Negotiating Reality: Bridging the Gap When Facts Differ. LinkedIn Live Event

Hello, my friend, and welcome to another exciting episode of Negotiate Anything Live. In this special segment, we're sharing one of our LinkedIn Live events where listeners like you can join the conversation and shape the episode with your comments and questions. We've put a link to the event in the description of today's episode, but make sure to follow me on LinkedIn so you can join the conversation next time. I'm really glad you're with us today. We with over 10 million downloads and listeners from more than 180 different countries, it's dedicated listeners just like you who have made Negotiate Anything the number one negotiation podcast in the world. I'm your host, Kwame Christian. I'm a business lawyer, mediator, author, and the proud CEO of the American Negotiation Institute. Now, before we dive into today's episode, I have a golden opportunity for those of you who recognize the power of negotiation in your professional lives. At the American Negotiation Institute, we've crafted specialized keynotes and workshops tailored for those very needs. We've transformed the negotiation skills of professionals worldwide and we're eager to do the same for you. We believe the best things in life are on the other side of difficult conversations. And our goal is to help you improve your lives and the lives of those around you one difficult conversation at a time. Don't let another challenging conversation leave you second guessing. Click the link in the description to discover how we can help you find confidence in conflict, negotiate better deals, and have stronger relationships. Because in the world of business, every conversation counts. And now, without further ado, let's jump into the interview. Good deal. Welcome, everybody. Thank you all for coming. Usually, you know how I usually start these off? I usually start things off a little bit nervous about whether or not this is working. Let's mix it up. Don't tell me if this is working, tell me if this pocket square looks good. I just put it in. So tell me if it's, if that's working and if, if you're like, hey, pocket square looks good, we're good to go. If you say it's bad, we're canceling the stream and we'll come back next week. Okay, so let's, let's see in the chat, let me know you're there, let me know it's working and also let me know you're, you're coming in from. And I know there's a bit of a lag here. So as we were. It looks great. I love this. Love this. Thank you, Franz. Stunning. Wow. Stunning. I was not expecting stunning. I like that. I like that. Thank you. This is great. This is great. Perfect. So we, we know the, the pocket square looks good. We know the, the stream looks good. This is awesome. Great. And now let's keep these comments going. Where are you coming in from? Great. We have Alabama. Very nice. Had a presentation in Gulf Shores few years ago. It's been a while. From Amsterdam. I was in Amsterdam a month ago for my birthday. That's great. That is great. Another person from Alabama, Oregon. Barcelona. Encantado. Good to see you. Tracy. From Texas. I'll be in Texas next month. New York. Was in New York. September and San Francisco. Franz. I haven't been in San Francisco in a long time, so thank you for representing. This is great. So we got folks from all over the world, so what I like to see. So let me go ahead and get the intro in and let's, let's jump into it. So welcome everybody. Welcome to this live episode of Negotiate Anything. Hello to our folks on YouTube, hello to our folks on LinkedIn and the folks listening on the podcast in the future. It's great to have you all here. If you're liking what you're hearing, make sure to follow me if you're on LinkedIn and give us a little five star love on the podcast and subscribe if you're on YouTube as well. Because our goal with a I is to try to be the, the organization that produces the most free negotiation related content in the world. And so this is part of that, that goal. So when you subscribe, when you leave five star reviews, those type of things, it helps us to accomplish our goal. And then Pat, good to see you. Oh, and we have somebody from Nigeria. This is great. So Canada and Nigeria in the house too. This is awesome. Great. Now let's talk about the topic of today's LinkedIn Live. This is a tricky one, negotiating reality. And it led to a once in a lifetime poll result where I think the question was something like, have you ever had a situation where you and your counterpart in a difficult conversations completely saw reality differently? 