We tend to neglect our advisors’ conflicts of interest, especially in immediate face-to-face interactions, and especially when such conflicts are disclosed to us: Certain study participants were required to make an estimate — evaluating the prices of houses, for instance. Meanwhile, other participants were … given additional information with which to advise the estimators. When these experts were put in a conflicted situation — they were paid according to how high the estimator guessed — they gave worse advice than if they were paid according to the accuracy of the estimate. … When the researchers required the experts to disclose this conflict to the people they were advising. … It actually caused them to inflate their numbers even more.
Negotiating technique? Admit you have an incentive to screw the other guy in order to better win a better deal?
I feel like I've seen this in action on occasion in pricing negotiations...but my anecdotal experience has no controls or randomization, so I can tease out any effects for or against.
When playing Diplomacy, I often use this technique...in order to assure my interlocutor that I respect him. Could a similar status-reciprocation effect be in play i.e. expert gives status by disclosing conflict (humbling self), decider shows magninimity by not penalizing expert.
Magnanimity should be considered more in the art of human relations.
That doctor's prescribe drugs because they stand to gain financially is another pervasive myth in the Great Orthodox Medicine Conspiracy, along with the cover-up of medical mistakes. In financial terms, it is simply not possible for a single doctor to prescribe enough of any drug to influence global sales and share prices.A real conflict of interest (COI) that gets little attention concerns ordering of tests that the doctor directly or indirectly gains financially from (e.g. an electrical test performed by the doctor him or herself), or which are ordered simply as a control against malpractice. Tests can be harmful or produce results that lead to harm. Another COI is recommending a treatment that requires some other service that the doctor or his practice benefits from, for example, deep brain stimulation for a patient with Parkinson's disease, which is followed up with intensive rehabilitation in the doctor's own rehabilitation unit. And there are even more..... but drug prescription??
Negotiating technique? Admit you have an incentive to screw the other guy in order to better win a better deal?
I feel like I've seen this in action on occasion in pricing negotiations...but my anecdotal experience has no controls or randomization, so I can tease out any effects for or against.
When playing Diplomacy, I often use this technique...in order to assure my interlocutor that I respect him. Could a similar status-reciprocation effect be in play i.e. expert gives status by disclosing conflict (humbling self), decider shows magninimity by not penalizing expert.
Magnanimity should be considered more in the art of human relations.
That doctor's prescribe drugs because they stand to gain financially is another pervasive myth in the Great Orthodox Medicine Conspiracy, along with the cover-up of medical mistakes. In financial terms, it is simply not possible for a single doctor to prescribe enough of any drug to influence global sales and share prices.A real conflict of interest (COI) that gets little attention concerns ordering of tests that the doctor directly or indirectly gains financially from (e.g. an electrical test performed by the doctor him or herself), or which are ordered simply as a control against malpractice. Tests can be harmful or produce results that lead to harm. Another COI is recommending a treatment that requires some other service that the doctor or his practice benefits from, for example, deep brain stimulation for a patient with Parkinson's disease, which is followed up with intensive rehabilitation in the doctor's own rehabilitation unit. And there are even more..... but drug prescription??