Negotiation Decoded: How Data Exposes Hidden Human Behaviors

Hey, I'm Kwame Christian, and you are about to step into the world of Negotiate Anything, the number one negotiation podcast in the world, where we teach you how to make difficult conversations easier while getting more of what you want in the process. Each episode is packed with practical tips and strategies from the experts. We delve into negotiation, conflict resolution, and leadership skills that are crucial in both business and and in life. Whether you're closing a deal, managing a team, or navigating personal relationships, Negotiate Anything provides you with the tools you need to succeed. Our conversations are real, relatable, and most importantly, rooted in practicality. So if you're ready to transform your conversations and elevate your negotiation skills, join me on Negotiate Anything. Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you love to listen to. Let's make every conversation a winning negotiation. Jordy, thanks for joining us today.

Thanks, Kwame. I'm excited to be here.

Yeah, man, we're excited to have you. So how would you get us started? By telling us a little bit about yourself and what you do.

So I'm a business school professor at Esare Business School in Barcelona, but as you can tell from my accent, I'm not Spanish. I'm actually Belgian. So my. That's a French accent you're hearing. And I've been teaching negotiation for over a decade, and I have been doing research on negotiation, emotion, happiness. And right now, I'm really excited about sort of using hard data to investigate some of the claims and practitioner wisdom about negotiation and using large language models to actually look at transcript of conversation, thousands of conversations, and unpack sort of the tactics that we can use to be better negotiators.

Oh, my gosh, Jordi, you see this smile? This is a nerdy smile. I'm excited to get into this data and the research. This is fascinating. I think we should just start off and just marvel at the technological advances that have gotten us to a point where you could even do something like this. So I think it'll be cool to just start off by talking about what research in negotiation looked like in the past compared to what you can do now with artificial intelligence and large language models.

Yeah, so a lot of the negotiation research was done in, you know, with students asking them to engage in different kind of role plays and maybe manipulating one variable. So, you know, I think you have a background in psychology. You know that psychologists would like to experiment. So we would give secret instruction to half of the. Half of the negotiators. You know, act tough or ask more questions or These sort of things and observe results in scorable negotiations. Negotiations on which you can quantify how well a person is doing or not. But it's always been sort of at the negotiation level, right? So we give instructions about certain behavior and then we observe if on average people are getting more or less, you know, points or value out of the deal. What the new technology sort of unlocked is now the ability maybe to record very easily negotiation conversations and start looking in not at the broad behavior level, but like at the word level. What are the key predictors of success? You know, what are the words that influence the other person? What are the killer questions? What are the things that we should not say? And not only the verbal behavior, but also the nonverbal behavior. We can analyze the tone, we can analyze the pauses that people make and so forth.

Oh my gosh. All right, well, let's get into it, Jordi. So when you look at the research, what were some of the most surprising findings?

Well, we've done a lot of research. One thing that I like to do is to start from the claims that every single business school professor makes in their class. And no one really asked himself if they were true or not. So one of the claims that you might have heard in a negotiation class is that we negotiate every day, for example, or that, you know, we should ask more questions. And then, you know, because we've collected hundreds of negotiation conversation, you know, thousands and thousands of hours, we can actually look at whether this is true and when it is and when it is not. So I give you an example. In a recent project, we looked at the claim that negotiators don't ask enough questions and that they should, and we actually quantify it. So we have, I think 600 negotiations. We're talking thousands of hours, and we look at each speech turn and use AI to first spot. Is there a question or not? Because humanly it would not be possible for us to listen to all these conversations and code it manually. But with AI, you can do it very easily. And so, and then if so, what kind of question do people ask? And how do the counter. How does the counterpart respond? And so, for example, I ask you, Kwame, what is the percentage of speech turns? Do you think that contain an open.

Ended question for good negotiators?

Well, on average. For an average.

Oh, on. On average, I would say if. If we're saying on average, I would probably say 25%.

Okay, so it's much lower. It's 8%.

Oh, dear Lord.

Over 90% of what negotiators say in a negotiation is a statement or sometimes also 8% a closed ended question, but very few open ended questions. Interestingly, when we ask negotiators after the negotiation to estimate how many questions they asked, they estimate that they've been asking somewhere around 30 to 33% of questions. Their speech turns. A third of their speech turns included in open ended questions.