100% of people who responded said that they've dealt with this. I've dealt with this too. And it can be really, really perplexing and really challenging and frustrating too. And I think a good place to start with this is with definitions, but taking a bit of a more philosophical bend on this. So let's get a definition on truth. How would you define truth? What does truth mean to you? It seems like almost a weird question. It is what it is, right? It's objective. But how do we. How do we determine truth? Because if truth is so obvious and it kind of is what it is, its essence is itself, then why is it that we have this consistent problem where we're seeing the truth so differently, especially if we have what we would consider to be evidence for our truth? How come that isn't enough? Right, so let's get a definition on the table for truth. I think this is going to be a really, really good place to start, because as it relates to everything that we talk about, as it relates to negotiation, conflict resolution, human interaction in general, mindset is going to be a massive element of what it requires, what's required to be successful. Mindset is going to be of utmost importance, because if you don't have the right mindset, you won't be able to utilize the skill set when it actually matters. So let's talk about what truth is. So Pat, coming in first here, there are three levels of truth, and that is the confusion. Oh, this is. See, we're getting deep. We're getting deep really, really quickly. I like that. I like that. Feel free to elaborate on that one, Pat. But, yes, the different levels of truth, this is good. Let's get somebody else in here, too. And as we. And as you start chat, typing in, I know there's a bit of a lag between what I'm saying and when you hear it, and it's going to take some time to answer this question because it's not as obvious as you would think. I was talking to one of my friends today, Dave Shapiro. He was a guest on the podcast. He's an AI researcher as well, and he had a really fascinating definition of truth, probably one of my favorite definitions of truth. But I'm going to hold back because I want to hear what you all have to say. So let's see what else. Amanda, thank you for this. Truth is rooted in our values, which results in the differences in how we perceive the situation. Oh, that's. That is deep. Absolutely. Yeah. Our values are going to change our perception so two people can look at the exact same thing and then come to completely different conclusions based on our values. That's. That's great. That is. That is great. Perfect. And Pat is dropping some dimes in here, too. So we'll. We'll wait for you to get through all of those. And as you're going through Pat, I'm going to share Dave's definition. I really, really like this. So Dave said that his definition of truth is the stories that we choose to believe. The stories that we choose to believe. And it's really interesting when you think about it that way. Right. So if you think about it from that lens of stories we choose to believe, there are going to be different reasons we come to certain conclusions about certain things. A lot of times we will say, all right, it's based on evidence, it's based on observation. This is what I see and this is what leads me to my conclusion. It's not a story, it's based on evidence. Evidence another person can come up with different evidence that they believe to be objective and that is used to substantiate a different story. And when you think about it through the lens of bias, confirmation bias, really what we have are situations where we have conclusions in search of evidence. Conclusions in search of evidence. So I have a preferred conclusion, a preferred way of seeing the world, and then that's going to lead me to subconsciously cherry pick evidence that substantiates my preferred conclusion. So I have a story, and then I'm going to gather data that substantiates the story. I have a preferred story. Right. This is good. I see somebody, it just comes up as a LinkedIn user for me, so I can't see the name. But truth should be indisputable facts. That's great. Sometimes that we, we have the, the, the privilege of having indisputable facts, like a recording of what somebody actually said. That's like the gold standard. If we have that, that's great. Not always, we don't always have that, but, but if we do, that's very, very helpful. Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question. Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on your team have better, difficult conversations? At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empower professionals with top tier negotiation and conflict resolutions skills. Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands on training for your team, we've got you covered. Don't just negotiate. Master the art with the American Negotiation Institute. Click the link in the description to find out more. Elevate, negotiate and succeed. Good. Okay, so Pat, let me read through these. So Pat says, here's an example of, Number one, it's windy in Florida in October. Number two, it rains pretty hard in Florida in October. And number three, Three, are you out of your mind? Do not vacation to Florida in October or expect to be blown away from a hurricane. Okay, good. So we have The. We have three different examples of how somebody could perceive the exact same situation. I like that. That is good. Right. Now, let me give you an example here, too, about how these. Like this definition, the stories that we choose to believe. Let's give an example of how this can manifest itself in an actual difficult conversation. So, for me, as a mediator, back when I was mediating a few years. A few years ago, one of the things that was interesting is that my mediation style was shuttle diplomacy. So I would talk to each group individually. Then at the end, if we start to get close to a deal, I would bring them together so they can start to build some positive momentum for the relationship going forward. But in the early stages, I'm talking to each group individually. And so at first, when I would go into these rooms, I would