Every proposal is a trade even if what is being traded is intangible, and in a non-coercive trade both parties believe they stand to gain something… but is it indeed +EV for both? On occasion, it may appear so, but what if one's +EV is the other's -EV? What happens when probabilities are misestimated or not considered?

Many of us think in terms of what *we* are getting out of something, but true wisdom lies in determining what the other party truly wants… The Kegan 2! Self-focused, without deep regard for mutuality, common among teens… while the latter, a Kegan 4. (Kegan 3 is as far as most adults go, but provides little benefit over stage 2 for the purposes of the systemic awareness we want to discuss.)

Diametrically opposed from 2, the Kegan 4 is bestowed with an external view of the world and mild powers of precognition. The more information they have on an individual, the more accurately they can emulate them, cast color and texture to their actions. However, even a mildly above average Kegan 4 can get rused by the horrors… of asymmetric information!

For the Kegan 4s among us, let's use baby's first game theory to model this hypothetical, yet very common scenario: the netflix & chill.

Bob proposes netflix & chill But Machiavellian Bob's ulterior motives are… smashing Alice thinks it's just for casual fun Each party calculates the expected value based on their own beliefs about the other's intentions.

Both Bob and Alice entered thinking the encounter to be +EV, but should Alice end up experiencing regret, her EV collapses to (intensely) negative. Despite having the most to lose, Alice believes her EV to be higher than Bob's. (Noooo… Alice… You naive little thing.) She naively assigns (or fails to even consider) a 0% chance to getting coerced into doing the deed with average, machiavellian Bob whose height starts with a 5.

The magic here stems from understanding that Alice does NOT expect to be coerced into having sex and hardly thinks it could lead to consensual sex. For all intents and purposes, that row should not exist and is only present to illustrate that, netflix & chill memes aside, taking an offer at face value may lead to asymmetric information and subsequent manipulation. Had she assigned a realistic probability to coercion, her EV would have either been low or outright negative, and she would have said no to Bob.

In the real world and to differing levels of completion, we instinctively map these out and make our decisions. Some are good at it, others not so much, and a few… are lucky. Lucky to encounter more Alices than Bobs. The world is full of both of them, but if you *had* to be one… don't be an Alice. But also, don't be a Bob (even if, by and large, they win). And then we have skepticism. Positive bias opens you up to manipulation (see: delulu Alice), while paranoia keeps you away from happiness and serendipity. It's not enough to not be a Bob or Alice, you must also learn how to discern them. Theory of mind.