Compromising or Goosestepping

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5934407.html#5934407

I would like to add to this myself and this has inspired me to start this new thread. I am willing to compromise with people. This is where I do have issues.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/pfx/fo ... &msg=13091.

The meaning of compromise according to this, https://www.google.com/#q=compromise, is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

When I'm talking about compromise I'm not just talking about marriages or romantic relationships. I'm talking about society at large but more specifically but not only employment. I believe that I have is do both parties have to be

a. willing to compromise

b. both parties have to know explicitly what the terms of the compromise are

c. both parties have a say in what the terms are.

d. both parties have a say in how the compromise is drawn, what format and what venue the compromise is drawn up in.

Taking a look here at Post 28 out of n. : http://forums.delphiforums.com/ASPartne ... sg=13091.1

and what Tarentella says at Raised by an Asperger Parent thread.

With the women at aspartners and society at large does compromise really take place or are we just simply forced to goosestep. At least in my marriage we both have equal say. For a number of marriages and other relationships like employment it seems slanted to one direction.

I can't find this article but I remember one person asked what was the employer willing to do for her. The article was saying that she was wrong and she had to consider what she would do for her employer. This true but there was one problem. The article made it seem like she had to goosestep to the employer and she wasn't to expect any compromise or concessions from the employer at all. No negotiation is to take place. One's workplace conditions and one's duties is absolutely set by the employer and non-negotiable.

Another thing is an employee has to give 2 weeks notice. The employer does not. It all seems like one has to goosestep to a dictatorship. With a lot of the relationships I am seeing on ASPartners it looks like a dictatorship and one party has no say in it at all. The poster at 28 did not think about the questions I asked on their website and did not use critical thinking one single bit.

I don't really understand what you are asking.

An at-will employment relationship is not like other relationships. Why would you expect a similar kind of compromise?

The extent to which people are willing to compromise is often proportional to the power imbalances between them. Ideological factors also come into play.

Compromise occurs for different reasons in differing percentages, in most case due to power differentials. Those with the power get to make the rules. You can't compromise with the IRS, for example, other than in very specific circumstances involved in negotiated settlements when you can't pay and that kind of thing. Sometimes the law is the law; the rule is the rule. At work, generally in most cases the employer has the bulk of the power differential and sets most of the terms. There are certain minor compromises like salary negotiations, employers making alternative arrangements for people with specific needs, such as allowing an employee with personal issues at home to work at home for awhile, etc. These cannot be counted on and will vary with how valued a person is as an employer as well as the flexibility of the company or boss.

In relationships, ideally it is 50:50 overall, over time, but sometimes it is 70:30 one way and maybe 30:70 another time. It doesn't have to balance out for each decision, but overall. Sometimes one spouse will agree to relocate somewhere for the other person's job, and reciprocity will come at a later time in a later form, or maybe as a bunch of little things to make that person's life a little easier during the transition, for example. It is not about splitting the pie exactly evenly 100% of the time. Sometimes one party has to give a little more at one time, but they do it b/c they love their partner and they know their partner will want to make it up to them anyway. So then no one worries about bean counting b/c it is not viewed as a competition for scarce resources that each is trying to hoard for themselves.

As far as that website goes, and that particular person, and the other one you post about; they are viscous people, and you probably should not take what they say very seriously. People who play the martyr card have a different psychology than other people. Often they choose to take the proverbial shorter half of the stick b/c they get more utility from complaining and playing the martyr than what the equal share would have been had they taken it. It is not worth taking into account unless you deal with toxic people like this in real life.

ASPartners is a cesspit of whiny witches. You can't learn anything from them.

^^^^This!

(I really need to learn to be concise like the rest of you!)

I looked up your term. I did not know what the term was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

I guess I am one of those who sees the inequality of bargaining power to it. I don't know how accurate this Wikipedia piece is but if it is accurate let's look at this quote.

To answer your question, I'm always told one has to compromise with them by various people. How is it a true compromise though? I just don't get it. Why make it seem like one has a say when one does not?

I understand what you're saying here. When I envision compromise I envision myself and the other party sitting down at a table and bargaining even though both parties don't fully get what they want they both settle for something less and both are content. It is sort of like a political and diplomatic negotiation. Is my conception of this to narrowed? If my logic is erroneous where is it erroneous?



I did not consider this or think of it in terms like this. So, I'm thinking of it in a to narrowed of a context then. To me, I thought compromise was I desire this from you. The other person says, "I can't do that but I can do this." The person says" No, but would you settle for this." The other person would say, "Yes, that is fine. I'm cool with that." Am I misinterpreting what compromise means and not understanding the concept correctly?



