Don't Be Evil: A Case For Enlightened Self-Interest

I've gotten a fair amount of pushback over time on this from many of the guys. Men who I respect and feel great fondness for argue with some force that chicks dig jerks, so it makes sense to comply. Others have said that with all the terrible experiences that good guys have had at the hands of callous women, it's only fair that some women should suffer too.

Women do terrible things to guys as well:

• Lying
• Cheating
• Nuclear rejections, with gratuitous cruelty
• Taking advantage of men by getting them to spend money
• LJBF with insensitivity, while continuing to milk a friend for attention and affirmation
• Rewarding the worst character traits in men, while rejecting guys for being too "nice"

This question is as old as mankind itself. The Golden Rule was first documented in ancient Egypt, 2040 BCE. Hippocrates wrote an oath for students of medicine that included the promise to "do no harm." And today Google's unofficial corporate motto is "Don't Be Evil," conceived at a time when the company felt that its competitors were exploiting users to maximize short-term profits.

Yesterday while waiting for my car to be serviced, I finally starting reading Stuart Diamond's book Getting More: How to Negotiate to Achieve Your Goals in the Real World. I heard him speak a month ago about the book, which is based on his very popular course at Wharton. Reading, I was immediately struck by how applicable the principles were to the SMP, especially in light of the current discussion.

After all, mating is a series of transactions, a meeting of the supply and demand curves at the micro level. A woman who has consensual sex has made a deal, even if it's with the devil. Each party negotiates the terms of any encounter, and is solely responsible for his or her terms and subsequent agreement.

Diamond's approach is the first innovation in negotiation strategy since win-win in the 90s. He believes that approach leaves too much on the table, and that focusing on making an emotional connection between the parties increases the size of the pie, resulting in both parties getting more of what they want. Self-interest is not objectionable, it's natural - the key is finding a balance between the two parties.

"Done right, there is no difference between negotiation, persuasion, communication, or selling. They should all have the same process. That is, they should start with goals, focus on people, and be situational."

The Process, in order of preference:

Terrible: Forcing people to do what you will them to do.

A bit better: Getting people to think what you want them to think.

Still better: Getting people to perceive what you want them to perceive.

Best, and self-enforcing: Getting people to feel what you want them to feel.

"Getting More is not a manifesto to gain power over people in order to force your will on them...First, the minute you use raw power over someone the relationship is usually over. People don't want relationships with those who try to force them to do things against their will. Second, it sends the wrong message - one of tension, struggle and conflict. This is less profitable because people use their energy to defend themselves instead of building something. Third, the raw use of power prompts retribution, whether now or later."

"The use of power in negotiation is fraught with risk. Seeing a negotiation in terms of gaining power over the other side sets up a conflict situation. If they perceive you as trying to grab power over them, they may well have an emotional response - as in "I don't care if I undermine the negotiation, I'm going to get even with you.

I can't say it enough: [Power] should be used selectively and constructively so that extreme reactions are not provoked. You should be sensitive to the needs of everyone along the way."

"If they have a lot more raw power than you do, they can beat you up. In such a case, you should ask them, just because they can beat you up, should they?...If you can beat up employees, will they work less hard for you?"

"Framing will often change the balance of power in a negotiation, no matter how big or powerful the other party. It should be used carefully and in a positive way...You don't have to accept the other person's standards and framing. A big part of framing is "reframing." You start with how they phrase something, and then you find a different way to interpret it, so that they get insight - and hopefully will meet your goals.

It is much more persuasive to let others make the decision, instead of telling them what the decision should be. You want to lead them where you want them to go, through framing and by being incremental."

"Trust is a major people issue. The benefits of trust are huge: faster deals, more deals, bigger results. Not having it is costly...Trust is the feeling of security that the other person will protect you. With some trust, another person will help you until it's too risky for them or a better opportunity comes along. With a lot of trust, the other party will help you even if it harms them. It is very important to understand the trust dynamic.

The major component of trust is honesty - being straight with people. Trust does not mean that both sides agree with each other, or are always pleasant to each other. It does mean, however, that the parties believe each other.

The opposite of course, is dishonesty, or lying...That includes telling the truth in such a way that you omit facts and create a false impression. It can be clever manipulation of emotions. It can be the distorting of information or bluffing. It's anything that doesn't pass the smell test."

There's nothing wrong with self-interest, or with putting your needs first. Diamond is no touchy-feely romantic. He's a pragmatist who gets results.

He has laid out a very strong argument for self-interest enlightened with emotional intelligence in relationship with the other person. It's better than win/win - it's get more/get more.