Aspirational Compromise Test
Compromise on the route only when both sides still climb toward the same goal
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
Feldman separates two forms of compromise. Zero-sum compromise may be necessary to keep a partnership together, but it can amount to taking turns doing what one side believes is wrong. Aspirational compromise is stronger. The parties first establish a broad objective that would make the world or their shared domain better. They then identify whether their disagreement concerns the destination or only the route. If both routes genuinely move toward the same objective, one party can support the other's approach now without pretending to believe it is optimal, while the alternative gets a fair attempt later. Feldman's hiking metaphor is the mechanism: both paths climb the same mountain even if each person favors a different fork. Progress is evaluated against the shared destination, preserving principle while allowing coordinated experimentation and reciprocal flexibility.
Origin
Feldman developed the distinction while discussing Lincoln, constitutional compromise, business partnerships, and polarization with Tim Ferriss.
Core principles
- 01Not every compromise is mere waffling
- 02A shared higher objective can justify flexibility on means
- 03Partners can disagree about the route while agreeing on the destination
- 04Reciprocal experimentation makes compromise informative
- 05A compromise that abandons the common objective fails the test
How to run it
- 1
Name the shared objective
Ask both sides to state the broader outcome they want to achieve together.
Pro tip Make it specific enough to judge progress but broad enough to permit more than one route.
Watch out A slogan is not a shared objective if the parties mean incompatible outcomes by it.
- 2
Test its aspiration
Confirm that the objective involves making the present condition actively better rather than merely preserving each side's share.
- 3
Locate the disagreement
Determine whether the conflict concerns the common destination or the route used to reach it.
Pro tip If the destination differs, negotiate that before debating tactics.
Watch out Do not disguise a conflict over ends as a minor tactical dispute.
- 4
Screen the routes
Verify that each proposed approach still moves toward the shared objective.
Pro tip Reject any path that contradicts the objective even if it is expedient.
- 5
Try one path
Choose one party's route for the present attempt while recording the alternative and the shared measure of progress.
Pro tip Treat the choice as a collective experiment, not a declaration that the other side was wrong.
- 6
Reciprocate and evaluate
Give the alternative a fair future attempt when appropriate, and judge both by movement toward the common objective.
Watch out Reciprocity without evaluation can become aimless turn-taking.
In the wild
Two partners agree that their enterprise should transform a domain but disagree about the faster path. They confirm that both proposals move toward that outcome, run one partner's approach first, and reserve a fair attempt for the alternative. Neither has to claim that the chosen route is personally preferred.
→ The partners stay coordinated without surrendering the shared objective or pretending disagreement has vanished.
Tim recounts a class whose students could not agree on a definition of world peace. The professor instead asked them to identify constituent conditions they could agree upon, giving the class shared objectives concrete enough to work on.
→ An abstract conflict becomes collaborative work on agreed components.
Common mistakes
Compromising without a common end
Flexibility over tactics is not aspirational when the parties are actually pursuing incompatible destinations.
Calling every path acceptable
A route that undermines the shared objective fails even if accepting it would end the immediate argument.
Declaring the other side wrong
The method treats route selection as a collective experiment, not as forced admission that one party's judgment is inferior.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for partners or groups that share a meaningful destination but disagree about the best path.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when the sides have incompatible end goals or when one proposed route violates the shared objective.
From the transcript
“we agree on a broader objective that involves making the world actively better and we both want to achieve that objective”
“i see us as involved in a collective experiment to try to get us to this end and we both want that same end”
“we know both forks go up the mountain and we're trying to figure out like which one will get us there faster or better”
From the episode
#540: Harvard Polymath Noah Feldman — Deep Focus for Hyper-Productivity, Learning 10+ Languages, Predicting the Future with History, the Possibilities (and Limitations) of DAOs, Lessons from the Iraq Invasion, Designing the Supreme Court of Facebook, the Virtue of Scholarship, and the Wild Life of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Noah Feldman