainsborough on September 20, 2025 at 07:54:34
for exploring/expanding upon this concept. And, it's got nothing to do with race.
In my divorce mediation days, I used to cover this at the first meeting. As an attention getter, I'd say "divorce mediation works best when people are selfish." The couple would look at me surprised, often a little angry. I pause. I explain that yes, a nobel prize had recently been awarded for the discovery that when making economic decisions, people are more concerned with what the other person gets than what they get. People would get less money than get more money and feel like the other person got more than they did. They'd rather get less.
The couple ponders they idea and thinks "damn, that's probably true of us."
I repeat, "divorce mediation works better when people are selfish. Focus on what you are getting in the settlement. Don't be sooo focused on what the other person is getting."
Of course, I guided them to an appropriate economic result. But, that little spiel probably helped them let go of fighting over every penny.
Anyway, I just chatgpt'd it, and it turns out there have been multiple Nobel's awarded for exploring this concept (I'd only heard of one).
Ask Chatgpt about the 2002, 2017, and 2019 Nobel economics prizes, and the ideas of Prospect Theory. I navigated away from it on my phone, but there's some thing where: you give two people $10. One gets to divide it between them. They only get the money if the other accepts. The offerree will typically not accept, if they get less than 2-3 bucks. They'd rather get nothing. Anyway, I nav'd away from it, can't get back, but if you look at the economics nobels for 2002, 2017, 2019, that covers this territory.
Also, there is no way this conversation should end without mentioning the "Crab Bucket."
Lastly, it's my understanding that Dr. J has been involved in some pretty high value mediation. I bet he can shed some light on this.
Lastly, lastly - in a very very macro macro way ... there's some logic there. All spending power is relative. Money is a resource. If you get more of the resource, but someone else gets even more than you, your spending power has been relatively speaking, infinitessimally diminished.
All of the above assumes that there is an inequality in the increase of the position. In social/economic reform, the opposers may not be getting less. But, then something may come into play called Proposal Aversion. That concept seems particularly relevant.