OMG I am having an absolute blast listening to Chris Voss, former hostage negotiator, talk about how to negotiate. I have no idea if these techniques work but my God it is so entertaining. My next negotiation (and we negotiate so frequently), I am going all in!
For posterity, I'm going to put some tips by this hostage negotiator in a thread.
Tip #1: Negotiation is about building trust and establishing a relationship. It is counterproductive to go in with a bottom line. Much better to establish relationship & see what can be achieved 2/
(side note: I find it so interesting to have a hostage negotiator of all people advocate for non-zero sum negotiation tactics. This makes me think that zero-sum or not really is an attitude, not so much driven by circumstance as we think) 3/
Tip #2: Mirroring. How to get your opponent to talk. Just repeat the last three words back to them, in a question. Incredibly effective (so Voss).
E.g., "I'm really scared right now!"
- "You're really scared right now?"
- "Yeah I'm worried about..."
and you learn more & more 4/
Rationale: people don't like silence. They'll just talk when you mirror at them.
Tip #3: Labelling. When someone says something a bit incoherent or emotionally laden, label that emotion
"You sound pretty scared to me"
Or "You seem like a caring person" 5/
Rationale: apparently, labeling negative emotions help people feel less negative. Don't however center yourself
so not "What I'm hearing is you're angry with me"
but "You sound pretty upset about this".
Always center the other to establish trust. 6/
Weirdly, while labeling negative emotions decreases their power, labeling positive emotions/ideas reinforces them e.g.
"Seems like driving this new car really made you feel happy!" (makes potential customer even happier.
I find this counterintuitive. Will need to try it! 7/
Labeling and mirroring together do wonders when talking to someone who is hostile and confused. You get people to talk, you de-escalate, and you don't have to give anything away about yourself. You let them do all the talking & gather crucial info 8/
Tip #4 delivery. This I found incredibly interesting and is hard to do in a series of tweet. You need to hear it. How you say things is really important. You can have a light, happy humorous voice
"The product costs 35,000 dollars" -- it really matters how you say it 9/
If you say this in a deadpan voice it will make people feel antagonistic or unhappy, but delivered in a light, happy, slightly humorous way says: okay, this may seem like a lot but I want to keep talking with you (I wonder how gender features into all of this, and power etc) 10/
Then there is what Voss calls "late night DJ voice", a soothing, slow voice that you use to de-escalate. You use this when your opponent gets nervous, it makes them relax and more willing to talk 11/
For really non-movable, non-negotiable things you use your "analytic voice", e.g., "Okay, here is what you will do. You will come out slowly, with your hands above your head". The end of the sentence should go down (no vocal upturn). You say it slowly. Use this very sparing 12/
Another thing to note: if your opponent uses "us" "we", "our hands are tied" etc, a lot of plural first-person they tend to be the ones deciding. But if they use a lot of "I", "me" etc. they are not that important and you are wasting time if you think they have decision power 13/
This is something I know to be correct: people in positions of powerlessness use the first-person pronoun a lot, people who have power use "we" "us" in part to make it more difficult for you to get them to move their position (hence: our hands are tied-they usually aren't) 14/
(will add to this as course goes on. I often need to negotiate and so I find this a useful skillset to learn!)
BTW here is an intriguing study confirming Voss that pronouns reflect relative hierarchy. Done with military people: "people with higher status consistently used fewer 1st-person singular, and more 1st person plural and 2nd-person singular pronouns" journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
Following with Chris Voss, hostage negotiator tips
#5: Body language. Truth telling is more important than lying because there are so many ways someone can lie but only a few ways to tell the truth. So it's important to start with low-stakes questions that establish truth 15/
Trust your gut. There are many tips on how to detect lying but--assuming neurotypical cognition I think--generally if your gut tells you someone is lying or is worried about you thinking they're lying (note: this is not the same thing cf. Othello) then it's usually the case 16/
#6 Really cool tip: Forcing empathy. This is where advanced negotiating tactics feel almost like magic.
