having better arguments

THE BETTER ARGUMENTS PROJECT—a civic initiative founded by Allstate, The Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and the Bezos Family Foundation to help bridge divides—was built on the belief that arguments are fundamental to healthy civic life. To effectively address divisions in our society, it proposes we have better arguments, not fewer.

The project characterizes better arguments as emotionally intelligent, rooted in history, and honest about power imbalances. Using five principles for engagement—taking winning off the table, prioritizing relationships, paying attention to context, embracing vulnerability, and making room to transform—the project provides a framework for people to engage with each other on divisive issues.

"How Do We Build a Better Society? Have Better Arguments" The Atlantic (sponsored by Allstate)

See also: https://betterarguments.org/

invent solutions

One lawyer we know attributes his success directly to his ability to invent solutions advantageous to both his client and the other side. He expands the pie before dividing it. Skill at inventing options is one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have.

Yet all too often negotiators end up like the proverbial children who quarreled over an orange. After they finally agreed to divide the orange in half, the first child took one half, ate the fruit, and threw away the peel, while the other threw away the fruit and used the peel from the second half in baking a cake. All too often negotiators “leave money on the table” – they fail to reach agreement when they might have, or the agreement they do reach could have been better for each side. Too many negotiations end up with half an orange for each side instead of the whole fruit for one and the whole peel for the other. Why? 

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard NegotiationProject). Penguin. 2011. P.58, 59

the assumption of a fixed pie

[A] major block to creative problem-solving lies in the assumption of a fixed pie: the less for you, the more for me. Rarely if ever is this assumption true. First of all, both sides can always be worse off than they are now. Chess looks like a zero-sum game if one loses, the other wins – until a dog trots by and knocks over the table, spills the beer, and leaves you both worse off than before. 

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton 

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard NegotiationProject). Penguin. 2011. P.72

who's winning

In 1964 an American father and his twelve-year-old son were enjoying a beautiful Saturday in Hyde Park, London, playing catch with a Frisbee. Few in England had seen a Frisbee at that time and a small group of strollers gathered to watch this strange sport. Finally, one homburg-clad Englishman came over to the father: “Sorry to bother you. Been watching you a quarter of an hour. Who’s winning?”

In most instances to ask a negotiator “Who’s winning?” is as inappropriate as to ask who’s winning a marriage. If you ask that question about your marriage, you have already lost the more important negotiation – the one about what kind of game to play, about the way you deal with each other and your shared and differing interests.

Roger Fisher, William L. Ury & Bruce Patton

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (The Harvard Negotiation Project). Penguin. 2011. P.150