This is mind blowing. This is really fascinating for a couple of reasons. Because first of all, we recognize that curiosity is the foundation of effective negotiation and it's a little bit disheartening to see that the percentage is so low. And then also we see the self serving bias in our own interpretation of our own performances. So we assume that we're asking more questions than we actually are. And it makes me wonder too, Jordi, if it comes down to not just the questions that we ask, but other elements of negotiation that we know that we should be sprinkling in. Are we always overestimating the amount of negotiation skills we're utilizing with intentionality versus how many times we are just reacting without much intentional thought behind the strategic approach?

That's interesting. I think for many things there's a self serving bias, right? So we like to imagine ourselves as better versions of ourselves than we really are. But when it comes to negotiation, I also think about some of the work and I cannot name the authority right now, but I remember reading some articles showing that people also overestimate or aggressive. They've been. So it's not always like on the positive side like people say I've been maybe too pushy, too demanding and things like that, but their counterparts actually feel that they were just perfectly normal. So I think the misperceptions can go in many direction, but they can lead us astray.

Of course, that's fascinating. So we're not even consistent in our misunderstanding of ourselves. Exactly.

But you're putting the finger on something important is that not only, of course, on average people don't ask that many questions in negotiation, but if you look at the correlation between the number of questions that negotiator ask and their performance really measured objectively by the terms of the deal, we observe a very strong correlation between the two. So the more open ended questions you ask, the better you do. And it doesn't seem in the data at least that we have, that there's like an upper limit. So it's really the more the better.

Oh, interesting. So there's no point of diminishing returns.

It doesn't seem like it now. Maybe because of our sample you know, these are executives and business, business folks and business students. We don't have anyone who's asking like 70, 80% of questions. Right. So the highest sort of, the most, the most inquisitive negotiators in our samples ask roughly 1/4 of their speech turn.

Oh, that's very interesting. Okay, so what's really fun about this and just validating is that we've known this in negotiation, but now we know this with specificity. It's really cool when we can utilize new levels of technology and advancement to validate the, the work that's been done in the past, but also bring another level of precision as well and self awareness. Because now for me, when I'm going through these conversations, I'm going to say, okay, great. Well, Kwame, now you can be even more confident in your strategies, which is great. I don't need to try to do something completely different now. I just have more faith in the fundamentals. And I think that's one of the things that separates novice negotiators from expert negotiators. The expert negotiators know the fundamentals and they stick to it until it works. The novice negotiators know the fundamentals, they try it and then they feel some resistance and then they give up. So this is really cool from that perspective. And so now we know we should ask more questions. What are some of the things that you found when that we should not be doing in our negotiations?

Okay, so still on the question. And then I give you other example, but still on the question. For example, we found that there are instances where asking open ended questions actually hurts the negotiator. Well, I'll let you guess. What would you say? Ask a question.

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 resolution 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 American Negotiation Institute. Click the link in the description to find out more. Elevate, negotiate and succeed.

We found that there are instances where asking open ended questions actually hurts the negotiator. Well, I'll let you guess. What would you say? Ask a question.

I would say, ooh, this is A tough one when. When you're asking a question that could inadvertently get the person more anchored in their position. So you're asking something that is phrased in a way that gets somebody to commit to something that's not in your favor. And when somebody commits to something, it makes it more difficult for them to adjust down the road.

That's a super interesting research. Research idea.

There you go.

One thing that we look though is that when you're an offer, okay, you should not ask a question. So we can look at the transcript and we can look at all the offers that are being made. And a big chunk of these offers come with, what do you say, what do you think? How does it sound? These sort of questions. And actually what we observe is that if people ask questions when they're making an offer, they tend to get a worse deal. And that that is a statistically significant result. And we can even sort of back it up causally by doing experiments where we add a question to an offer or not, and we can see that the counter is tougher if there is a question, it just opens more room for negotiation, I guess.

This is so cool. Okay, can you give us an example of where somebody might do this and it hurts them in a negotiation?

So if I'm selling my service or if I'm selling my phone, I just said, look, the price is $450 an hour, period. Silence. Don't say, what do you think that will lead the counterpart to negotiate a lot more? So that's one instance, for example, that sort of. Counterintuitively, we found that questions were not helping. Another cool thing we found on questions were that not all the questions were created equal. So one thing you can do when you have so much data is to start looking at different types of questions, for example, using why versus what versus how. And then we can see if someone asks a why question, what does the answer of the counterpart look like? And does it look different than when someone asks a what question or a how question, for example? And what we found there is that, you know, there's typically two motives in negotiation. You want to build report, but you also want to get information, strategic information. Why will get you more information. So when you ask a why question, you know, why do you think? So people give you longer answers as a response, but the sentiment, the word that they use, tend to be more negative. And we can quantify that. If you ask a how question, answers are shorter, but sentiment is a lot more positive and what falls somewhat in between. So I think one of the insight is that, you know, we want to maybe balance the way we phrase questions in a way that sort of also balance information gathering and report building.

