Spill the beans 😂

[Diem Turner]

Respect to you and Warby! Many say relationships are a compromise, but when you compromise for that person because you WANT to out of concern for their needs and happiness, and suddenly that act fulfills YOUR happiness, then your both in a good place!

Compromises can be tricky to negotiate but, here's a general guideline that will maximize its potential for increased harmony:

A true compromise has been achieved when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure.

That's a nickel's worth of free advice from my father.

 

[Velodromed]

Compromises can be tricky to negotiate but, here's a general guideline that will maximize its potential for increased harmony:

A true compromise has been achieved when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure.

That's a nickel's worth of free advice from my father.

Sure, from a business negotiation standpoint where the parties are at odds and don’t give a rats ass about each other. But when two people actually care for each other and compromise for each other, they are meeting in the middle ground. Helping determine how to live and function with each other. But this is when two people care about each other and want to be together. Not when one is trying to control the other.

 

[Johnny b]

I'm thinking Diem meant that as a joke, at least that's how I took it.

 

[Diem Turner]

Sure, from a business negotiation standpoint where the parties are at odds and don’t give a rats ass about each other. But when two people actually care for each other and compromise for each other, they are meeting in the middle ground. Helping determine how to live and function with each other. But this is when two people care about each other and want to be together. Not when one is trying to control the other.

I get what you're saying. I honestly do. But I think you might have gotten the wrong impression (though I will grant that the way it is formulated, I can understand why or how that would happen...but that's the secret of its charm).

You call it "meeting in the middle ground". What could be more middle ground than both parties being equally dissatisfied? Compromises are all about giving something up, sacrificing something, etc. in order to get something that you want. I think it would be fair to say that, in a vacuum taken on its own, that thing you gave up or sacrificed (even if it is to someone you love) would bring with it a level of dissatisfaction (or insert a word of your choice that would capture the essence of how it would make you feel here) commensurate with the importance of what it was. Of course this is subjective and it's not like you could hash out if you both gave up something of equal measure, objectively.

The value capturing part of my statement "when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure" has in its orbit, the unspoken corollary "when both parties are satisfied in equal measure" which, again, cannot be objectively determined post negotiation so there's no need to have a second conversation to determine if the compromise was fair or not. This is simply the balancing act that both parties are performing in their head naturally during any compromise negotiations.

Is what I'm conceding of similar or equal value in order to obtain what I want and what is it worth to him/her/it/them?

I do find that my father's advice is an interesting guideline to keep in the back of your mind, especially during negotiations with loved ones. I'd be far more prone to want to negotiate a compromise in my favor with hostile or adversarial entities. It is only intended as a yardstick by which one can determine whether a compromise has been successfully negotiated, be it a compromise you made yourself or if you're trying to evaluate an external one. It's a guideline...not an axiom.

Don't get it twisted. Of course I negotiate differently with a loved one, friend, spouse or similar than I would with, say, an employer, business or some other entity I have no personal relations with but, at its core, when you strip it back to its essence, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise, irrespective of who's on the other side.

I'm thinking Diem meant that as a joke, at least that's how I took it.

No, it was meant seriously. Granted, it was phrased in an intentionally cheeky manner, but the content of the statement is objectively true even if the validity is, by its nature, almost impossible to verify.

 

[Johnny b]

I get what you're saying. I honestly do. But I think you might have gotten the wrong impression (though I will grant that the way it is formulated, I can understand why or how that would happen...but that's the secret of its charm).

You call it "meeting in the middle ground". What could be more middle ground than both parties being equally dissatisfied? Compromises are all about giving something up, sacrificing something, etc. in order to get something that you want. I think it would be fair to say that, in a vacuum taken on its own, that thing you gave up or sacrificed (even if it is to someone you love) would bring with it a level of dissatisfaction (or insert a word of your choice that would capture the essence of how it would make you feel here) commensurate with the importance of what it was. Of course this is subjective and it's not like you could hash out if you both gave up something of equal measure, objectively.

The value capturing part of my statement "when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure" has in its orbit, the unspoken corollary "when both parties are satisfied in equal measure" which, again, cannot be objectively determined post negotiation so there's no need to have a second conversation to determine if the compromise was fair or not. This is simply the balancing act that both parties are performing in their head naturally during any compromise negotiations.

Is what I'm conceding of similar or equal value in order to obtain what I want and what is it worth to him/her/it/them?

I do find that my father's advice is an interesting guideline to keep in the back of your mind, especially during negotiations with loved ones. I'd be far more prone to want to negotiate a compromise in my favor with hostile or adversarial entities. It is only intended as a yardstick by which one can determine whether a compromise has been successfully negotiated, be it a compromise you made yourself or if you're trying to evaluate an external one. It's a guideline...not an axiom.

