Skip to content
Who's in the Video
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his PhD[…]

The Harvard psychologist on negotiating: the hothead wins.

Question: Do hotheads always win?

Pinker:    Well one example of how I’ve used ideas from other fields in my own thinking is a chapter I wrote on the emotions and how the mind works, which was heavily inspired by the political theorist and game theorist Thomas Schelling who wrote a remarkable book in 1960 called “The Strategy of Conflict”.  Schelling was kind of a Doctor Strangelove among other things – a nuclear strategist of how you think through survival in a case in which you have to figure out what the other guy is thinking, about what you’re thinking, about what he’s thinking, about what you’re thinking and so on.  One of the things that Schelling pointed out that there are certain realms in which a measure of irrationality and lack of control can actually work to your advantage.  So for example if you’re negotiating with someone . . .  Let’s say you’re negotiating over the purchase of a car, and you’d be willing to pay anything between $20,000 and $30,000 – of course the lower the better.  And the car dealer would make a profit if he sold it at any price between . . . over $20,000.  So you’d both be better off settling for a price in that range rather than walking away from the deal.  On the other hand within that range the closer it is to $20,000 the better it is for you.  The closer it is to $30,000 the better it is for him.  How do you arrive at a figure?  Well it turns out the advantage goes to the person who’s more irrational, stubborn, hotheaded – the person who would walk away from the deal unless he got the maximum.  So a salesman who says, “I’d like to sell it to you for $20,000, but I’m not allowed.  My supervisor isn’t here.  He won’t authorize me to go under $30,000” will get the better deal.  On the other hand the customer who says, “Well I’d love to but my hands are tied.  The bank won’t loan me more than $20,000 so I can’t pay more than $20,000”, that lack of control worked to his advantage.  What’s the analogy to human emotions?  Well often humans do things that seem to be irrationally stubborn.  They vow undying devotion to their friends.  They fight a duel or retaliate if they’re insulted.  They’re hotheads in other words.  This is an example showing that it may not be irrational in some spheres of human life to be a hothead.  The hothead is the winner.  This is also true with threats, for example.  The problem with issuing a threat is someone calling your bluff.  If they insult you, or invade your space, or chat up your girlfriend and you say, “If you do something like that I’ll beat you up,” well you could get hurt beating someone up.  You might be better off just letting them have your lunch money or your girlfriend than getting killed in the process.  Get a person that can anticipate that, and therefore they can act with impunity.  How do you defend yourself against that dynamic?  Well if you’re such a hothead that it would be intolerable insult if someone took advantage of you, and you had to retaliate even if it did you harm in the long run, paradoxically that might be the most effective deterrent.  They can’t call your bluff if it isn’t a bluff.  There’s often game theory.  No psychologist ever thought that up; but it might offer an explanation as to why so many of our emotions seem to be passionate and irrational.  There may be a method behind the madness, and it took someone – not a psychologist, I think – to unlock the mystery of human irrationality and passion.