This is, this is one of those times where I want this interview to never end, Jordy, because I have so many questions. Because what's coming to mind for me when I'm thinking about the utilization of these questions strategically is that for example, if my goal is to get somebody to sour on something, an idea or a position, maybe at that time I ask them to describe their position using a why question. And then maybe if I just want pure information, but I want it to be more positive, I would ask a how question because it would give me the quality of it information, but it would not have the risk of tipping negative. Is that an example of how we could kind of use these questions strategically?

Absolutely. How question will give you on average a little bit less information. But, but people will feel better. And so, you know, I would just try to strategically maybe sample different kinds of question. Not always why, why, why, why, why? And not always what, what, what, what falls in between. So like probably the safest option is to say, you know, what do you think?

Yeah.

Then why do you think so?

Man? Oh, that's great. That is great. And when you're doing this investigation, I know we're. Thus far we've talked about questions that are formulated in the traditional sense that have a question mark at the end. What about these more I call them open ended statements where it's meant to gather information but not formulated as a question. Did we do any research on that?

It's ongoing, so I don't have any exciting findings to share, but that's where we're going right now. So we're looking at things like, hey, tell me about this and this and this or just simply saying like it sounds like you have something on your mind. You know, these sort of non question sort of inquiry. That's all we call them. But yeah.

Yes.

So these are some of the things we look at. We've also been looking at pronoun use and that's kind of, that's kind of interesting. So I mean, and in a way maybe a little bit obvious, but the more people use I, the less they tend to gain in negotiation. You, the use of you tends to be, you know, a winner there. The use of we as well. But I probably not interesting.

Oh, so okay, so this is interesting because I think now we have to consider the timing of these words too because for sure I think the. If you're. It's just I speech all the time. It can feel very selfish and self centered, that type of stuff. Very off putting. We using collaborative speech. That's. It's really cool to see that validated because that's been the trend more in negotiation with collaborative negotiation now when it comes to you and tell me if, if I'm off on this too because they. There are some times where in heated negotiation, if the person's more emotional, you can sound accusatory. So how do we balance that?

Yeah, that's. That's right. So we're observing like really big trends on average. Right. Across all kinds of negotiation interactions. And then it looks like being centered on the other side is probably better than being centered on ourselves. That's I think the idea. But for example, in conflict, you're right. Right. Then if I want to express my emotions, I'm much better off saying like I feel frustrated right now than saying like this is frustrating or you're frustrating. So. Absolutely right. So take it with a grain of salt. These are big trends and the way I interpret them is like, you know, we should be focusing on the other person. So these are some of the findings. Talking speed is something we looked at. So we find that people that speak with maybe a little bit faster than average and with more energy tend also to win more. In our samples of negotiation, that was quite interesting. And there was one behavior. I'll let you guess which one. So we look at two kinds of outcome in your negotiation. We look at what we call objective outcomes. It's the number of points that you get in these scorable negotiation or it's the terms of the deal, the price you get, and so forth. And we also look at relationships outcome, that is we surveyed the counterpart afterwards and we say like how much you want to negotiate with that person again. Right. How do you feel about that person? So there's one factor in the many, many dimensions of communication that we analyze. That the biggest killer of willingness to negotiate with the person again, the conversation behavior interrupting. Absolutely. That is almost the only negative predictor of liking is the number of times you're being interrupted. Absolutely. And again, it's practitioner's wisdom. But it's kind of cool to see it with big data because sometimes some of the wisdom doesn't fully replicate.

Yeah. And I think for me, Jordi, what's fascinating about this is the fact that we are dealing with sample sizes that we've never been able to work with in the past. And this is an assumption I need you to clarify too. I'm Assuming that we're dealing, we're analyzing conversations that are cross cultural. So we're not just talking about folks in one country, are we? Or do we sprinkle in some other diversity into the data set?