Don't get it twisted. Of course I negotiate differently with a loved one, friend, spouse or similar than I would with, say, an employer, business or some other entity I have no personal relations with but, at its core, when you strip it back to its essence, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise, irrespective of who's on the other side.

No, it was meant seriously. Granted, it was phrased in an intentionally cheeky manner, but the content of the statement is objectively true even if the validity is, by its nature, almost impossible to verify.

Understood....yes it was cheeky. Lol.

 

[Velodromed]

I get what you're saying. I honestly do. But I think you might have gotten the wrong impression (though I will grant that the way it is formulated, I can understand why or how that would happen...but that's the secret of its charm).

You call it "meeting in the middle ground". What could be more middle ground than both parties being equally dissatisfied? Compromises are all about giving something up, sacrificing something, etc. in order to get something that you want. I think it would be fair to say that, in a vacuum taken on its own, that thing you gave up or sacrificed (even if it is to someone you love) would bring with it a level of dissatisfaction (or insert a word of your choice that would capture the essence of how it would make you feel here) commensurate with the importance of what it was. Of course this is subjective and it's not like you could hash out if you both gave up something of equal measure, objectively.

The value capturing part of my statement "when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure" has in its orbit, the unspoken corollary "when both parties are satisfied in equal measure" which, again, cannot be objectively determined post negotiation so there's no need to have a second conversation to determine if the compromise was fair or not. This is simply the balancing act that both parties are performing in their head naturally during any compromise negotiations.

Is what I'm conceding of similar or equal value in order to obtain what I want and what is it worth to him/her/it/them?

I do find that my father's advice is an interesting guideline to keep in the back of your mind, especially during negotiations with loved ones. I'd be far more prone to want to negotiate a compromise in my favor with hostile or adversarial entities. It is only intended as a yardstick by which one can determine whether a compromise has been successfully negotiated, be it a compromise you made yourself or if you're trying to evaluate an external one. It's a guideline...not an axiom.

Don't get it twisted. Of course I negotiate differently with a loved one, friend, spouse or similar than I would with, say, an employer, business or some other entity I have no personal relations with but, at its core, when you strip it back to its essence, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise, irrespective of who's on the other side.

No, it was meant seriously. Granted, it was phrased in an intentionally cheeky manner, but the content of the statement is objectively true even if the validity is, by its nature, almost impossible to verify.

I’ve learned both parties in a relationship can be happy with a compromise. Of course that’s considering both parties start from a reasonable stand point to begin with. If not, alllllll you said stands true.

 

[Diem Turner]

I’ve learned both parties in a relationship can be happy with a compromise. Of course that’s considering both parties start from a reasonable stand point to begin with. If not, alllllll you said stands true.

I know. Nothing that I said, contradicts this in the slightest.

The proposition makes no statement about people in a relationship and doesn't comment on their state of mind or how they feel about one another. It idealizes an optimal outcome of a compromise. What I said holds true regardless of any parties involved or whether their standpoint is reasonable or not because the only thing it expresses is the ideal of balance. Of equal distribution. It's the same thing as if I had said, "A scale is balanced when both trays arrive at the same level". I have to admit that I'm retarded and don't understand what you're arguing. If you're saying that an equal distribution in a compromise is a bad thing, then please explain to me how or why that would be undesirable. Because that's all I'm saying.

 

[Velodromed]

I know. Nothing that I said, contradicts this in the slightest.

The proposition makes no statement about people in a relationship and doesn't comment on their state of mind or how they feel about one another. It idealizes an optimal outcome of a compromise. What I said holds true regardless of any parties involved or whether their standpoint is reasonable or not because the only thing it expresses is the ideal of balance. Of equal distribution. It's the same thing as if I had said, "A scale is balanced when both trays arrive at the same level". I have to admit that I'm retarded and don't understand what you're arguing. If you're saying that an equal distribution in a compromise is a bad thing, then please explain to me how or why that would be undesirable. Because that's all I'm saying.

We’re good buddy, I understand. After 28 years in real estate and property management the words negotiate and compromise rather set me off, that’s all. My entire life was negotiation. Even my paycheck, personal time bonuses etc were a constant negotiation and compromise. I always worked in a sales team and nothing was given easy.