You cannot rely on your opponent to feel empathy with you, you need to force it. How? 17/
A good stock question "How am I supposed to do that?" he talks about a vendor he advised, who kept on getting more work without being paid. He advised just tell them "How am I supposed to do that?" - force them to see your point of view 18/
It turns out they were internally a mess. The person who paid freelancers had changed, the new one messed up. Her asking "How am I supposed to do that" [new work when I kept on not being paid] forced them to see her point of view, and she was paid 19/
Tip #7 Creating the illusion of control: Your negotiating partner will be more collaborative if they feel the illusion they are under control. I already knew that but here are some practical tips of how to actually achieve this 20/
Ask "how" and "what" questions, not "why" questions.
Not: "Why can't you give me the startup funds"
but "What prevents you from giving me the startup funds I need to make this joint venture a success?" 21/
The rationale: why questions elicit defensiveness, which you want to avoid. (e.g., people have been asked, since age two "Why did you drop that vase?")--it sounds accusing.
How or what questions elicit a sense of cooperation and trying to solve a problem together. 22/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@CT_Bergstrom Pfff the philosophical community has discussed this amply. If only he read some philosophy then at least he would be read up on it. This is an excellent paper on the topic bostonreview.net/race-philosoph…
@CT_Bergstrom Since I think few people will click through, let me just highlight a few important passages of this piece. The authors, @RDembroff
and Dee Payton, argue that there is an asymmetry between being transgender and being transracial 1/
@CT_Bergstrom@RDembroff They write "... it is a mistake to base this asymmetry on notions about who “really is” a woman or who “really is” Black. The social world is a dynamic and ever-changing place...."2/
Reading Heidi (Spyri) to my son. I loved the book as a kid and the descriptions of the mountains are still magical. But now... I'm just not sure if I love the book quite so much. There are two problems. First, there is Alm-uncle (grandfather). Basically a bunch of bigots 1/
Who rejected him and cast him out because he came as a single father with a small child back from Naples to the small village in Switzerland. Oooh he's a single dad. He must've done something wrong. And he was shunned. And now he's supposed to make amends with the community 2/
Second major problem: there are strong disabled characters (the grandma of Peter and the girl Clara) - this is good. But their disability is portrayed as something that voids their life almost from all meaning, super-negative. We see this through Heidi's eyes in parts, still 3/
Tomorrow I will be part of a panel on prestige and inclusion in Anglo-American philosophy (with @Etienne_Brown@RebeccaBamford and Thierry Ngosso.
Here are some late night thoughts on the following puzzle:
Why don't we have an international philosophical community? 1/
@Etienne_Brown@RebeccaBamford It is remarkable to see how fractured the philosophical community is. I have worked and lived in 4 countries: Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK, and the US. And in those 4 (wealthy, western) countries, there are distinct philosophical communities, but overall ... 2/
Little in the way of collaborations. If you look beyond western countries, things look even bleaker. As a little test, try to think of names of philosophers working in two African countries with a lively philosophical tradition: Ghana and South Africa. How many can you name? 3/
Going (virtually) to the #PacificAPA21 session for John Martin Fischer session on death, immortality & meaning of life. My motivation was: difficult to concentrate on Zoom, let's do a lighter session.
Only in academic philosophy would death, meaning of life be seen as "lighter"!
He's now arguing against the "immortality curmudgeons", who think that immortality would be bad (e.g., terribly boring)
Fischer "I call them immortality curmudgeons because that makes their view less plausible from the outset."
Now response by @augustggorman on John Martin Fischer's book. Their summary of the book really make me want to read it!
Am at an #APApacific21 session on how to publish with editors from Hackett, Blackwell, Cambridge etc. Focus will be on non-fiction philosophy publishing. Will put some tips in the thread 1/
How to approach a publisher? Depends on what you want to write (tips by Jeff Dean, Hackett)
Trade publishing, for a wide audience, is a world on its own (big-5 publishers eg. Penguin). You'll need an agent and you'll need to work in close consultation with the press 2/
Focusing on academic publishing. What kind of project do you have? What format will it be? E.g., monograph--meant usually for your peers or people in adjacent fields.
Primarily published by university presses, but commercial publishers also do a lot of them. 3/
Important observation from James Weatherall and @cailinmeister's modeling work: "Originators lose control of their ideas. They cannot just reverse them"
Once you make a claim it's out there.
Retraction is less effective than initial communication.
Next up is Craig Callender who makes an astute critique to models that show things like overfishing (tragedy of commons), racism (ingroup preference) in the absence of overt biases. Problem with these models: you get racism without racists. It becomes a matter of group dynamics