hear the story from the plaintiff first. What's their beef? What's their. What's their side of the story? What. What is their gripe, their grievance? And what do they hope to get from this? All right, great. I hear the story. They paint the picture of this other person who is horrible, okay? And then I go and I talk to the defendant, and I hear their side of the story. And it is completely different to the point where early on, there were times where I asked myself, did I wander into the wrong mediation? Because these stories are so vastly different, they couldn't possibly be the same situation. This is wild. And I would say to myself, there's zero percent chance that we can come to a conclusion on this. In this situation, there's no way they're going to agree. There's no way we're even going to make progress, because they are seeing this so completely differently. But after doing hundreds of these mediations, I'm realizing it just becomes a fun game. The more different the stories, the more fun it becomes trying to figure out a path forward, a solution forward. Because even in these situations, where it's not just the fact that we do not agree on the facts and we have different perspectives, there are situations where one person would say, hey, this person owes me $50,000. And then the other person says, hey, not only do I not owe them $50,000, but they owe me $75,000. I'm like, wow, this chasm is massive. How do we break through this? But there are ways. And it seems almost magical, but there are ways to move through this. So going through these difficult conversations, especially when there's a massive discrepancy in the perspectives, a massive discrepancy in what we believe to be true, there is still a path forward. But we have to change our mentality because we believe oftentimes going into these difficult conversations, that what is required in order for us to have a conversation is common ground. Common ground. We need to be able to see things in the same way, operate from the same kind of set understanding of what is to be true. And then we can move forward and start to manufacture an agreement or a path forward. That's not always possible. That is not always possible. And so a lot of times people end up giving up on these conversations before you even get into the conversation because you can't get to that point of common ground. So I want to encourage you to shift your mentality because if we can get common ground, get common ground, that's great. I mean, it is objectively easier to have a conversation with somebody if you do have established common ground where you see things from the same perspective. You're not always going to get that. So what is more practical and achievable, even if you see things very differently, is mutual understanding. So what do I mean by mutual understanding? It does not mean agreement. This is kind of like radical empathy. So when I'm thinking about empathy, again, I'm not talking about empathy from a touchy feely type of perspective. I'm thinking about empathy just from the perspective of understanding. I'm trying to understand how they see, think and feel about the situation. So how do they see the situation? What is their perspective of the situation? What are the facts according to them? And then what do they feel about the situation? What are their emotions surrounding the circumstances? And then number three, what do they think about the situation as they're thinking logically about the situation? What is their perspective from that angle? What do they want to accomplish and those type of things. One of the hardest things about doing this is, is that when we're having these conversations with people, it can almost feel threatening to ourselves to listen empathetically because it feels like we are putting ourselves in a bad position. But something I've mentioned before, I'll say it again here, empathy is not a concession. Empathy is a necessary part of persuasion because a lot of times, yes, of course, people want to be told that they're right. People want other people to agree with them. But. But fundamentally, as humans, we want to be understood. And so I want you to be the person taking the first step to understand the other person's perspective, regardless of whether or not you agree. And remember, empathy is a skill. You don't need to feel empathetic in order to utilize the skill of empathy. Those are two different things. All right? And a lot of times, if you are that leader in the conversation that takes the first step to empathize, it lowers their walls and makes it more likely for them to empathize with you. You do not need to agree at this point of the conversation. Your goal is to understand them while at the same time getting them to understand you. And a lot of times, like I said, this is reciprocal in nature. So I let them go first, share their piece, I demonstrate that I understand and then I say, hey now, would you be interested in hearing my perspective? I know we might not agree, but hearing from where I'm coming from might help you to understand where I'm coming from and give us some positive momentum going forward. And after you've done it for them, most likely they're going to do it for you. And so you build from there. You don't need to agree, you just need to understand. And then here's one of the most important things that we need to