Guess they are trigger words now. With my new marriage, life and kid I’ve dropped all those hard line habits I was so tired of. Team work and understanding are what I strive for. If I give something up, which is often, I tell myself it’s positive compromise karma and will come back to me. And it always does

 

[Diem Turner]

We’re good buddy, I understand. After 28 years in real estate and property management the words negotiate and compromise rather set me off, that’s all. My entire life was negotiation. Even my paycheck, personal time bonuses etc were a constant negotiation and compromise. I always worked in a sales team and nothing was given easy.

Guess they are trigger words now. With my new marriage, life and kid I’ve dropped all those hard line habits I was so tired of. Team work and understanding are what I strive for. If I give something up, which is often, I tell myself it’s positive compromise karma and will come back to me. And it always does

Ok, now this all makes perfect sense again. I was having trouble understanding the impasse but could tell there was a missing piece in the middle that connected what I was saying with what you were saying. This...was that missing piece. Thank you. It's not difficult to understand how an environment like that might cause a sort of revulsion to the concept itself and you just restructured your view and approach to compromise as a response. Top notch. Love ya bro

 

[Velodromed]

Ok, now this all makes perfect sense again. I was having trouble understanding the impasse but could tell there was a missing piece in the middle that connected what I was saying with what you were saying. This...was that missing piece. Thank you. It's not difficult to understand how an environment like that might cause a sort of revulsion to the concept itself and you just restructured your view and approach to compromise as a response. Top notch. Love ya bro

Yup…I realized I needed to explain why I was being obstinate about it. We all have our trigger words and we all have our things that make us itchy. I’ve only been off work since last October (surgery) and it’s been some of the most pleasant months of my life. I have been working since 14. First in construction and painting and then real estate sales and management. I am sick of houses and people

 

[Moirae]

I get what you're saying. I honestly do. But I think you might have gotten the wrong impression (though I will grant that the way it is formulated, I can understand why or how that would happen...but that's the secret of its charm).

You call it "meeting in the middle ground". What could be more middle ground than both parties being equally dissatisfied? Compromises are all about giving something up, sacrificing something, etc. in order to get something that you want. I think it would be fair to say that, in a vacuum taken on its own, that thing you gave up or sacrificed (even if it is to someone you love) would bring with it a level of dissatisfaction (or insert a word of your choice that would capture the essence of how it would make you feel here) commensurate with the importance of what it was. Of course this is subjective and it's not like you could hash out if you both gave up something of equal measure, objectively.

The value capturing part of my statement "when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure" has in its orbit, the unspoken corollary "when both parties are satisfied in equal measure" which, again, cannot be objectively determined post negotiation so there's no need to have a second conversation to determine if the compromise was fair or not. This is simply the balancing act that both parties are performing in their head naturally during any compromise negotiations.

Is what I'm conceding of similar or equal value in order to obtain what I want and what is it worth to him/her/it/them?

I do find that my father's advice is an interesting guideline to keep in the back of your mind, especially during negotiations with loved ones. I'd be far more prone to want to negotiate a compromise in my favor with hostile or adversarial entities. It is only intended as a yardstick by which one can determine whether a compromise has been successfully negotiated, be it a compromise you made yourself or if you're trying to evaluate an external one. It's a guideline...not an axiom.

Don't get it twisted. Of course I negotiate differently with a loved one, friend, spouse or similar than I would with, say, an employer, business or some other entity I have no personal relations with but, at its core, when you strip it back to its essence, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise, irrespective of who's on the other side.

No, it was meant seriously. Granted, it was phrased in an intentionally cheeky manner, but the content of the statement is objectively true even if the validity is, by its nature, almost impossible to verify.

Man, you are so well spoken. Feels like I'm in school again when I read your post.

 

[Doom!]

We all have our trigger words and we all have our things that make us itchy. I’ve only been off work since last October (surgery) and it’s been some of the most pleasant months of my life. I have been working since 14. First in construction and painting and then real estate sales and management. I am sick of houses and people

I understand that completely, my entire career has been deadline oriented, and since the internet and amazon have come along, everybody wants instant gratification. words like Rush, deadline, urgent all trigger me these days. People for the most part have become a very irritating self centered lot. And I still try to give them the benefit of the doubt within reason.

 

[ArrmaFreek2022]

How many of you have to sneak your toys in the house without the missus biting your head off for buying another rig

You do know there is a section to meet "girls into RC" on the forum right, get yourself one!!!

 

[gotnitro]

I understand that completely, my entire career has been deadline oriented, and since the internet and amazon have come along, everybody wants instant gratification. words like Rush, deadline, urgent all trigger me these days. People for the most part have become a very irritating self centered lot. And I still try to give them the benefit of the doubt within reason.

