Get what you deserve
I do not know about you, but I quite often have situations when, after negotiations (in the broad sense of the word), there is a feeling that “something completely deserved is received.” I believe, with a probability close to 100%, the story is familiar to many. How to get what you deserve and how it is connected with the notion of rightness in the negotiation process.
And if the negotiations at some stage could seem to be “exact discipline” (well, take, for example, me), then in exploring this problem, we will be far away from it. Although it would seem that it is practically possible to derive the "power balance equation" in the negotiations and following it to succeed and it must be said that such attempts were made ("bit off the mushroom on one side grew, on the other it decreased" - you influence the impression of the other side losses in the case of agreement with your proposal and try to minimize them, and vice versa, to maximize the impression of losses in case of failure), clear cold mathematics.
But already in the process of preparation, you understand that when putting your “goods” on the shelves, you need to remember that the partner also has his own product and seems to need some kind of win to win (for some reason, the anecdote pops up in memory ” “Abrasha, you know, it turns out that what we thought of as an orgasm for twenty years was actually bronchial asthma”. And in general, that everything would go well, you need to "get into the skin of the interlocutor," as it is difficult to do in the process of negotiations and even more so in the process - "stand in the place of the other, without losing your temper". That is, it is necessary to offer something so that I myself would accept in its place (despite the fact that it seems to me that I’m right and I’m not even going to replace him).
')
In general, all this is how to do it, then, without the criteria of correctness, here are some who say (hello to the Harvard School) that they must first be coordinated (which we measure in grams), a good story - but often the truth results in the tighter “war for establishing objective criteria for future negotiations, in relation to which there are no objective criteria for its completion ”(but perhaps it is better to make war earlier and abstractly than later, but specifically). May be.
In all this, it must be said that the truth (which seems to be a source of justice, getting a well-deserved, etc.) somehow fades, as not only the ends of the negotiations, but even their necessary means. It must be found, to prove that your "truth". At some point, it begins to seem that it is not very necessary and no one there at the top of us thinks how moral our victories were. There is literally natural selection, which, up to the lantern, how decent, honest and professional this or that “animal” is. If you are "more adapted" to a specific situation, then in general you win. What is absolutely correlated with the commonplace "that good always triumphs over evil ... means who has won the good too." It turns out that not only the truth is not obligatory, but may deception be useful in general, in moderate doses? (“Alcohol in moderate doses is harmless in any quantity” M. Zhvanetsky).
Trying to sociobiologize (comparing people with animals), I certainly realize that I greatly simplify the situation and everything is much more complicated and selfish individuals are able to sacrifice their interests for the sake of the interests of the group and generally touch some other “disastrous heights”. But for some time we will be encouraged by this “reductionism” and consider such a distant example on the concept of truth: there is some kind of spider who brings a gift to females for a beautifully packaged (usually food) - if he wants to do honestly. But if it is not fair, you can wrap the garbage in the “silver cobweb” (the main thing is to have more “cellophane”) and while the lady unwraps it all - the male spider will have time to take a decisive step away from the complete abyss. And all - make a deal. And from the point of view of natural selection, this “economic subject” has an excellent genetic adaptation and reproduces itself in the offspring.
Well, of course, this is not a gift, in the general karmic sense, and the arms race is growing in the population, spiders, prone to that kind of ethical behavior, build up the tools of deception - they become more inventive (more, more “cellophane”). Females, learn to crack them on distant approaches - become more circumspect. And all this is globally regulated - i.e. a situation so that everyone would turn into such “dashing spiders” in nature are not possible. They are not possible in humans.
And it must be said that after all, the spiders apparently do not think about these things (if to fantasize, then the female would probably have to reason in the manner of “well tailored - the spider is firmly stitched, we should check it as it is in terms of the seriousness of its intentions and long-term devotion "), just so it all adds up, that those genes that are responsible for the caution of the spider, and produce the corresponding nerve impulses - directing their behavior, provide the best reproductive success and are fixed in the population.
Something similar seems to be in us, which at the genetic level allows us to catch cheaters and this story is called reputation. Probably, because of this, we are very determined to learn something bad about others, and to prevent outside of something so bad about us (and of course it would be better to flavor everything with a fair amount of self-promotion).