recognize. And this is I want to shout out Jay Henriks Heinrichs, who wrote thank you for arguing. Really great book. He's actually going to be on the podcast in December. He talks about one of the simplest ways for you to minimize the level of emotionality in these difficult conversations is by changing the grammatical tense of the conversation. So when you think about judgment, blame negative emotions, they often are related to things that are happening in the past. We focus on the past, we're trying to re litigate issues and then it becomes really, really emotional really, really quickly. One way you can do, you can circumvent all of those emotions is after you get that common understanding that just change the grammatical tense to the future. So you're using future focused problem solving. What can we do going forward to make sure we don't run into that situation? Again, considering your perspective and my perspective, what can we do to solve this, this problem in a way that's workable for both of us and by just shifting the grammatical tense to the future, it lower lowers the level of emotionality in the conversation and allows both people to be in a psychological state that is more receptive to problem solving. Now the only way we can do this though is if we used interest based negotiation. It's a lot, let me say not the only way, but the easiest way, the most productive way is to use interest based negotiation. So this is classic Harvard program on negotiation type of methodologies here. Interest based negotiation versus positional bargaining. So simple Way to understand this is a position is what somebody says that they want, and interest is why they want that thing. And so a lot of times we get focused on the position, what somebody says that they want, and we just say, no, I can't give it to you. And then it becomes kind of a war of attrition. It's kind of a tug of war between, hey, your way versus my way. But instead, when somebody says, this is what I want, we have to figure out why they want it, what is driving that desire. And so we have to dig beneath the surface to figure out what the problem is that they have and then what we can do to solve it. And then we do the same thing. We explain the problem is the problem that we're having and what we want in order to solve it. What would it take? And so now we're having a conversation about solving the core issues, not having a tug of war between your way versus my way. Interest based negotiation is about how we can work together to find our way and our path forward. And so what you're recognizing is that when it comes to these difficult conversations, when you disagree on the facts, where you see things one way and they see things another way, the key is not to focus on our discrepancies, our differences, our different perspectives. Our goal, the way to circumvent this challenge is to focus on the future and what is a workable path forward. Because we can still disagree on what got us to this situation, but we still can agree on what can get us out of the situation. That's the mindset shift. Right? So this is, I know this is a bit nuanced, so I, I want to kind of. I know this has only been about 17 minutes of this point, but I want to give you all an opportunity to share your comments, ask questions. And let's go a bit deeper into this because I don't want to assume I know what it is that you're interested in or, or want to hear about. So this is an opportunity for you to go deeper with the questions and comments that you have. So if, Simone, if you've highlighted anything, let's see what comes up. Okay. Joshua, you need to have mutual understanding. It comes from a position of being able to validate to the other person that they've been heard and understood, even if you do not agree. Well said. Well said. Yeah. And when we think about validation, again, this is not agreement, not necessarily. You can agree while validating, but you can still agree without. You can still validate without agreeing. I think that's really important. The way that I think about validation is I think about it kind of like a math teacher in grade school. So I want to give them an opportunity to show their work and then I'm going to look for opportunities to give them partial credit. I might not agree on the full answer that they come up that they came up with, but I can say, hey, listen, based on your perspective, I can understand how you got there. And oftentimes that is enough to give the mutual check that box of mutual understanding and then you can build on that momentum going forward. So great point there, Joshua. Really, really great point. Ryan Kwame, how do you suggest taking the lead while not diminishing the competence of your team? Ooh, competence of your team. Now jump in here, Ryan, because I'm going to make some assumptions here. So when we're thinking about diminishing the competence of the team, it seems like you want to make sure that you can be that conversational leader in the moment without the other people in the conversation feeling as though you are kind of dominating the interaction. I just want to get some clarity on that before I go into the specificity of it, because in these conversations we're going to have some that are more transactional, where there's somebody who is outside of the organization or not on our team and we're having these difficult