What about trigger looks? You know, like the blue and purple hairs. I avoid these humanoids at all cost!

Oh yeah! I want my parts rushed NOW! I have a deadline!

 

[Hector_Fisher]

I get what you're saying. I honestly do. But I think you might have gotten the wrong impression (though I will grant that the way it is formulated, I can understand why or how that would happen...but that's the secret of its charm).

You call it "meeting in the middle ground". What could be more middle ground than both parties being equally dissatisfied? Compromises are all about giving something up, sacrificing something, etc. in order to get something that you want. I think it would be fair to say that, in a vacuum taken on its own, that thing you gave up or sacrificed (even if it is to someone you love) would bring with it a level of dissatisfaction (or insert a word of your choice that would capture the essence of how it would make you feel here) commensurate with the importance of what it was. Of course this is subjective and it's not like you could hash out if you both gave up something of equal measure, objectively.

The value capturing part of my statement "when both parties are dissatisfied in equal measure" has in its orbit, the unspoken corollary "when both parties are satisfied in equal measure" which, again, cannot be objectively determined post negotiation so there's no need to have a second conversation to determine if the compromise was fair or not. This is simply the balancing act that both parties are performing in their head naturally during any compromise negotiations.

Is what I'm conceding of similar or equal value in order to obtain what I want and what is it worth to him/her/it/them?

I do find that my father's advice is an interesting guideline to keep in the back of your mind, especially during negotiations with loved ones. I'd be far more prone to want to negotiate a compromise in my favor with hostile or adversarial entities. It is only intended as a yardstick by which one can determine whether a compromise has been successfully negotiated, be it a compromise you made yourself or if you're trying to evaluate an external one. It's a guideline...not an axiom.

Don't get it twisted. Of course I negotiate differently with a loved one, friend, spouse or similar than I would with, say, an employer, business or some other entity I have no personal relations with but, at its core, when you strip it back to its essence, a compromise is a compromise is a compromise, irrespective of who's on the other side.

No, it was meant seriously. Granted, it was phrased in an intentionally cheeky manner, but the content of the statement is objectively true even if the validity is, by its nature, almost impossible to verify.

Perhaps we could look at compromise as the need to sacrifice something you want to get collaboration. On the other hand, we could suggest that most people in touch with reality understand that it's not normal to get everything they want, so compromise between two parties is working together to find all the ways that they can agree with each other and "maximize" satisfaction for everyone? IE, rather than fight to get what they want and minimize losses, their collaboration ensures both get more? One has a much different flavor than the other.

Maybe this is a bit of a glass half empty vs glass half full argument, but there is something to be said about going into a discussion/negotiation wanting to "maximize satisfaction" versus "wanting to minimize personal losses". A little more symbiotic than individualistic

Circling back to OP, i have tried both ways when acquiring new RCs. A few times each. The best results have always come from a policy of honesty and discussion. Communication fosters growth, and is healthy, while the opposite is stagnation and is not. I've had to make some sacrifices before, but it's always resulted in me getting off better than I had it before (had to sell off an old RC first, but got a better one), and with the added plus of a good standing with the wife (my spousal credit score improved dramatically).

That doesn't mean I'm always telling my wife about every part that I'm going to order though, sometimes I enjoy getting the eye-roll when 2 small boxes and an envelope show up on the door step.

 

[Smilinbri]

Maybe this is a bit of a glass half empty vs glass half full argument

The way I view that, it depends.

If you just filled the glass, it's half full.

If you drank half, then it's half empty.


Is philosophy class over yet?

 

[Hector_Fisher]

The way I view that, it depends.

If you just filled the glass, it's half full.

If you drank half, then it's half empty.

Couldn't resist

Is philosophy class over yet?

 

[Adiabatic]

My philosophical insights are limited but maybe I can adapt some Nietzsche:

Man is a rope stretched between the wife and the amicable divorce - a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

 

[RuffRiki]

How many of you have to sneak your toys in the house without the missus biting your head off for buying another rig

I sneak in my big purchases even though I don’t have to. I do it because my misses will then use my purchase as means to justify some other crazy purchase of hers. Childish stuff

 

[Velodromed]

I understand that completely, my entire career has been deadline oriented, and since the internet and amazon have come along, everybody wants instant gratification. words like Rush, deadline, urgent all trigger me these days. People for the most part have become a very irritating self centered lot. And I still try to give them the benefit of the doubt within reason.

Good grief I bet that’s your daily crapload to deal with considering what you do. Yes people have become very spoiled, especially in the US. Cheap prices and instant service. The instant part may stick around but the cheap part not so much. Times are a changing and apt to get worse rather then better.