[thesumofall]

No, a compromise can also be a win-win. It balances potentially extreme positions, it adds further perspectives, it forces all parties to consider what is most important to them. If the only alternative to a compromise is no agreement, it may actually be the only way to win

[locknitpicker]

> No, a compromise can also be a win-win.

Exactly.

This whole discussion is baffling. For the "compromise is lose-lose" mentality to even have a chance of being valid, you first must believe that your own personal opinions and incomplete information represents the optimal and ideal solution. This is clearly never true. Why do people believe they are infallible and hold perfect information?

[card_zero]

Eh, alright, I agree. That's pretty much what I said, there's a place for compromise, because some disagreements are intractable, but compromise is suboptimal.

[RealityVoid]

Would you say... You have arrived at a compromise? Ba-dum-tshh!

[card_zero]

Ohohoho. I'd say this is actually an example of a third thing, where it turns out that you didn't even disagree, except in choice of words.

[locknitpicker]

> where it turns out that you didn't even disagree

It's really strange how some people unconsciously try to push the idea that the only possible and acceptable feedback comes from those that only reinforce your own personal opinions. Not even Jesus was this sure about himself.

[necovek]

Does not your entire comment rely on a very particular ("original") definition of the word compromise — so, uhm, on "choice of words"?

[card_zero]

You're saying that a definition of compromise as "concessions on both sides" is strange and original, really? Did you understand the word compromise to mean a process to which creativity is crucial, and not concessions? I'd be very surprised (and pleased) if that was how you understood the word already. It's not how it's portrayed in the article.

[necovek]

I would say that creativity is crucial to a good, working compromise. You do not need much creativity for a bad one (it sounds like you are focusing on that type of compromise).

I am not saying that the "original" definition of "concessions on both sides" is strange at all though — merely that this was the original (first) meaning of the word, but that it is today used for both indicating a successful idea that meets multiple goals when they are re-evaluated by their spirit, and a set of concessions that meet some but not all of the original goals or their spirit.