conversations, might be a client, it might be a relationship that went sour in the business world, whatever it happens to be, the dynamic will look a little bit differently within a team. So I just want to clarify on that. But I think one of the things we have to do is kind of state the obvious. Because if we start to take control of a conversation, especially if it is hostile in nature, there's some emotionality in these types of interactions. Ambiguity is often going to be interpreted negatively by the person on the other side. So for me, stating the obvious would be something like this. Just saying, hey, I can, I can tell this is really important to you and it's important to me too. So I'm glad we're having this conversation. And I know that given the way that you've described the situation, we see things differently and that's okay. That happens from time to time. So my goal is to get a better understanding of you so we can try to work something out going forward. That's an example of a preamble. And then I would end that by asking an open ended question by saying something like. With that being said, one thing that would help me understand you is if you could explain xyz. And now you're giving them the opportunity to explain themselves. So they're responding to your question, which means that they're following their lead, following your lead. But you've established why you're approaching the conversation in this way with your preamble, which makes it less likely for them to interpret it negatively. Okay, cool. Yeah, Ryan, I see. Yes, specifically around sales or presentations. I think especially in sales too, it's very easy for these conversations to become needlessly combative because at the end of the day, what a sales interaction is, is two people coming together to say, see whether or not somebody has a solution to their problem. So we have to understand each other to get there too. But often it's overlooked having those difficult conversations internally because we are so focused on those external negotiations, those big, obvious negotiations with the other side, that we don't bring that same level of, of intentionality with those conversations with the people who are on our team. So, yeah, I think it's very, very important to, to approach this in a kind of empathetic type of way, but also utilizing those disclaimers, when appropriate, to let you let them know, hey, this is why I'm doing what I'm doing. This is why I'm approaching the conversation in this way. Good. Great question. What else do we have? Ah, so what if we're dealing with narcissists and they deny any common ground? How do you bring them to a mutual agreement? We have to think about with. Great question. By the way, Mubina, when we're thinking about the, like, the clinical term narcissists, we have to recognize that that's a pathology. Like, that's something that goes beyond just the difference of opinion. Like there's something more, more, a little bit deeper that's going on beneath the surface. We can think about it from people who might have narcissistic personality disorder, or we can think about it from the perspective of people who are conflict by nature. And so in those situations, we have to recognize that it's going to be more difficult and we have those people in our lives and we kind of can. We can oftentimes see that coming. And I think the one mentality we have to bring to the table is we have to just recognize that with certain people, these conversations are going to be much more difficult. And at the end of the day, we have to recognize that it's our responsibility to protect ourselves during these conversations. And so there are going to be situations where somebody might try to bully you, they might treat you inappropriately. They might not acknowledge or give any credence to what it is that you're saying. But at the end of the day, it can be a frustrating realization, but it should ultimately be an empowering realization that a lot of times you. You need to make a mistake when dealing with somebody who has this type of personality in order for them to take advantage of you. And so, for instance, in a negotiation, somebody might be bullying, they might be super aggressive, they might be manipulative, they might be deceptive. Like, that goes beyond simply seeing things differently from a factual perspective. They're actually utilizing misinformation with intentionality in order to get you to make a bad decision. But if we take the time to prepare and we take the time to understand what our boundaries are, we take the time to understand what it is that we need in this situation to be effective, then we create this dynamic where we can protect ourselves, we can set up boundaries while still at the same time trying to be productive with the other person. And when it comes to these really high conflict bullying types of scenarios, a lot of times they can sense weakness really easily. And if they think they can pull one over on you, they will. And so by coming prepared and setting clear boundaries and being more assertive, you can protect yourself in those situations. But if you want more info on how to negotiate with narcissists, I would check out Rebecca Zung. She is a. Exceptional, exceptional as it relates to dealing with narcissists. She's been on the podcast a few times, but I think it's. It's a completely different game