So the sample is extremely diverse. I think there's, you know, 40, over 40 different nationalities from all the continents. But it's in English. And I'm saying that because it could very well be that negotiations in French, in Italian, in Japanese, you know, different determinants or that there are different sort of key behaviors and key keywords and key questions in different languages. So this is diverse sample, but English language.

Yeah, no, that's helpful. That's helpful because I. What's really fascinating too is we can see that even within the English language there's a lot of diversity. Right. We have North America, Canada, Africa, Australia, all of these different cultures speaking the same language. So there's still a lot of diversity. And this is something I mentioned to you before, and I'll tell you, I need to cite my source. This is Jack Schaefer, the former FBI agent who wrote the like switch. Great guy. He was on the podcast yesterday. The way he described it is he said the psychology is like the cake that you bake. Everybody has the same cake, but then the icing is the cultural nuance. So everybody has the same psychological foundation. So what's really cool about this is that as we go deeper into the research, we'll be able to see what elements of persuasion are just purely psychological from a human perspective versus what elements are more. More cultural. So we can see what can cut through all of these types of cultural nuances and just stay as the foundational, fundamental principles of negotiation and then where we might need to flex.

Absolutely. It's a tangential point, but I, I remember reading a study I find fascinating when you, I think some managers were surveyed about, like, what's a good meeting for you? And you know, the Americans would say the number one answer for the Americans would be, well, a decision was made. The number one answer for the Chinese managers were like, what would put an official stamp on a decision that was already made before the meeting. And the French, which is the culture I identified more with, said like, oh yeah, there was a heated discussion, some conflict, you know, and, and we throw some, some stuff at each other. It was a good debate.

So yeah, that's really interesting because that shows the different, like cultural values too, right? Not in like an ethical or moral sense, but just the things that we drive toward. And actually we should talk about this too because at the end of a lot of these negotiations, the goal is some kind of decision. And I know that your research has a lot to do with some of the research that you've done, talks about emotions as it relates to their impact on decision making. So when you did this research with the LLMs, what did you find about emotions in negotiations?

So that not that much. And that was kind of a surprise for us. So. Okay, so, so what we did is that we looked at non verbal display of emotion, which might not be exactly the emotion that you feel, right. But we're looking at when people frown, when they smile and things like that. And one of the few, and one of the only things that we found sort of predicted success in negotiation was adaptability. So if like, if your counterparts smile and you smile back, that seems to be adaptive. But if you're the one smiling first and consistently smiling too much, that is actually detrimental. Right? So there's probably no like nice guy discount in negotiation. That. But you know, being nice back is okay. This is one of the things that, that we find now in other lines of research. We. One thing that I find sort of consistently is that experiencing, allowing yourself to experience a broader range of emotion is adaptive for well being. It's adaptive for decision making. We call it emo diversity. It's like biodiversity, but for emotions. And what we observe, and these again are like tens of thousands of people, is that people who experience a broader range of emotion, you know, on, let's say a weekly basis or a yearly basis, they tend to be healthier physically and mentally, they tend to be wiser in interpersonal conflict and action and the thing to make better decision. And in particular, we just ran a study that I think it was kind of cool where we instructed people to, to think about emotions that they were feeling while making a decision. So we asked them, you know, think about a decision you need to make in the next few few days or the next few weeks. What is it about? Tell us about that decision. And then we said to half of our participants, okay, what is the main emotion you're feeling when you're contemplating that decision? They wrote about it. And then the other half we said, please write down at least three emotions that you're feeling and they need to be different when you're considering that, that decision. And then we let them be for a few weeks and we checked in a few weeks later and say, hey, what did you decide it and how satisfied are you with your decision? And people consider three emotions were statistically more satisfied, more Satisfied than the people consider one. And we have many, many studies like that that seems to suggest that if we pause and we ask ourselves, okay, what else am I feeling right now? This is actually a powerful way to make better decisions.

That's brilliant. And I. I think that speaks to the. The power of internal negotiations for decision making, too, because a lot of times we make the same mistake that we make negotiating with other people, which is we don't ask enough questions. We just stop at the shallow answer, what am I feeling? I'm feeling this. And then we move on. Usually it's an emotional cocktail that includes more things. And the deeper we can understand ourselves, the more we can recognize there are other elements than maybe the thing that is most glaring at the surface that we need to consider. So I think that's. That is brilliant. And it's so simple. And what's fascinating to me, too, is that there's. There's value in stoicism, being able to stay even and focused and manage your emotions in a way where it might not be perceptive to, perceptible to the other side, but when it comes to our own understanding of ourselves, it seems like it's incredibly important for us to give ourselves license to feel.

