Thread by @Usherwood

Since we're here, let's just run through another key part of negotiation theory, namely the relationship between what you can get from a negotiation relative to what you can get outside it:

1/

In any negotiation, there are a number of universal observations.

Most importantly, there is always the best deal that can be reached within that negotiation, and there's always the best outcome that can be reached by yourself outside it

2/

Inside the negotiation, that best outcome is a function of your shared interests and capacities/resources.

Outside it, the best outcome is a function of your own interests and capacities alone

3/

So, what you can manage together versus what you can do by yourself

4/

As long as what you can manage together (inside the negotiation) is better than what you can do by yourself, then you have good reason to stick with the negotiation

And since things shift around a bit, you can treat the outside option as your floor inside

5/

So the relationship between inside and outside is purely relative. Only if the outside is better than the inside should you leave the negotiation

6/

However, and this is the really important bit that people often forget... "relative" isn't the same as "absolute"

7/

So it might be that the best outcome both inside and outside the negotiation are terrible. But as long as the inside version of 'terrible' is less-terrible than the outside version, you should still stick with it

8/

Likewise, a poor outcome either inside or outside carries no implication that the other outcome will be equivalently good or bad.

So you can have a good inside outcome with a poor outside one. Or a good outside outcome with a poor inside one (in which case you leave talks)

9/

Short version: there's always an inside and an outside outcome in a negotiation, and you should always go for the one that's least-bad for you, even if it's really bad

/end

coda: this all assumes you know what your interests and capacities are. But that's another thread