when you're dealing with narcissists. Cool. Great question. Awesome. What other questions? Oh, Shannon, I see your. Your question there. Repeat that. So in turn, in terms of empathy, we want to understand how they see, think, and feel about the situation. So empathizing means understanding their perspective, understanding their emotionality, and understanding how they are trying to think logically about this situation. Good question. Good. What other questions do you all have? I want to make sure that give you time to ask the questions that you have. But as you go through, as you're starting to type a few more questions, just always remember this too. It's not just a strategic challenge. It is going to be a massive emotional challenge. Because a lot of times we take it personally when somebody disagrees with us. But especially if it goes to that level, if somebody's trying to manipulate us or we feel as though somebody's trying to manipulate us, it has an emotional impact on us. So in our preparation, going into these tough conversations. I don't want you to just prepare strategically and tactically in terms of what you're going to do, what you're going to say, how you're going to say it. You also have to prepare emotionally. If we disagree on the facts fundamentally, it is likely that at some point you're going to feel triggered, you're going to feel emotional, you're going to feel offended. And if you're not able to control your own emotions during the conversation, then you're going to find yourself in a situation where you make a mistake that allows somebody to take advantage of you, or you make a mistake that precludes you from actually solving the problem. This is really important. And then also, one of the simplest mistakes that we can make in these situations is by taking things personally and then responding with hostility. If you think about what happens in sports a lot of times and what happens in households that have siblings, it's the person who retaliates that is often caught. There's an initial aggressor, and then somebody feels hurt, and then they retaliate. The ref or the parent sees that retaliation and you're saying, I'm not the bad guy. I'm responding to what they did. Right. And so the reason I bring that up is because I always want you all to be able to manage your emotions in a way that allows you to carry yourself with respect throughout the entirety of the interaction. Because if we lose our cool in these conversations, then we're actually feeding into this narrative that they're creating about you, which makes it much more difficult to create that mutual understanding and positive momentum that's necessary to solve these problems and have these conversations. So just keep that in mind. This is more about emotion and emotion management and mindset than it is about facts and strategy. Because when you think about it the way that I've laid this out, it's not that challenging in terms of a strategic sense, like what you actually need to do or say. It is the execution that will be challenging because the whole time you're going to be wanting to tell the other person that they're wrong. You want to. You want to set the record straight. And there have all been times where we've had these conversations and you've been objectively correct. You've had the data, you've had the facts, you have had the logic, but it doesn't work. It doesn't help you to win the day in the or in the conversation, even if it turns into an argument and the person kind of concedes. In the argument, you might have done that to the detriment of your relationship, which makes it harder to go forward in the. In the relationship and solve the problem. Right. So I think this mentality along with the challenge is really important. Good. All right. Hey, Simone. I think it's easy to. I think it's an easy way to be prepared to reach an agreement, regardless of different views, is to recognize the supremacy of our goal over everything else. Yes, absolutely. We have to prioritize our goal. Goal. We have to prioritize our goal. What is the goal? Because at the end of the day, usually our goal is to solve problems, but a lot of times in the conversation, what we end up doing is we're turning our goal in, into making the other person know that they are wrong and we are right. It's about intellectual and moral superiority. And what is that going to get you tangibly in the interaction? Most likely nothing substantive. Right. And so we have to stay focused on our goal. Keep your eyes on the prize, as they say. And the. It sounds kind of cheesy, but sitting there and writing out your goals before the conversation will be really helpful. Because if you say, for example, just very simply, my goal is to try to find a solution to the problem I'm feeling. Okay, great. If your goal is to try to find a solution to the problem you're experiencing, one easy filter is asking yourself, does saying this help me to get closer to addressing or finding a solution to the problem I'm experiencing. A lot of times when you filter what you do or say through that simple lens of does it get you closer to your goal? You realize that a substantial portion of what you're saying isn't geared toward getting you closer to your goal. It's about that superiority, that supremacy of ideas. I am intellectually and morally superior, so I'm going to throw in these little