Absolutely. I think you put it beautifully and you tied it to negotiation. Yes. And emotions are messengers. Right. And so the more messengers I listen to, the better informed my decision. Really?

Yeah. Okay. Okay, how about this? Now, with the. With the research, did you find that there were any kind of magic words that seemed to consistently have a positive or negative impact in negotiations?

Not the questions were the biggest determinant.

Yes.

So if I have to give one advice is like, ask more questions. Talking speed was one. Not interrupting was one. Magic words, not so much. But we're only scratching the surface. There's so many things that we can look at with this data set that if you have me back on the show in a year, I'll have a lot more insights too.

Yes, absolutely. Seriously, man, this is fascinating to me because, like you said, you know, my background's in psychology. I love this stuff. And there were times where I would. I loved, I respected research, but I personally didn't want to do it. But I've got tons of questions to be explored. So listen, if there's anything we can do to help. I mean, we have, what, thousands of episodes, you know, so. Because I think this. This helps us to move forward. That's the beautiful thing about this. And it. It validates what we've known, but now we know with more Specificity and more just. It gives us an opportunity to go so much de. But then the more we can explore this, and then the more we can understand how humans respond in these really tough conversations, the better the world will be. Because there are going to be some patterns that are just imperceptible. But once you give an LLM enough data, it can find things that we can't find. And that's just so exciting.

Absolutely. And I think so. So, yeah, it makes the world better. It makes us also happier. That's another research finding I wanted to tell you about. So recently we tracked hundreds of people with an app that pinged them many times a day and asked them, like, how do you currently feel? And then like, are you currently in a conversation with whom and what is this conversation about? And one thing that we found was that when people were negotiating, reporting, you know, a conversation that some negotiation flavor, maybe they were bargaining over something, trying to convince someone, trying to find a joint solution. Many different kind of negotiation, people are feeling actually less happy than if they were not in a negotiation. However, what was interesting is that if you don't look at the moment, but now you look at the entire set of moments for the person, the frequency at which a person negotiate. If you say, like, hey, you know, 30% of my. My conversations are negotiation, or 40% of my conversation entail negotiation, well, that directly predicted their happiness level overall. So people negotiate more, are happier people.

Wow, this is, it's such a fascinating finding. And it's almost like, just like a human principle. Sometimes doing what is required feels bad, but the outcome feels good. It's about prioritizing the long term benefit over the short term. Discomfort that we can feel.

Absolutely. And again, right. If you ask any negotiator, they will tell you you have to go over your fear of negotiating. Things like that. But. But I find it really cool that we're able to take hundreds of people and show it and show statistically that really, if you start negotiating more in your everyday life, you'll probably, you know, sure, you'll have a better job and things, but you'll also be happier. By the way, do you know the percentage of conversation that entails some form of negotiation?

I need to get better on my percentages. Guess. Jordi, I'm going to nail this one. The percentage that has some element of negotiation. How are we defining negotiation?

You've probably heard the phrase we negotiate every day. Heard you say something similar, but it's true. But I wanted to know, like, okay, every day, but how Much every day.

So maybe 70%.

As, you know, trying to find a conversation where people have sort of differing views, differing interest that they need to reconcile. Right. Or even, even more broadly, any conversation where you need something from the other side.

Oh, yeah. So we're at about 80% for that.

So at least in our sample, there was a bit lower. That was 25%.

25.

But that means, like, one out of four conversation is a negotiation. To me, that was. That was still a pretty.

That's still a lot. That's still Jordy. That might just be a me thing. That just might be me.

Yeah, exactly. You're an outlier, like regular, everyday, everyday people. By the way, that's interesting because we looked at things like gender and age, and we don't find much difference. Differences. Again, this goes against some of the stereotypes that, you know, we might have and some of the things that might have been true, like, 20 years ago, but at least in our data, we find very, very little gender differences.

Oh, that is a fascinating one. That's a really. And, man, now this. You know, every once in a while, you have these moments. And by every once in a while, I mean frequently, every day you have these moments where you're like, oh, wow, time is moving past. Because I was thinking about women. Don't Ask, by Linda Babcock and Sarah Lashever. And remember, they were really the trailblazers in the gender dynamics and negotiation, and that was one of their big findings. But you're right, that is about 20 years ago, and they and a lot of other people have done a really great job of championing, just encouraging women to negotiate more. And it's really fascinating to see that in the data. It seems like it's worked.

