Thread: Psychology behind signing a deal

In the western show deadwood season 3, two people are having a dispute.

To put it simply they hate eachother but makes a deal where both have to sign a paper.

What i find very weird and what completely elude my understanding is why they both want to sign last. It is as if being the first to sign is an act of submission and being the last to sign is the one "dominating" the other or something like that.

They both benefit from the deal, even though they hate eachother. So why does signing the deal first or last have something to do in any way?

Is it a western thing, the 1800`s and being America? Or is this something "normal" regardless of "time and place" or the like?

As i said my mind is totally void of understanding here. If i signed a paper on a deal with someone be it friend or foe, i wouldnt pay any heed at all as to who signs first! As ultimately both have to agree for the mutually agreement to take place. No wonder there is war if some people have such an unhealthy amount of pride and fu**** up customs that would give such a trivial and meaningless act any weight.


Id like to know what and why this is an issue and if its normal (Was normal or still is) because i had a laugh at the stupidity that these two people actually would care who would sign first and last. Whats going through these peoples minds?

Originally Posted by Raziell

To put it simply they hate eachother but makes a deal where both have to sign a paper.

What i find very weird and what completely elude my understanding is why they both want to sign last. It is as if being the first to sign is an act of submission and being the last to sign is the one "dominating" the other or something like that.

They both benefit from the deal, even though they hate eachother. So why does signing the deal first or last have something to do in any way?

Yes, I think that's basically it.
However, there is an alternate explanation (although, it's closely aligned). The first one to sign the deal is open to risk, as the second still has the power to back-out... the last one to sign can ruin it all if they ultimately decide to. The first person to sign would look foolish, as they went ahead with the deal and the other stopped it. The last person to sign has more "power" in the situation.

There may also be other explanations. Those are just my own personal thoughts.

I would also agree to that about the one signing last has more "power" in the situation. Being able to back out and all that.

Once the first person has signed he can no longer change his mind. The last person is then free to decide whatever suits him best. Depending on what kind of deal it was he could theoretically stall it, maybe something happens that makes the deal unfavorable to the first guy to sign. As long as guy#2 keeps the papers from guy#1 he'd still be able to sign it and have a deal.