jabs just to make sure you know, it makes me feel good, it makes you feel bad. But then again, does that get us closer to our goal? Most likely not. So keeping your goal front of mind is going to be critical. Great, great point. Oh, okay. What are your thoughts on circle work? Like restorative justice circles, perhaps pre negotiations, I find a method of gathering people and giving them the privilege to talk and listen without immediate response can be very effective and prepare the groundwork for next steps of a back and forth interactions. Yes, ish. It depends on the circ, the circumstance and the caveat here. I'm not very, very well versed in restorative justice, but let me Kind of bring it back to something I'm more familiar with, which is mediations. And so in mediations, we have two people on either side, sometimes multiple parties. Typically, they don't like each other. They're not there because they're happy and joyous. It's a tough situation. And so for me, as the facilitator, as the mediator, I've recognized that in times where I've said, all right, let's start off together, you say your piece, you say your piece. What ends up happening, especially if the person is not well, it's not even. Especially if they're not well coached or well versed in conflict resolution. They're just humans. They're very emotional. They will say something that is triggering or inflammatory to the other person. They might not even do it intentionally. They're just sharing their truth. But in the way that they share their truth to the other side, it inflames the other side. And then the other side shares their truth in a more inflammatory way as a form of. Form of kind of retribution. And so the challenge with bringing people together early, before things start is that they might not be emotionally in a place where they're capable of processing their emotions in a productive type of way. So in a restored in. In a circle like this, where you're having multiple parties who might feel aggrieved and might feel emotional, I would feel a lot more comfortable meeting with each of them individually first to give them the opportunity to emote through me. And then I bring that message to the other side in a way that's a little bit more palatable. And then I go back and forth so I can handle the fire that they're breathing and I can cool it off and give that message to the other side in a way that's palatable. And then we kind of go back and forth. Once the emotionality has gone down, then I will bring them together. I think this one of the mediations I did. I actually featured this in my book, the last book, how to have Difficult Conversations about Race. It was a family who was. It was a black family. And the. In a police. Police department. And so the black family felt that they were mistreated by the police department after I reviewed the situation. Legally speaking, legally speaking, the police department didn't do anything wrong legally. But there were stylistic challenges and tonal challenges that made it feel more oppressive than it actually was. But there. Clearly, there were hard. There were strong feelings on the family of the. On the side of the black family, because they felt like they were aggrieved and they were treated unfairly because of their race, which makes it more difficult and more emotional. But then the, the police officers, they also had a lot of emotionality, too, because, like they said, we did our job, we did it the right way. And to be accused of racism after doing everything the right way is hurtful. And so there were strong emotions on both sides, and so I had to kind of cool those off on both sides before I could bring them together. And it turned out to be really great. They had a great conversation, and they actually worked to talk about different policy changes they could do put into place that would make sure that something like this doesn't happen again in the future. But I don't think they would have gotten to that point if I started off by putting them together and letting them vent and emote. I think that would have been more problematic. So let me know if that's helpful, because, like I said, I'm not as familiar with restorative justice circles. Pat, in your opinion, what is the best way to call out confusion your negotiation partner is passing out as reality? Yeah, essentially. Hey, how do I call people out on my, on their bs? Is that what you're saying, Pat? Is that what I'm hearing? It's tough, man. It is tough. And so I've thought about this, too. One of the ways I do it is just by, again, stating the, the situation without judgment or opinion. So I'll just say after I hear you, let's say, Pat, it's you and me talking. I would, I would hear your piece, I would summarize, and I would ask you if I, if I. My summary was fair, if I captured it all, and, and if I did, great, we'll move on. If I didn't, I'd ask you to repeat until I get that understanding. And I would say, hey, I appreciate you taking the time to, to share this. This is really helpful for me. I think this, that part is often overlooked, and it's the positive reinforcement, because negotiation is an information game. Anytime somebody gives me information that may have been difficult to give or they might maybe even in their best interest, to keep to themselves, I want to, before I respond to it, I want to let them know, hey, I saw