Agreed. I went there to try to obtain answers from them. I have never received such viciousness as I have received from them.

You mean specific instances of real people in real life or those crazies on that site?

If you can give us specific examples, we might be able to offer more constructive help.

In the case of employment I don't think they literally mean compromise. You have to adjust certain aspects of yourself in your job. I agree that this is not technically a compromise with another entity. You are in practical terms making adjustments or out and out giving in about certain things. sometimes they might be little things, and sometimes big things, depending on circumstances.

Example: A software engineer likes to have lunch at exactly 11:00 A.M. He has done this for many years. His current employer has just scheduled an 11:00 A.M meeting everyday for an hour for the next two weeks, to discuss a particular software project, deliverables, deadlines, progress etc.

The company thinks this is very important and will not compromise and allow the software engineer to take off for lunch at 11:30 A.M as a compromise because this is in the middle of an important meeting. The employee will have to adjust his eating schedule in accordance with what the company wants or quit. (Quitting would not be the intelligent option here because there is no guarantee he could find a new job easily, or if he could, that there would not be an 11:00 A.M meeting or something there, too. Also, it is only for two weeks.)

Obviously this is a very frivolous example, but it could be something more serious, like an employee being asked to do something unethical, and the employee having to weigh a moral dilemma against his job.

It's manners. Politeness.

There is a very great power imbalance between employer and employee, unless the employee has some rare skill in high demand. Calling submission to the dictates of others "compromise" is a way of making the imbalance and pressure more palatable for the less powerful person.

If an employer really pushes the employee and makes them feel the intensity of the power imbalance directly, the employee may decide to leave. This is often undesirable enough for the employer that the employer makes some attempt to make the situation more acceptable to the employee.

Saying "you are just going to have to compromise" when the situation is that you are being compelled to do something is a convention designed to reduce the stress inherent in the situation and "save face" for the person being compelled.

Last edited by Adamantium on 26 Feb 2014, 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

^^^This. It is not meant literally.

Yeah, you're right and I gained nothing from my experience when I dealt with them. My experiences with them confirms your assertion. I spoke with one in PM and had running conversations with her. She gave me a lot of vitriol and hate. The last post made from her in pm was very vile.

I thought they would have a lot to add and a lot to contribute. I thought we all could mutually benefit each other. I thought I could help build a better future for all of us. My personality is different than ASDmommy's and yours. It looks like though that both of you are right and for me it is difficult to process this.

For me, when I hear the word compromise I don't see compromising I see goose-stepping. To me, that's not a compromise at all unless I'm misunderstanding the dynamics of how different relationships work.

They are not motivated to contribute, provide mutual benefit or build a better future. They are driven by hurt, rage and hate. These are not conducive to the kind of thing you were attempting.

Adamantium and ASDmommy

Okay, I understand where you two are coming from. I did not know nor understand this until both of you explained. Really, its my pragmatic issues that struck again like a thief in the night and I did not even realize it. Really, I need to use another definition of the word compromise which means that sometimes I may have to give up my own desires and wants in a particular situation like the meeting example you gave ASDmommy.

The word compromise is used to soften certain blows about the power hierarchy which does exist. It is about being polite and displaying proper manners. It is more about regulating the emotions of the other person.

Am I at least on the right track now or am I still way off base?

Yeah, I know. I figured that out the hard way.

Yes, there are many social things that work this way. It is why a polite boss will still say, "please" and ask you to do something rather than demand it . He/she will also say "thank you" despite the fact that he/she asked you do something that was not a choice. Politeness serves a social function of keeping resentment at bay, in this instance. People do not like power differentials to be thrown in their face. People do not like to feel powerless. The illusion of choice keeps this from being in the front of ones mind.

Even with kids; I will ask my son to do something (politely), using "please" and "thank you" even when it is not a choice. Part of it is to model polite behavior so he can replicate it, but also because I I don't need to emphasize the power differential. He knows who is in charge (most of the time) That is a card I choose not to play unless I need to, and when I do it is more of an aspie reminder than shoving my power in his face. Something like, "You know Mommy is in charge of this, right?" He doesn't get mad, because it is just a fact clarification, not me shoving my authority in his face. I only do it when he has decided to try to take over a project of mine or something.

I get what you're saying, Both of you have provided insight into more of how the world does work. One thing that I am coming to understand is that the actual working of the world does not always mesh with the theory. What is stated by Adam Smith does not always pan out in the actual working of the world or our portion of the world.

Besides pragmatics, I think this is where I get my wires crossed with society. What it comes down to is in the larger picture is he who owns the gold makes the rules.