So, in relation to the bargaining truth, everything happens the same way - it can be said that the search for truth, with a sense of rightness accompanying this process, is not so much a conscious act as a sophisticated genetic weapon, which through feelings and thoughts forms a certain conviction self-righteousness (because if you do not convince yourself, then it is easy to cut off on thin signals of not sincerity, so nature cannot risk). That is, this is a deliberate illusion of our consciousness, which, like an unprincipled (or just good) lawyer, is ready to defend and present absolutely any set of interests in the right light. Consciousness is the press attache of innate instinctive tendencies, the purpose of which is to justify these actions, to convince others that the bearer is a moral and correct member of society. The search for truth in the negotiation process is a contest in the strength of the actual faith of each of the parties (as in the advertisement “you deserve it” and “everyone is delighted with you”).
Then we are already moving from mathematics to a theatrical play - I declare to the negotiating partner what is worthy, with all determination and conviction, although probably I will be forced to retreat to some limits (the point of obvious hardness of the other side), and within the framework of maintaining There is no balance of tension.
How do I understand that it is necessary to give in and not to give in, in a situation where there are no criteria ... Well, probably one criterion will still be present - the criterion of evidence. Well, you will understand this (“quality is a sensual category — you will understand when you see it,” including with regard to the quality of the arguments). If your opponent can formulate the reasons: why you must retreat and relate to his conviction, it is likely that some concession will be possible.
Well, in the end, returning to our smaller brothers, everything happens the same way in chickens, some of them know that for their reproductive potential, it is now better to retreat (in the sense of emotion, delivered to the consciousness by genes, dictate this behavior to them) and not to give up challenge another chicken.
Some kind of strange story, I can always give way (given that I'm right). It is quite possible, since, as was said in the example about consciousness - a lawyer, all this Aristotelian (dialectical logic) is alien to consciousness, it is sharpened on a sophistic (not a search for truth, but victory), the genes sitting in us are “interested” to reproduce and they, of course, spat from the high bell tower "to the tops of the spirit." And the search for the truth (finding self-righteousness) is also a skill and it trains.
The only question is how? Long and hard (who pushed through the previous text and came to this place, must experience something like the feeling that arises during the final credits of the last episode of The X-Files - that’s 202 episodes passed, and the truth still remained somewhere near ").
All the same, I will cite several mechanisms, the consistent and painstaking use of which allows us to “sew” (figuratively speaking) holes in our negotiation behavior and train the necessary skills.
But first, very shortly from where these holes are formed. We already slightly tangentially indicated that we would say so not quite “tabula rasa” and we have genetically embedded firmware that implements the strategy of maximum genetic multiplication under certain conditions. It does this by “slipping” us the necessary feelings and emotions, thereby directing us to the implementation of this strategy (such an easy robotic, against the background of seeming complete free will). At the same time, in the firmware, everything is very pampered: the old mechanisms of the psyche, the new mechanisms of the psyche - “chips over the lamps”, something constantly “short” —functions to maximize the reproduction of the object itself, conflict with the functions to maximize the reproduction of the population to the detriment of the object — well For example, it’s about submission or non-submission to authority, Milgram’s experiments, etc.). Plus, in fact, we live in completely different conditions, which we frankly do not really like our firmware (and she, for example, can persistently offer to “hit or run” in completely unconnected situations with physical survival).
Several things help to train the skills of finding the truth, or let's say the faith that you have it:
The sense of purpose that sticks raging instincts together makes them less broken, makes the system that unites them more distinct. This is related to the internal dialogue on the topic: What do I really want (often, if not almost always, this is not what we declare)? So what, I do move me to what I really want? Or is the emotion script taking me somewhere? What I am willing to pay for it (well, for example, I want some material gain in the negotiations, but it is necessary to give a psychological victory to a counterparts in the negotiations, who likes to win - well, probably in the framework of professional behavior you can come to an agreement that knowing “Why this happens” you can safely endure any “how this happens”).
Understanding the true motives of their behavior (“pulling them out into the light of the mind” and developing a conscious attitude towards them). Since the truth, as we found out, is very closely connected with the belief that you deserve this (from yourself and others), practically all is a resource in negotiations. All you can use is a resource (controlled anger), all that uses you is a problem (not controlled anger). A person has a certain will and freedom in actions, but realizing their true motives, sometimes instinctive, requires a great deal of mental work - the ability to tell oneself the truth and look beyond the moral intrinsic nature of all is also a skill that requires development.