what you did there. You shared information with me, and I appreciate that because I want that positive reinforcement to be put into place that. So it creates a little bit more psychological safety and it encourages them to continue to share in a similar manner. And so what I'll say is, I can understand how you got to your point because from your perspective, you saw this, you saw this and you saw this and you came to that conclusion. I can understand how you got there. My perspective is a little bit different. And my hope is that as we go forward in this conversation, I can get a better understanding of you and you can get a better understanding of me and then we can work together to figure out what we can do going forward. And so for me, I like to, I don't want to say dodge in a negative way, but dodge in a productive type of way. Any type of invitation to re litigate issues from the past. Because most likely there's not, there's going to be a dearth of information, a dearth of, of actual substance that could substantiate the person's belief. They might have evidence that they'll refer to, I might have evidence that I refer to. And like I said, if we think about truth as the stories we choose to believe, they can come to that conclusion and stick to it. I can come to my conclusion and stick to it and then the rest is going to be filled with memory. That begs the question, what is memory? When you think, when you actually do the research on what memory is like, like the quality of our memory, it is very bad. It's worse than you would ever imagine. It's bad. And so just simple, simple memory lesson here. Psychologically speaking, with memory, our brains don't work like a video camera where we just record these things and stored on our memory and then when we're bringing it up, when we're thinking about it again, we're just playing the tape. That's not how it is. It's more of thinking about remembering things in terms of bullet points and then recreating the imagery and the sound and everything based on the bullet points that we came up with, our little memory summary. Now the thing is, memory decays very quickly. Number one, we are all biased and we're usually in these cases self serving in our biases. We're going to always interpret things in a way that serves us best. So when you blend all these things together, really all memory is in the context of these difficult conversations is biased imagination. Because you have your little bullet points that you chose to remember, you create your story and every time you record that you, you try to recreate that memory in your mind, it becomes slightly more warped and slightly more biased in your favorite. So yeah, your memory is going to be very different from my memory. And we both could be genuinely honest and earnestly honest in our interpretations so trying to relitigate the past based on your imagination and my imagination just is not helpful, simply is not helpful. Right. So I don't want to find myself stuck in these types of conversations. So whenever somebody tries to go into the past and relitigate it, I'll say, listen, you have some really good points. And like I said, based on the points that you have, I can understand where you came to your conclusion. And I have some points that I believe and they differ from yours. And that's. That is okay. That is okay. But in order for us to figure out what we need to do going forward, we have to focus on the future. Given that, ask an open ended question and it forces them to kind of respond and follow your lead in a more productive direction. Yeah, cool. Great question, Pat. Good, good. And I see a bit more detail on the circles. Yeah, I should do a little bit of research on restorative justice, specifically those circles, because I'd be really interested to see what those dynamics look like and what it's structured like. So thank you for that. I'll do some research on that too. Cool. All right, peeps. Well, we've been going for about 40 minutes. This is fun. This is great. I appreciate all of your questions and your comments and everything. And before you go, just leave a comment. What do you think would be a good topic for future LinkedIn lives? We've been doing this for a while now, and I think it's been going pretty well, but I want to go deeper and I know my mind will take me to talk about certain things that I think are cool, but I want to make sure that those are things that resonate with you. So as we wrap up, just put your thoughts in the comment, give us some suggestions for what you think would be good going forward, and we'll see if we can make it happen. But I appreciate all of you. Thank you all for coming and I'll catch you in the next one. I'll see you. Congratulations. You've just joined an elite club by listening to a full episode. You're now officially on the Negotiate Anything team. So welcome to Aboard. What most team members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest episodes of the show. The best things in life lie on the other side of difficult conversations. Keep learning, keep practicing, and keep getting better. Your relationships will improve, your career will soar, and you'll have the confidence you need to get the most out of these crucial conversations. Again, thank you for joining the team. We excited to have you. And I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.