Reciprocity: Difference between revisions

Reciprocity (view source)

Revision as of 10:19, 26 March 2021

512 bytes added , 26 March 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 There are two other dimensions to this worth considering.
-'''Investment''': The first is {{author|Rory Sutherland}}’s observation that ''signalling'' one’s investment in a prospective relationship — by going to trouble and expense to commence that relationship — increases your “target”’s disposition to engage in that relationship. You have shown you obviously care about them and their relationship. It is a markup of your commitment and intent to fidelity. It is a display of trust.
+===Obligation as a social glue that binds us===
+The second is {{author|David Graeber}}’s observation that an ongoing relationship involves a running series of undischarged mutual obligations. Those in a deep relationship give freely to each other without account or expectation of exact recompense. Those who provide services only against an expectation of full payment have ''shallow'' relationships since upon discharge of that payment either party can dissolve the relationship finally, without notice and without fear of offence or retribution. It’s just business.
+===Investment in a commercial relationship===
+The first is {{author|Rory Sutherland}}’s observation that ''signalling'' one’s investment in a prospective relationship — by going to trouble and expense to commence that relationship — increases your “target”’s disposition to engage in that relationship. You have shown you obviously care about them and their relationship. It is a markup of your commitment and intent to fidelity. It is a display of trust.
 So, to invite your wedding guests with a thick embossed card rather than by means of a group WhatsApp message is to signal that you have gone to great trouble and expense to even invite them, making them feel valued and wanted and, perhaps, someone obliged to at least respond, and even attend.
-'''Obligation''': The second is {{author|David Graeber}}’s observation that an ongoing relationship involves a running series of undischarged mutual obligations. Those in a deep relationship give freely to each other without account or expectation of exact recompense. Those who provide services only against an expectation of full payment have ''shallow'' relationships, since upon discharge of that payment either party can dissolve the relationship finally, without notice and without fear of offence or retribution. It’s just business.
+Perhaps some of our relationship-initiation rituals have this kind of “performative” aspect. Is the act of thrashing out an [[NDA]] some kind of show of commitment? I owe this observation to {{pl|https://gunnercooke.com/people/marc-weisberger/|Marc Weisberger}}. To be sure, sending a hostile 14-page screed to your client’s legal team and having them tear it to shreds is an unusual way of building trust — but is that how our courting ritual began? This has implications for the [[OneNDA]] project: if an NDA is really more like a courtship ritual, then if we simpify and basic fair terms so people can just ''sign'' NDAs without investment, and move on, do we seem somehow this somehow rude?
-Perhaps, we wonder, some of the rituals we go through when we start our business relationships have this kind of profile. Is that why we persist with lengthy legal negotiations? To be sure, sending a hostile 40-page screed to your client’s legal team and having them tear it to shreds is an unusual way of building trust — but is that how our courting ritual began?
-If that is right, then is the instinct to simpify and agree basic fair terms misplaced? If we just ''sign'' an NDA without question, are we showing a lack of investment? Is this somehow rude?
-It seems an unintuitive idea, but perhaps the germ of truth in it is this: look for better means of indicating commitment. Make other sacrifices, that are
+It seems unintuitive, but perhaps the lesson is this: ''look for more productive ways of indicating commitment''. Make other, ''more meaningful'' sacrifices, that aren’t such a drag. And that then prompts another question: isn’t that what corporate entertainment is designed to do? By rationalising it as a type of low-level corruption — as our modern day abstemious regulators tend to do — and fair enough; in a sense it is just that — are we missing a trick?