All this makes sense to wrap in an eye for an eye for a tooth strategy (and this may not be exactly what you might think). I have already written about this evolutionary strategy, including experimentally tested within the framework of computer battles (this is the simplest program when meeting with any other program first cooperates. And then it reproduces the move that the opponent made during the previous meeting. One good move deserves the same in response, exactly as bad). That is, this is a kind of mutual, benevolent and not vindictive promotion of a deal in small steps, most of all resembling an exchange - you don’t give anything just like that, just as you would like to take nothing just like that (negotiations often take place outside the table and if you’re something that was unilaterally profitable famously agreed, then it just might not be executed later - which is just as tacitly “we have rethought the attitude to this transaction and are willing and ready to break the contract if you don’t want to revise its terms”), but everything should be changed, The wide sense of the word (if you do it to me ... then I told you that).
Any mathematics negotiations, quickly crumbles if you do not have the strength to resist the opinions of others, some kind of immunization in this regard is necessary. All this arises due to the not quite accurate calibration of a person (if you still consider it as a product of genes and environments - “pens and settings”). For example, we are very uncritical of people with high status (our firmware has a built-in “respect for status” module in the society of hunters of gatherers, the status was associated with the distribution of prey and it was certainly not out of place to respect it, it influenced reproductive success - not too much now ). This non-criticality is manifested in many ways (your internal accounting department - which is by nature very stingy - we are almost instinctively set to “finish” with an “equal exchange”) regarding status people works the other way around, we can often “deceive ourselves down” in the presence of status people ( underestimate your intelligence, for example). At the same time, when negotiating with them, you may also have a sense of justice, the proposed deal, which is essentially no more than draping the window (within the framework that you are clearly undermined by, compensating with status).
No one is interested in the depth and fundamentality of preparation (this does not mean that we should not prepare, it is just by itself, it does not go to the test), the consciousness is very signature, and looks for catchy and coarse things more than subtleties or other other more modest-looking signs of perspectivity. (well, that is, returning to the same examples from our smaller brothers, the turkey considers all the chicks to chick, we instinctively perceive the right to the one who speaks loudly and confidently, etc.). This is to ensure that you have to correct yourself from “charm” and watch over the “front facade” counterpart, but sometimes even add a little show (“the first condition for an attack is the will to attack” S. Tartakower). Emotions are the performers of evolution. Under all thoughts, feelings, differences of temperaments, lies the tricks of innate tendencies — detached equations made up of simple variables: social status, resources, external capabilities, and so on.
If the training of such skills is interesting, and the “near ones” (because they need to be loved) are pitiful, you can try to train on the “long-range” - in the process of real negotiations (if the stakes are not high), or use conditions close to real - different game and training formats, existing in the market.
And if the negotiations at some stage could seem to be “exact discipline” (well, take, for example, me), then in exploring this problem, we will be far away from it. Although it would seem that it is practically possible to derive the "power balance equation" in the negotiations and following it to succeed and it must be said that such attempts were made ("bit off the mushroom on one side grew, on the other it decreased" - you influence the impression of the other side losses in the case of agreement with your proposal and try to minimize them, and vice versa, to maximize the impression of losses in case of failure), clear cold mathematics.
But already in the process of preparation, you understand that when putting your “goods” on the shelves, you need to remember that the partner also has his own product and seems to need some kind of win to win (for some reason, the anecdote pops up in memory ” “Abrasha, you know, it turns out that what we thought of as an orgasm for twenty years was actually bronchial asthma”. And in general, that everything would go well, you need to "get into the skin of the interlocutor," as it is difficult to do in the process of negotiations and even more so in the process - "stand in the place of the other, without losing your temper". That is, it is necessary to offer something so that I myself would accept in its place (despite the fact that it seems to me that I’m right and I’m not even going to replace him).
')
In general, all this is how to do it, then, without the criteria of correctness, here are some who say (hello to the Harvard School) that they must first be coordinated (which we measure in grams), a good story - but often the truth results in the tighter “war for establishing objective criteria for future negotiations, in relation to which there are no objective criteria for its completion ”(but perhaps it is better to make war earlier and abstractly than later, but specifically). May be.
In all this, it must be said that the truth (which seems to be a source of justice, getting a well-deserved, etc.) somehow fades, as not only the ends of the negotiations, but even their necessary means. It must be found, to prove that your "truth". At some point, it begins to seem that it is not very necessary and no one there at the top of us thinks how moral our victories were. There is literally natural selection, which, up to the lantern, how decent, honest and professional this or that “animal” is. If you are "more adapted" to a specific situation, then in general you win. What is absolutely correlated with the commonplace "that good always triumphs over evil ... means who has won the good too." It turns out that not only the truth is not obligatory, but may deception be useful in general, in moderate doses? (“Alcohol in moderate doses is harmless in any quantity” M. Zhvanetsky).
