Responding to Fools and Other Mistakes of Life

I would like to suggest that the first response to a message which seems
to be misinformed or otherwise mistaken should be to stop and think.

Assume that what you heard is true.  Ask (yourself, others, even the
original person) what it would take for it to be true (consider the
source, and what they might be thinking).  By not responding in anger,
you don't provoke the automatic hostility that an irritated response
causes.

[slightly reworded version of Miller's Law, quoted in Genderspeak by Dr.
Elgin]

The second response should be questioning, not anger, attack,
irritation, and similar verbal violence.  Encourage communication, don't
cut it off.

And the third response should be to develop alternatives, to come up
with creative possibilities that we can work together to make into a new
reality.  "Winning" or "beating the other person" only makes sense when
you aren't part of the same team, when you don't have to share your
lifeboat with the other person.



    "The game of negotiation takes place at two levels.  At one level,
negotiation addresses the substance; at another, it focuses - usually
implicitly - on the procedure for dealing with the substance. ... This
second negotiation is a game about a game--a 'meta-game.'  Each move you
make within a negotiation is not only a move that deals with rent,
salary, or other substantive questions; it also helps structure the
rules of the game you are playing.  Your move may serve to keep the
negotiations within an ongoing mode, or it may constitute a
game-changing move."

"...whether consciously or not, you are negotiating procedural rules
with every move you make, even if those moves appear exclusively
concerned with substance."

People:   Separate the people from the problem.

"Figuratively if not literally, the participants should come to see
themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each
other."

Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.

Focus on satisfying underlying interests, on what you really want, to
take care of the human needs - not on the stated positions.

Options: Invent options for mutual gain.

It is hard to "design optimal solutions while under pressure.  Trying to
decide in the presence of an adversary narrows your vision.  Having a
lot at stake inhibits creativity.  So does searching for the one right
solution.  You can offset these constraints by setting aside a
designated time within which to think up a wide range of possible
solutions that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile
differing interests."  In short, "generate a variety of possibilities
before deciding what to do."

Criteria:  Insist on using objective criteria.

"...This does not mean insisting that the terms be based on the standard
you select, but only that some fair standard such as market value,
expert opinion, custom, or law determine the outcome.  By discussing
such criteria rather than what the parties are willing or unwilling to
do, neither party need give in to the other; both can defer to a fair
solution."

[p. 9 ff., Getting To Yes, Fisher and Ury, ISBN 0-1401-5735-2,
Penguin Books 1991]