Hacker News Reader

Comment by delgaudm | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps I got lost in the explanation, or the example is overly simplified, but isn't this just "splitting the difference"?

View on HN

No. Splitting the difference could be a term invented to describe this, but it already has a different meaning. It's use is if I offer you two slices and you counter with a demand for six slices, then "splitting the difference" just refers to using the average value of four.

It is splitting the difference between Alice offering to take the whole negotiation pie at 10-2 and Bob counter offering to take the whole negotiation pie himself at 4-8.

Yes, if each originally maximally said "I want all 6 new slices" then it would be splitting the difference in their asks. However, in the case where Bob counters with an offer to split 6-6, it is no longer splitting the difference.

Now it has been bastardized by "Never Split the Difference" which is what you now hear from a desperate car salesman now

"Never Split the Difference" is also the name of an outstanding book by Chris Voss, the former head of FBI hostage negotiation. For shorthand, Voss refers to all biz school rational-actor negotiation theory (as espoused by the parent post, for example) as “splitting the difference.”

He holds that such theory is useful to know in general, but that real-world negotiations are carried out by emotional, irrational humans. As a result, these rational theories often break down in the face of hubris, anger, fear, love, shame, etc, and as such, relying solely on these theories will not get you the results you want. Thus, you should "never split the difference."

Instead, he then goes on to suggest a whole variety of ways one can achieve better negotiation results, starting with the most obvious: really, truly listening to the needs of the other. The book is fascinating. Highly recommended.

How would a desperate car salesman use that phrase?

The example is overly simplified.

Imagine if it was a 24-slice pizza. The argument is that the "original" 6 slices should be divided according to the original preferences of 4 and 2, and the "extra" 18 slices should be divided evenly into 9 and 9.

I imagine in many contexts, the more 'relative status-quo' outcome to the original would be 4+4 to 2+2, double-or-no-change. Bob wanting more than to double could be spiteful bargaining power which Alice could answer with spite.

I saw it in the article and literally thought it was a straw man. I believed the author was arguing against a 6-6 division and introduced a more unbalanced shift to try to make their position seem reasonable.

You're the first person I've seen suggest that this is a thing and I'm kind of shocked. What reasoning would there be for unequal division of the additional slices in A's favor?

It comes down to relative value of closing the deal. If both A and B want to increase their X, whatever it may be, an increase of 3 to A's 4 is not as much as 3 to B's 2 if we're talking about market share as an example. So already it's of more relative value for B to close the deal with +3's. Other factors apply. So it really comes down to how much each wants it, which is the status quo for negotiation. I don't think any business goes in saying "What's the fairest way we can make this deal?"

As an edge case, let's say A has 1M, and B has 1k and there's 500k new units. Should B get 250k same as A? Would A go for that? Would B be happy with 100k?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com