Trying to sociobiologize (comparing people with animals), I certainly realize that I greatly simplify the situation and everything is much more complicated and selfish individuals are able to sacrifice their interests for the sake of the interests of the group and generally touch some other “disastrous heights”. But for some time we will be encouraged by this “reductionism” and consider such a distant example on the concept of truth: there is some kind of spider who brings a gift to females for a beautifully packaged (usually food) - if he wants to do honestly. But if it is not fair, you can wrap the garbage in the “silver cobweb” (the main thing is to have more “cellophane”) and while the lady unwraps it all - the male spider will have time to take a decisive step away from the complete abyss. And all - make a deal. And from the point of view of natural selection, this “economic subject” has an excellent genetic adaptation and reproduces itself in the offspring.
Well, of course, this is not a gift, in the general karmic sense, and the arms race is growing in the population, spiders, prone to that kind of ethical behavior, build up the tools of deception - they become more inventive (more, more “cellophane”). Females, learn to crack them on distant approaches - become more circumspect. And all this is globally regulated - i.e. a situation so that everyone would turn into such “dashing spiders” in nature are not possible. They are not possible in humans.
And it must be said that after all, the spiders apparently do not think about these things (if to fantasize, then the female would probably have to reason in the manner of “well tailored - the spider is firmly stitched, we should check it as it is in terms of the seriousness of its intentions and long-term devotion "), just so it all adds up, that those genes that are responsible for the caution of the spider, and produce the corresponding nerve impulses - directing their behavior, provide the best reproductive success and are fixed in the population.
Something similar seems to be in us, which at the genetic level allows us to catch cheaters and this story is called reputation. Probably, because of this, we are very determined to learn something bad about others, and to prevent outside of something so bad about us (and of course it would be better to flavor everything with a fair amount of self-promotion).
So, in relation to the bargaining truth, everything happens the same way - it can be said that the search for truth, with a sense of rightness accompanying this process, is not so much a conscious act as a sophisticated genetic weapon, which through feelings and thoughts forms a certain conviction self-righteousness (because if you do not convince yourself, then it is easy to cut off on thin signals of not sincerity, so nature cannot risk). That is, this is a deliberate illusion of our consciousness, which, like an unprincipled (or just good) lawyer, is ready to defend and present absolutely any set of interests in the right light. Consciousness is the press attache of innate instinctive tendencies, the purpose of which is to justify these actions, to convince others that the bearer is a moral and correct member of society. The search for truth in the negotiation process is a contest in the strength of the actual faith of each of the parties (as in the advertisement “you deserve it” and “everyone is delighted with you”).
Then we are already moving from mathematics to a theatrical play - I declare to the negotiating partner what is worthy, with all determination and conviction, although probably I will be forced to retreat to some limits (the point of obvious hardness of the other side), and within the framework of maintaining There is no balance of tension.
How do I understand that it is necessary to give in and not to give in, in a situation where there are no criteria ... Well, probably one criterion will still be present - the criterion of evidence. Well, you will understand this (“quality is a sensual category — you will understand when you see it,” including with regard to the quality of the arguments). If your opponent can formulate the reasons: why you must retreat and relate to his conviction, it is likely that some concession will be possible.
Well, in the end, returning to our smaller brothers, everything happens the same way in chickens, some of them know that for their reproductive potential, it is now better to retreat (in the sense of emotion, delivered to the consciousness by genes, dictate this behavior to them) and not to give up challenge another chicken.
Some kind of strange story, I can always give way (given that I'm right). It is quite possible, since, as was said in the example about consciousness - a lawyer, all this Aristotelian (dialectical logic) is alien to consciousness, it is sharpened on a sophistic (not a search for truth, but victory), the genes sitting in us are “interested” to reproduce and they, of course, spat from the high bell tower "to the tops of the spirit." And the search for the truth (finding self-righteousness) is also a skill and it trains.
The only question is how? Long and hard (who pushed through the previous text and came to this place, must experience something like the feeling that arises during the final credits of the last episode of The X-Files - that’s 202 episodes passed, and the truth still remained somewhere near ").
All the same, I will cite several mechanisms, the consistent and painstaking use of which allows us to “sew” (figuratively speaking) holes in our negotiation behavior and train the necessary skills.
