Phenomenology in Negotiation

[AndrewLewis]

I recently read a book called "Never Split The Difference" by Chris Voss. The author is a former FBI hostage negotiator who turned his skills to the private sector, then wrote a book about the techniques he uses in negotiation.

Basically, he spent 15 years working as a negotiator, and developed skills for negotiation based on what works in the field. Over time, he refined his skills based on what was needed, because if something didn't work, people got murdered. He and the FBI became very effective at negotiation simply through iterative refinement.

He decided to take some classes at Harvard to improve his negotiating skills, and basically he found that academia mostly didn't know what actually worked in the real world. I think this is an excellent example of phenomenology being more effective in technique development than pure science, and I thought you'd find it interesting. What he did after taking the classes (and during his time at the FBI) is extremely instructive to anyone reading this post - he used the science (psychology) to explain the phenomenology, and then expand on it.

Fundamentally,
1) Hypothesis based on observation and mechanistic explanation
2) Test in the field
3) Conclusion
4) Iterate

I have no question. Just thought you and the readers of this board would find it interesting.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Sounds like a productive approach.

[OldMission]

I agree with the analysis. This book provides a practical approach to negotiation based on experience.

Negotiation is a skill that has been analyzed extensively but the findings are not always readily available (or put to use).

For anyone who has an interest in learning more about real-world negotiation to improve their results, this book is a good place to start.
Chris Voss also has a website with substantial, immediately applicable free content.
Black Swan – Negotiation Training & Coaching

And Brett McKay did a great interview with Chris Voss on his podcast that introduces concepts from the book.
Podcast: Haggling and Negotiation Tips | The Art of Manliness

It is great to see this topic on the SS Forum.

[Lee F. Stewart]

The Sam Harris interview was also really good.
Waking Up Podcast #132 - Freeing the Hostages | Sam Harris

And while your there give the Coleman Hughes one a listen on the "Beyond the Politics of Race" #134. Sounds like a very sharp young man.

I ordered Splitting the Difference from Amazon last week. Finished over the weekend, couldn't put it down.

[johnnys]

Sounds like a productive approach.

Isn’t it missing the part where you compare other outcomes to validate causation and extent?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Restate your question, please.

[jfsully]

I think this is an excellent example of phenomenology being more effective in technique development than pure science, and I thought you'd find it interesting. What he did after taking the classes (and during his time at the FBI) is extremely instructive to anyone reading this post - he used the science (psychology) to explain the phenomenology, and then expand on it.

Fundamentally,
1) Hypothesis based on observation and mechanistic explanation
2) Test in the field
3) Conclusion
4) Iterate

Interesting that you contrast his approach with “pure science,” but your description of his process is precisely what most would consider the classic “scientific method.” I think that the problem with academia in many cases is not that they rely on “science” over “phenomenology” but that they neglect the part of “doing science” that involves adjusting your ideas to comport with what actually happens in the world.

Or as the great philosopher Clack (from Car Talk) once said: “Reality often astonishes Theory.”

Thanks for the book recommendation. Negotiation is a universally useful skill (unless you’re a hermit) and I will give it a read. It’s always interesting to read about and learn from expertise in any field.

[AndrewLewis]

Interesting that you contrast his approach with “pure science,” but your description of his process is precisely what most would consider the classic “scientific method.”

You're absolutely right. I should have instead said "purely academic approach".

[johnnys]

1) Hypothesis based on observation and mechanistic explanation
2) Test in the field
3) Conclusion
4) Iterate

Rip - you said this was likely a productive approach. I’m hoping that was snark, as it’s not easily distinguishable from phenomenological reasoning (notwithstanding “iterate” but that comes AFTER “conclusion”, which isn’t part of phenomenology).

The full scientific method requires limiting to one independent variable and replication of results, as I learned it. The above sounds like standard medical journal observational study.

I haven’t read the cited author, so maybe I’m missing the point.

[AndrewLewis]

The full scientific method requires limiting to one independent variable and replication of results, as I learned it.

The scientific method is a series of steps, none of which limit a test to have one independent variable.

Having one independent variable and replicating results is very helpful in the realm of "how do we know what we changed caused the result?" and essentially boils down to statistical epistemology. This is why using one independent variable is commonly used, but it's not a requirement. In fact, there are entire books written on Design of Experiments where you can change multiple variables at one time, run multiple tests, and still yield usable conclusions. This obviously saves time and money where you'd otherwise change one variable at a time. The robustness of the experiment comes down to how much resolution you need on your results, how much noise you have in your system, and the implications of the results. Testing Hooke's law doesn't need as many samples as a cure for cancer.

All of that aside, the whole point was this guy with no educational background become a formidable hostage negotiator, in spite of the studies (conventional wisdom) in academia. I'm not here to shit on academia. I think science for the sake of science's sake is a wonderful necessity, but I wish both ends of the spectrum would come closer together - academia needs to use in the field implications and technicians need to use the scientific method more.