Dan Shapiro, the head of Harvard’s International Negotiation program, shares 3 keys to a better argument.
Subscribe to Big Think on YouTube ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQECJukTDE2i6aCoMnS-Vg?sub_confirmation=1
Get smarter, faster with our playlist ► https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uULy4b0kV6dcSRjedcy3IymBytRT34Q
Americans are increasingly falling into the “tribal trap,” according to Dan Shapiro, author of “Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts.”
The tribal trap often centers on politics. Those ensnared in it will do anything they can to shut down the other side in an effort to prove that their side is right, just, and the only way forward. But from abortion to immigration, the problem is often not what we’re arguing about, it’s how.
So, how can we have more productive conversations? In this Big Think interview, Shapiro uses his negotiating expertise to outline several strategies to escape the tribal trap and communicate effectively, including understanding the core values of the other side, listening intently to what they’re saying, conveying that you understand what they’re saying, and finding common ground.
Read the video transcript ► https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/harvard-negotiator-explains-how-to-argue
———————————————————————————-
About Dan Shapiro:
The founder and director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program, Daniel Shapiro teaches a highly evaluated course on negotiation at Harvard College; instructs psychology interns at Harvard Medical School/McLean Hospital; and leads executive education sessions at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Harvard Kennedy School, and Harvard Medical School/McLean Hospital. He also has served on the faculty at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and at the Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He is author of Negotiating the Nonnegotiable, which Matthew Bishop of the Economist Group called “quite simply, the best book I have ever read on negotiating in situations of extreme conflict.” He also is coauthor with Roger Fisher of the negotiation classic “Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate.”
———————————————————————————-
Read more of our stories on negotiation:
What is tactical empathy and how can it help in negotiations at work?
► https://bigthink.com/smart-skills/tactical-empathy-work-negotiations/
5 laws for leaders who want to build trust
► https://bigthink.com/plus/5-laws-for-leaders-who-want-to-build-trust/
Theory of mind: What chess and drug dealers can teach you about manipulation
► https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/chess-theory-of-mind-manipulation/
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+
Make your business smarter, faster: https://bigthink.com/plus/
———————————————————————————-
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: https://bigthink.com/popular/
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: https://bigthink.com/st/newsletter
► Facebook: https://bigth.ink/facebook
► Instagram: https://bigth.ink/Instagram
► Twitter: https://bigth.ink/twitter
source
What do you think of these 3 steps to conflict resolution?
i didnt understand
I don't think I've ever wittnessed someone change another person's mind through the means of arguing. You will never convince anyone of anything by directly criticizing an opposing view, its why debates are scored like a sporting event and not by how many people were convinced one way or the other. If you want to make real progress in the minds of others, its with empathy and support.
Don't argue with the privileged, support the people who suffer from their ignorance.
This is a great idea, especially about politics, but I'm not sure it will work in this day and age. Difference of a political opinion is one thing, but when people accuse you of being apart of a global cabal, or whatever, and drink the blood of dead babies to stay alive and that you're a pedophile because you're a liberal, the conversation kind of ends there. I mean, how do you respond to that, especially when they have zero evidence to support their claims. If you present the facts they try to talk over you and just dig in and its not even an argument anymore. Something to think about
The problem is rationalization doesn't solve the conflict: the conflict arise when people are unable to rationalize because emotions take away logical thinking.
This guys voice is so soothing, that no one would argue with him in the 1st place…
Cut the background music
Manipulation at it's finest
sadly some people make it really hard to understand logic. i mean thats why the republicans got more extreme and are now right wing populists instead of center right politicians and also why democrats use pretty much useless candidates because when you have to choose between some old guy and hitler, i think most people would take some old guy no matter what they are doing or said in the past
step one on arguing be loud and dont let them talk or else they can express their ideas
psyop
Smc ko laathi DENA SHURU KARR DO..
I walked over to the grand wizard’s house to try this, I am currently typing from one of the branches of the tree in his yard, thank you so much for your advice❤
Easy for this guy, he's got that tired, queasy Toby from office face. His appearance and presence suck out the energy out of conflict.
how to argue with out crying.
