I was trying to think of an alternative example; the initial condition (the fallback) seems kind of contrived.
So let's say there's some investment opportunity where someone has $4,000 to put in and I have $2,000. The investment requires $6000, so neither of us can access it alone. If we agree to invest, let's say the value is guaranteed to increase, in this example by 200% to $12,000. The power analysis way of distributing that increase would be that the other person gets $8000 and I get $4000. Using this pizza analysis, it would instead be distributed as $7000 and $5000 -- splitting the increase of $6000 equally.
It's an interesting concept. Certainly I, with only $2000, would be more inclined to contribute. And the other party would certainly benefit more than if we had decided to not go through with it at all.
I think it comes down to how much the person with the weaker power is likely to want to contribute. It's a good way to convince them if the power is fairly offset, but when they are close it's not really necessary to convince them.
I think this is partially touched on in the article itself, and it makes sense. It comes down to what seems fair to the parties involved!
So let's say there's some investment opportunity where someone has $4,000 to put in and I have $2,000. The investment requires $6000, so neither of us can access it alone. If we agree to invest, let's say the value is guaranteed to increase, in this example by 200% to $12,000. The power analysis way of distributing that increase would be that the other person gets $8000 and I get $4000. Using this pizza analysis, it would instead be distributed as $7000 and $5000 -- splitting the increase of $6000 equally.
It's an interesting concept. Certainly I, with only $2000, would be more inclined to contribute. And the other party would certainly benefit more than if we had decided to not go through with it at all.
I think it comes down to how much the person with the weaker power is likely to want to contribute. It's a good way to convince them if the power is fairly offset, but when they are close it's not really necessary to convince them.
I think this is partially touched on in the article itself, and it makes sense. It comes down to what seems fair to the parties involved!