On compromise... (as it relates to wankery)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Suppose you are the tribal leader of a small island nation.

Sometime in the past, a tribe of cannibals came and took several of your people. In the process of fighting them off it became abundantly clear that the only reason they did not take all of you is that the cannibals had not been expecting resistance.

In the years since, the members of your tribe have grown strong and been fortifying themselves against the day when the cannibals might return.

One day, a diplomat from the cannibal tribe arrives at your camp under a flag of truce. The diplomat explains that the cannibals want to kill and eat all of your people but would be willing to “settle” for taking only half of your people. This he tells you that this is a “reasonable solution" to the stand-off, as it is halfway between what you want and what they want.

Now if you fight them and loose your tribe will be utterly destroyed. Even if you fight them and win, your casualties may still excede the 50% offered in the "compromise".

What do you do?

Fight, or "Compromise"?

In my mind the answer is blindingly obvious and it involves putting the cannibal diplomat's head on a spike as a warning to others. That said, I am trying to broaden my horizons and wonder if anyone here would take "the compromise" or offer a third option.

Comments

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Wasn't this basically the plot of "300"?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Exactly

I suppose I should credit Frank Miller to avoid accusations of plagarism.

That said, What happens when you apply this approach to something other than comic books and over-long music videos?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Is this a metaphor for anything, btw? I mean, the only thing I can think of is the Dems pushing the Repubs to compromise on tax cuts on the deficit deal, but there it's the Dems who are worried about the Repubs causing fiscal collapse by refusing to raise the debt ceiling...

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

maybe we need a metaphor with cannibals on both sides of the river.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not a specific issue as there are several in my mind that could fit the description. In my eyes the post is more about compromise in general when one or both sides consider the stakes too vital to lose.

To use your example, if one believes that raising the debt ceiling is only going to exacerbate and prolong our economic woes the "fiscal collapse" that the Dems fear becomes analogous to the casualties sustained fighting the cannibals.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I read cannibals as cannibis and was very confused :/

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ja Rule!

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That's a fourth option. Both tribes smoke some rope and become friends.

Freudian...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... slip.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I think this example is too simple, because to some tribes or people it isn't necessarily the casualties that is the key matter (at least not the one of primary importance). The key question is: will the tribe change their inner goals, their "soul" for lack of better expression, by compromising or by fighting. Which option will warp them most.

Because, the heart of the matter is the tribe being true to itself. What good is a tribe that compromised, but lost their soul.

Or..if you wish, what good is a tribe that had completely peaceful goals for itself, unrelated to war in every possible way, and was forced to spill a lot of blood and changed into cannibals themselves.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

A very valid concern, and one that I had not initially considered. I wouldn't quite know how to work it int the metaphore though.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Uh there's nothing stopping the cannibals, after taking 50% of your people, to just come back later and take the other 50%.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

True, which is why I said "In my mind the answer is blindingly obvious and it involves putting the cannibal diplomat's head on a spike as a warning to others.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

Can I offer myself to the cannibals, show up at their doorstep alone, let them eat me... and the pounds and pounds of poison that I also ate?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I like the way you think young man/woman/anteater.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Tell the diplomat that "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Then send him home from whence he came.
Then arm ourselves and prepare.

There is no defense like a good offense.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Time to act preemptively. Tell the diplomat you are considering his offer while you send a war party to the cannibal's home island, take them by surprise and slaughter them to the last soul. Problem solved.

Re: There is no defense like a good offense.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And as a chieftan I would approve this plan. In my eyes there is only one option and that is to fight.

Fighting dirty is still fighting ;)

What I'm curious to see is if anyone will defend the compromise.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I'd offer a third option. Why not just offer 50% of everyone rather than take 100% of half the people. To turn this around, you can say how great it is that the community would let you keep 50% of your body mass, just giving up their legs for example.