It seems like it worked. Yeah. And I think the most recent piece of research I read was actually showing a slight opposite trend, was women negotiating even more. Now, again, it depends on, you know, it depends on the SES and depends on the kind of job. And most of the research is done on, you know, MBAs and executive MBAs and things like that. So it might not be representative of the entire population, but clearly it seems like the trend is reversing. And some of these. That's why it's so important to check with data every once in a while that some of the wisdom that we have is still true.

Incredible. And, Jordi, I want to revisit something. You mentioned that talking speed is positively correlated. I thought that was really interesting. I honestly thought it was going to be the opposite. Can. Do you have any Hypotheses for or ideas for why that could be.

So, you know, my scientist hat, yeah, there could be first a confound. And, you know, talking speed might be associated with being more fluent in English or native. And because this is a very international and diverse sample, it could just be that it's a byproduct of culture and things like that. It could be that. Another possibility, I think it's in line with some of the things we observe is that just being sort of dynamic in the way you talk and outgoing is positively associated with outcome. And so that could be a signal that we're picking up. Right. I don't want to recommend to people to start being, like, radio host or, you know, sports commentator, but. But clearly you want to be engaged and engaging. I think the way you talk, that's data, man.

Okay, this is. This is really interesting because now I want to bring this back to authenticity as well. Because we want people to be themselves. We also want them to utilize really consistent, grounded, foundational negotiation strategies that we know would work. But I think that still gives you a wide berth and a lot of latitude when it comes to sprinkling your own personality into that process. And so for somebody who's listening to this and they're saying, okay, cool, I need to fundamentally change who I am, what advice do you have for that person?

Well, I think I'll follow your great. You know, remember last year or a couple of years ago going through your online LinkedIn course on personality types? I was trained as a personality psychologist originally. I was like, oh, these are some really neat ideas. And I start digging into the literature, and you're right. I think, well, there's room to express, you know, authentically your personality, but also we should consider the personality of the person on the other side. And, you know, if they're neurotic, highlighting your risk will. Will probably make them act more than highlighting the benefit if they're open to new experience. This are very creative type of personality. Telling them that 95% of the customers go with the package B is a bad idea. Right. They want to be special. So I think your personality can shine, but also, like, consider the personality of the other side and the type of arguments they'll be sensitive to.

Amazing. Okay, see, I need to land this plane because I was about to go on to, like, a whole laundry list of questions. We'll just have to have you back. Jordy, this is great, but I want. Before we go, I want to make sure you get an opportunity to talk about the app that will be coming out too.

Absolutely. So, so that research that I mentioned is, is based on, you know, hundreds of negotiation, thousands of negotiation. And we wanted sort of to give the opportunity for people to check how many questions they ask, the kind of questions they ask, how many times they interrupt, how fast they talk and all these things that we talked about. And so we've built an app that analyzes conversations. So basically, if people want to try, it's free. The only thing is that we might use your data for some scientific publications. But the idea is that with a friend, you can download a roleplay case that we have on the app and then we'll ask you to negotiate in on. On zoom to upload the recording of your negotiation. We don't keep the audio, we just, you know, crunch the numbers and we generate a 10 page report with all the non verbal behaviors and some, you know, sort of customized advice for people based on what they say and how they say it. So this is a win win. Science wins. And, and as negotiators, we also win by having this really unique way to look at our own nonverbal behavior and words that we use.

This is incredible. And I teach in the spring at the law school, so I'm going to make sure that my students do this. This will be good, man. I appreciate it. Listeners, we will have links to the app in the description of the episode. And Jordi, before you go, I want to give you an opportunity to remind the listeners again about who you are, what you do, and how they can learn more about what it is that you're doing in as it relates to research and negotiation.

All right, so my name is Jordy Quebec. I'm a negotiation professor at a side of business school, Barcelona. Originally Belgian. I'm a psychologist and I like to use big data to sort of look at the behaviors that can give us a, you know, head in negotiation. So if people want to learn more, they can check out my website. So my, my last name is Complicated. It's called qu.quadback quadback.org and check out my research paper. And if they want to contribute to some of the research we're doing, we're always looking for volunteers.

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 aboard. What most team members do is they subscribe to the podcast because that allows them to automatically get the latest, 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're excited to have you, and I will see you in the next episode. I'll catch you later.