But first, very shortly from where these holes are formed. We already slightly tangentially indicated that we would say so not quite “tabula rasa” and we have genetically embedded firmware that implements the strategy of maximum genetic multiplication under certain conditions. It does this by “slipping” us the necessary feelings and emotions, thereby directing us to the implementation of this strategy (such an easy robotic, against the background of seeming complete free will). At the same time, in the firmware, everything is very pampered: the old mechanisms of the psyche, the new mechanisms of the psyche - “chips over the lamps”, something constantly “short” —functions to maximize the reproduction of the object itself, conflict with the functions to maximize the reproduction of the population to the detriment of the object — well For example, it’s about submission or non-submission to authority, Milgram’s experiments, etc.). Plus, in fact, we live in completely different conditions, which we frankly do not really like our firmware (and she, for example, can persistently offer to “hit or run” in completely unconnected situations with physical survival).
Several things help to train the skills of finding the truth, or let's say the faith that you have it:
The sense of purpose that sticks raging instincts together makes them less broken, makes the system that unites them more distinct. This is related to the internal dialogue on the topic: What do I really want (often, if not almost always, this is not what we declare)? So what, I do move me to what I really want? Or is the emotion script taking me somewhere? What I am willing to pay for it (well, for example, I want some material gain in the negotiations, but it is necessary to give a psychological victory to a counterparts in the negotiations, who likes to win - well, probably in the framework of professional behavior you can come to an agreement that knowing “Why this happens” you can safely endure any “how this happens”).
Understanding the true motives of their behavior (“pulling them out into the light of the mind” and developing a conscious attitude towards them). Since the truth, as we found out, is very closely connected with the belief that you deserve this (from yourself and others), practically all is a resource in negotiations. All you can use is a resource (controlled anger), all that uses you is a problem (not controlled anger). A person has a certain will and freedom in actions, but realizing their true motives, sometimes instinctive, requires a great deal of mental work - the ability to tell oneself the truth and look beyond the moral intrinsic nature of all is also a skill that requires development.
All this makes sense to wrap in an eye for an eye for a tooth strategy (and this may not be exactly what you might think). I have already written about this evolutionary strategy, including experimentally tested within the framework of computer battles (this is the simplest program when meeting with any other program first cooperates. And then it reproduces the move that the opponent made during the previous meeting. One good move deserves the same in response, exactly as bad). That is, this is a kind of mutual, benevolent and not vindictive promotion of a deal in small steps, most of all resembling an exchange - you don’t give anything just like that, just as you would like to take nothing just like that (negotiations often take place outside the table and if you’re something that was unilaterally profitable famously agreed, then it just might not be executed later - which is just as tacitly “we have rethought the attitude to this transaction and are willing and ready to break the contract if you don’t want to revise its terms”), but everything should be changed, The wide sense of the word (if you do it to me ... then I told you that).
Any mathematics negotiations, quickly crumbles if you do not have the strength to resist the opinions of others, some kind of immunization in this regard is necessary. All this arises due to the not quite accurate calibration of a person (if you still consider it as a product of genes and environments - “pens and settings”). For example, we are very uncritical of people with high status (our firmware has a built-in “respect for status” module in the society of hunters of gatherers, the status was associated with the distribution of prey and it was certainly not out of place to respect it, it influenced reproductive success - not too much now ). This non-criticality is manifested in many ways (your internal accounting department - which is by nature very stingy - we are almost instinctively set to “finish” with an “equal exchange”) regarding status people works the other way around, we can often “deceive ourselves down” in the presence of status people ( underestimate your intelligence, for example). At the same time, when negotiating with them, you may also have a sense of justice, the proposed deal, which is essentially no more than draping the window (within the framework that you are clearly undermined by, compensating with status).
No one is interested in the depth and fundamentality of preparation (this does not mean that we should not prepare, it is just by itself, it does not go to the test), the consciousness is very signature, and looks for catchy and coarse things more than subtleties or other other more modest-looking signs of perspectivity. (well, that is, returning to the same examples from our smaller brothers, the turkey considers all the chicks to chick, we instinctively perceive the right to the one who speaks loudly and confidently, etc.). This is to ensure that you have to correct yourself from “charm” and watch over the “front facade” counterpart, but sometimes even add a little show (“the first condition for an attack is the will to attack” S. Tartakower). Emotions are the performers of evolution. Under all thoughts, feelings, differences of temperaments, lies the tricks of innate tendencies — detached equations made up of simple variables: social status, resources, external capabilities, and so on.
If the training of such skills is interesting, and the “near ones” (because they need to be loved) are pitiful, you can try to train on the “long-range” - in the process of real negotiations (if the stakes are not high), or use conditions close to real - different game and training formats, existing in the market.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/299454/
All Articles