You could then negotiate with the cannibals, maybe talk them down to 45% and then offer some of your people to keep down to one knee. These people would then be grateful and also more mobile than the rest of the community, ensuring you can stay in power. You, of course, would keep your legs.

There would of course be some who would be upset with you and the cannibals would probably be back. Individually these would be problems, together they are a solution.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think that Obama should allow the GOP to negotiate cuts to SSI just to get them to raise the debt limit.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's just an opinion and it's not the only issue on the table.

Murder with a borrowed knife?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Sun Tzu would be proud.
=]

I'll bite

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

In some analogous situations, compromising produces a better long term outcome than the cannibal scenario.

It really depends on what is the likelihood of winning or losing and the consequences of choosing to fight or compromise in both the short term and long term.

A) Fighting and winning
B) Fighting and losing
C) Compromising.

The likelihood of winning or losing is dependent on the exact circumstances, but let's consider consequences in a general sense.

One key point that differentiates your cannibal scenario from many political scenarios for instance is that compromise in the cannibal scenario ALWAYS sacrifices your future fighting potential and make you more vulnerable to future attacks. It also tends to strengthen and encourage future attacks. As Kylinrouge mentioned above, there is nothing to stop them coming back and trying to take the other 50% - except you're now 50% weaker than you were last time and they're well-fed.

This means that losing and compromising are essentially the same thing in the long term with Cannibals. By compromising, you make a loss more likely in the next the decision to fight or compromise is made.

Hence, in the Cannibal scenario, fighting is the instinctively the most obvious option.

However, this is often not true in political situations. Compromising in politics can sometimes actually lead to your defensive or offensive potential being stronger next time. By making a compromise, not only do you ensure you live to fight another day, but you may actually not only win next time, but you can also sometimes regain what you sacrificed during the last compromise.

Re: I'll bite

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure, In the real world the roles are often in flux, maybe it's your tribe's turn to play the role of "the cannibals".

Upon achieveing a political victory "the middle ground" invariably shifts, 50 years ago the very existance of Social Security was a topic for debate. Now that it has become the norm niether side would dream of eliminating it completely even if they quibble about the specifics.

As a political entity, Those who initially questioned it's existance have been eaten by the cannibals.

My solution.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

To minimize casualties on both sides, I'd negotiate with the cannibals and offer to sell a certain percentage of our serfs to them. I'd even be willing to establish breeding programs among our poor, criminal, and unproductive classes so we'd have a constant supply of human-food to sell to them. I'd negotiate a good price, and use the influx of new cash to build infrastructure improvements and buy myself a yacht and a Ferrari, among other luxury items.

Third Option:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would have sought to gain as much as possible the simpler varieties of Western technology so when the cannibals return with wood and stone the power of mortars and AK assault rifles kills them for much less than 50% casualties.

Re: Third Option:

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

R+D for the win!

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

BTW this is a variant of the trolley problem.

Change the scenario to a cash payout for them to invade some other tribe and the outcome will likely differ.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Keep negotiating wiht the cannibals while at the same time gather allies and weapons to help you defeat and destroy the cannibals.

Killing the messenger...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Your abuse of the messenger shows a lack of proper protocol. Your island will earn a bad reputation of being vicious and brutal. Other non-cannibal tribes will convene a council of alliance to wipe the barbarian menace from the face of the Earth.

Re: Killing the messenger...

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Naw, if your neighbors are cannibals, you're probably cannibals.

If someone is selected to deliver a message like "turn over half your people to be eaten" you have to believe he is not well liked among his own people. You will probably be doing your counterpart a favor by killing him, putting his head on a stake. To do otherwise would be unfriendly.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Option 3. Politely decline his offer, but send a word of warning with it. If you insist on having us for diner, rather than over for diner, you might win the battle, you might even win the war, but is it really worth the risk of not only going home hungry, but upon returning to your home, you find that it is in ruins?

After he leaves, set out yourself, and leave their village in ruins. A preemptive strike.