Tradeoff

A tradeoff arises when the candidate options differ across several factors in conflicting ways: option A beats B on one factor but loses on another, so neither is best on every factor. Without strict superiority, people reach for a way to combine the factors into one overall score and pick the winner.

CF argues this combining is usually illegitimate. You can only add quantities in the same dimension (after unit conversion); adding unlike terms like price-points to cuteness-points is meaningless arithmetic dressed up as analysis. Weighted-factor scoring hides this by assigning weights, but the weights are arbitrary and the sum has no real units. So the supposed need to “trade off” via numeric weighting rests on a mathematical error.

CF’s alternative dissolves many apparent tradeoffs rather than splitting the difference. Convert each factor into a binary, good-enough test tied to a sub-goal: does this option pass, or fail, at each factor? Then combine by multiplying the binaries. Because most factors have excess capacity, extra goodness past the breakpoint buys nothing, so two options that both clear every threshold are equally adequate — there is no tradeoff to agonize over. A genuine conflict only remains when an option fails some sub-goal, which is then a decisive criticism against it.

This makes CF a satisficer rather than a maximizer: aim for good enough on each sub-goal, not maximal goodness everywhere. Where a real conflict persists, the productive move is to seek a win-win solution that satisfies both sides, not to score and rank.