I'm trying to understand the principles of "Information Asymmetry and Salary Negotiation".  Has anyone read any new research on this topic which can prove one way or another whether the 'first person to name a number' loses?  I don't believe that entirely, although in some situations I do.  My client was upset that I told a candidate the top of the salary range, although the candidate was $100K per year above the salary range, but still interested in the job, even after I tried to discourage him (negative selling technique) ...  I guess the critical point is, should I have tried to discourage him even more, by naming a lower number?  I say no, but my client is skeptical.  A complex issue of game theory and economics, in my opinion, but common-sense should prevail, shouldn't it?  How much can I get away with 'pushing my luck' by trying to recruit a $200K+ per year candidate for $160K, when he's already over the top of the range, but still interested in the job despite a minimum $20K cut in earnings (at $180K, the number I provided)?

When I studied Differential Equations (one of the few classes I was allowed to achieve an "A" grade in, at the University level [may I mention that the class was taught by a very kindly fellow named "Staffney" -- which I think may well have propelled me in the direction of the field of Recruiting, as a profession]), I learned that there are certain sorts of equations which can best be solved by making an 'educated guess', and then calculating the results of that guess, followed by recalculating the solution by successively better approximations.

By the same token, although I tend to be extremely accurate at guessing salaries of candidates, when needed, I sometimes begin by introducing a hypothetical number (perhaps an upper or lower constraint) which is intended to produce a response (positive or negative) from the candidate, allowing me to better grasp his/her salary history and requirements.  Quite often, I am extremely correct and accurate in my first guess (somewhat like a "Carney" worker who guesses weights of people who ask).  I attribute this accuracy to decades of study of compensation for many thousands of individuals I have interacted with, and interviewed about salary history, as well as to my scores in the "90th percentile" of psychic ability.... for example, when I first took the Rhine Card test for psychic or intuitive talents, I named the first four cards correctly.  This was the first and only time I have taken this test.  The odds against guessing the first 4 card sequences accurately are 6 ^exp 4, (six to the fourth power, according to the laws of permutations and combinatorics). That number is 1296... meaning that I had correctly guessed the sequence of Rhine cards despite that being less than a one in one-thousand chance.

So, maybe I get lucky a lot when I make 'guesstimates'.  I had a girlfriend once who dragged me, against my will, to classes in "Remote Viewing" taught by a former participant in the CIA "Stargate" (psychic espionage) program, and learned a lot of interesting things from that.  For example, on September 11 of 2000, one of the days I was in the class, I drew a picture of a plane flying into the World Trade Center (an event that happened one year later), which was part of the assignment in class (trying to anticipate a possible future). So, I do have an 'intuitionistic' side.  Frankly, I wish that the "Stargate" program had not been cancelled, because it really seemed to work.

On the other hand, I firmly believe in Science and Reason, and finding answers by calculation, thought, and research.  What I tend to think, though, is that certain fields of intellectual research (like Metaphysics) can actually be reduced to very dry, nontrivial mathematical calculations, some of which the Human mind can perform at a subconscious level, without resort to any actual 'deliberate' calculations.

Do you (Readers) ever feel like you actually 'know' something, even though you can't explain or justify why?