Compromise . . . | INFJ Forum

Compromise . . .

Gaze

Donor
Sep 5, 2009
28,265
44,748
1,906
MBTI
INFPishy
What is a good compromise?


What is a bad compromise?


How do you distinguish one from the other when everyone has a different opinion of each?
 
A bad compromise:
When you feel cheated or coerced.
Simple as that.
 
a good compromise is when both parties meet halfway and there is no great disparity between the contributions either one makes in favor of a solution

a bad compromise is when one party is doing most of the acquiescing, and the other is barely shifting.

i think you can distinguish a good compromise from a bad one with a bit of experience. it's something that becomes self evident after a while. if you're not usually in situations where compromise is needed, then you'll probably have a harder time discerning when you are being mistreated. a bad compromise also usually becomes clearer in retrospect, because the emotions of the moment while you're in the act of compromising can cloud your judgment (plus sometimes there's just not enough time to think it through while it's happening).
 
I prefer to define my essential principles and values on a broad enough, diverse enough scale that actual compromise isn't all that necessary.
 
do you ever find it difficult to maintain personal direction in life?
I somehow found three of four trustworthy foundations that I trangulate off of constantly. It has made things very interesting, providing direction that is aligned but with plenty of diversity.
 
A bad compromise is a compromise which nets both players a lesser sum of happiness than what a good compromise would, or no compromise would.

If you look at things in terms of sums then an event which works to my advantage and causes you distress will be what we call a 'zero sum game' since my benefit is equivalent to your loss.

Likewise, if the event makes us both happy then the sum is positive.

If an event makes me greatly happy but you slightly unhappy, then the sum is positive.

A bad compromise has a lesser sum than both of these. Bad compromises may fail to make either party happy or are compromises which are done because one party wants a solution which benefits himself more (at the greater expense of you)

An example of someone who may enforce bad compromises
Your result for The Relationship Problem-Solving Test ...
Power-Compromiser

You scored 79% Confrontational and 67% Logical!
You don't just love to compromise, you INSIST on it. You enforce mediocre solutions whenever possible. Best matches for you: Power-Compromiser, The Complainer, Gentle Compromiser
This is not my result, its just something I pulled up in a google search.
 
Last edited:
A bad compromise is a compromise which nets both players a lesser sum of happiness than what a good compromise would, or no compromise would.

If you look at things in terms of sums then an event which works to my advantage and causes you distress will be what we call a 'zero sum game' since my benefit is equivalent to your loss.

Likewise, if the event makes us both happy then the sum is positive.

If an event makes me greatly happy but you slightly unhappy, then the sum is positive.

A bad compromise has a lesser sum than both of these. Bad compromises may fail to make either party happy or are compromises which are done because one party wants a solution which benefits himself more (at the greater expense of you)

An example of someone who may enforce bad compromises
This is not my result, its just something I pulled up in a google search.

this is interesting. i'm wondering how you would be able to measure happiness between individuals though, since happiness is such an elusive concept. and some people believe an event will make them happy when it actually doesn't; compromising on that basis would therefore lead to a lesser net sum of happiness than what you had at the beginning. if you're dividing a share of something, likewise, a person could actually be happier with very little. would it be a good compromise still then if they ended up with nothing (materially)? there's also the thing about happiness not lasting, or changing after a while. if you compromise to not get married to your partner for instance, then that might make you both happier for a while, but at some point maybe one person could become less happy, which would require another compromise. the net sum of both of those compromises might be negative :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
True. Happiness is elusive and difficult to measure. However, in the context of what I was writing, I am equating happiness with with 'getting what we want' which is our beliefs in what will make us happy. After all, getting what we want tends to bring short term happiness; the long-term repercussions of the options would be considered just as the short-term ones. If you cannot see what the long-term is (ie: your example about marriage) then you can only go with what seems the best option, mistakes may or may not happen which impact long-term happiness.
 
A good compromise. One that leaves both sides dissatisfied equally. A bad compromise, the same.
 
A good compromise is one where the other party feels that they don't lose anything at all by compromising. This way, they won't be upset with me or hold any resentment towards me.
 
I've had a lot of experience negotiating and I can say that a good compromise is when each side loses a little but wins a bit more. It's never a zero sum game.
 
Totally agreed, Norton.
 
A good compromise is when I gain more than I lose, a bad compromise is when I'm being mugged at gunpoint and the thugs realize I won't give them the money because I don't have any so they strip me off my clothes and break my jaw instead.