You lost me at "partner". It will never work since the other person is against you in the first place or is not cooperative and argues some more.
The defects in contemporary politics are two-fold. Unprincipled, venal, bipartisan consensus amongst representatives of the people, and unthinking, primal, polarised antagonism in the electorate. Both phenomena are cultivated by the oligarchs who benefit most from corrupting democratic institutions and from distracting and disempowering the common folk. All the goodwill in the world from Harvard academics will, unfortunately, never be enough to change that dynamic, at least until the power to manipulate public perception and the performance of civic duties is removed from malevolent, self-interested, neo-feudal overlords, and there is a common understanding amongst ordinary people that even minor deviations from ethical conduct accumulate into the cause of deep and abiding adverse consequences for everyone in society.
Bolar expression khub shundor.
what he said is right and can be applied to a Normal Person and it's impossible with a Stupid/Dump Person. There is no Logic to some people. Like the butler of Batman Said "Some People want to see the world burn they dont need any reason".
I learned with this vid that the best way to argue is to put background music so loud folks'll be too distracted to make a counterpoint
this works if people are educated. it wont work with uneducated people in a brawl. you dont need harvard to teach you negotiations. human being has plenty of instincts. they have course for everything making things mechanical. take some tips and move on. As I said they work at a set up not in open lane. survival of the fittest takes over.
glad we didnt agree and appreciate the nazi party
Debate 101 — First acknowledging the other person’s point, before respectfully responding and finding common ground
How do we appreciate a world view in which some people are considered to be not people, or not fully people? When you're talking to a person, "the other side" if you will, whose view is that one or more groups of people (who are indeed fully human and deserving of having not only their right protected, but their lives as well) what should we appreciate about that point of view? This isn't theoretical. Our political discourse is the way it is because a large contingent of people in this country believe one group or another, whether it's women, people of color, lgbtq+ folks, those in a religion they don't like, or have not weathered our system well, are not people.
I'll admit some of these folks do not see that the policies they advocate for and the philosophies they accept lead to dehumanization of others. Still, everything they are for, and the implications of their ideology has the same effect. People die. People are denied a decent life. People have to see dehumanizing rhetoric about themselves and their loved ones.
How do we work on that? How do we bring these people to our side? How do we make them see the harm they do? Is it by saying, "I can see that makes sense"? Some how I don't think there's a pat answer to this.
i can t believe this was free!!!
The final answear SEEMS to be always the same: Balance.
If his surname is Shapiro, I believe that he knows how to argue effectively
Ya, it starts with each of us. That is exactly the problem! Some of us are willing to listen to what you have to say and some of us are not! It is impossible to rationalize with irrational people. You can be as earnest as you want explaining common sense, it just does not work. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. This is just more hopium to try and convince rational people that insane fuckwits can change. They can not. They are fucking crazy and it's about time we treat them as such. Dangerous menaces to the common good.
Wait 10 min when you argue seems like entire century lol 😀
It is toxic. They don't want to have their problems solved, because then they will loose their "why".
Ben Shapiro should watch this
We need to start teaching and developing this skill in children, so they become adults who know how to negotiate and find solutions through our common ground. Rather than the "My way or the highway" thinking we have right now, that has been leading us to go to war with each other.
Great insights🙏
this is bullshit when you aren't dealing with normal people with reasonable abilities to think and evaluate. People with mental health issues and people who have zero attention span, cannot really be reasoned with very well. I'm thinking about this as it relates to the workplace.
If you are wrong then just don't argue.
amazing
just a reminder that Nazis aren't even people okay?
Can you tell how to argue successfully with toxic , overbearing, unreasonable parents.
I think my pride gonna win
it's interesting, by understanding and paying attention to myself, these principles became instinctive in debates. It's refreshing to see I wasn't overthinking.
Once When I was in my college there is a debate about "existence of god" and I was SELECTED to the side who believes there is no God. And after 2 weeks later the same debate but I was on the opposite side, guess what I won 2 times(My team won cause I'm the last man standing 2 times), key thing I just know is when to talk and listen to the opposite side.
We need more of people that argue like this