Tag: Relationships

“[K]nowledge is indeed highly subjective, but we can quantify it with a bet. The amount we wager shows how much we believe in something.”

— Sharon Bertsch McGrayne

The quality of your life will, to a large extent, be decided by whom you elect to spend your time with. Supportive, caring, and funny are great attributes in friends and lovers. Unceasingly negative cynics who chip away at your self-esteem? We need to jettison those people as far and fast as we can.

The problem is, how do we identify these people who add nothing positive — or not enough positive — to our lives?

Few of us keep relationships with obvious assholes. There are always a few painfully terrible family members we have to put up with at weddings and funerals, but normally we choose whom we spend time with. And we’ve chosen these people because, at some point, our interactions with them felt good.

How, then, do we identify the deadweight? The people who are really dragging us down and who have a high probability of continuing to do so in the future? We can apply the general thinking tool called Bayesian Updating.

Bayes's theorem can involve some complicated mathematics, but at its core lies a very simple premise. Probability estimates should start with what we already know about the world and then be incrementally updated as new information becomes available. Bayes can even help us when that information is relevant but subjective.

How? As McGrayne explains in the quote above, from The Theory That Would Not Die, you simply ask yourself to wager on the outcome.

Let’s take an easy example.

You are going on a blind date. You’ve been told all sorts of good things in advance — the person is attractive and funny and has a good job — so of course, you are excited. The date starts off great, living up to expectations. Halfway through you find out they have a cat. You hate cats. Given how well everything else is going, how much should this information affect your decision to keep dating?

Quantify your belief in the most probable outcome with a bet. How much would you wager that harmony on the pet issue is an accurate predictor of relationship success? Ten cents? Ten thousand dollars? Do the thought experiment. Imagine walking into a casino and placing a bet on the likelihood that this person’s having a cat will ultimately destroy the relationship. How much money would you take out of your savings and lay on the table? Your answer will give you an idea of how much to factor the cat into your decision-making process. If you wouldn’t part with a dime, then I wouldn’t worry about it.

This kind of approach can help us when it comes to evaluating our interpersonal relationships. Deciding if someone is a good friend, partner, or co-worker is full of subjective judgments. There is usually some contradictory information, and ultimately no one is perfect. So how do you decide who is worth keeping around?

Let’s start with friends. The longer a friendship lasts, the more likely it is to have ups and downs. The trick is to start quantifying these. A hit from a change in geographical proximity is radically different from a hit from betrayal — we need to factor these differently into our friendship formula.

This may seem obvious, but the truth is that we often give the same weight to a wide variety of behaviors. We’ll says things like “yeah, she talked about my health problems when I asked her not to, but she always remembers my birthday.” By treating all aspects of the friendship equally, we have a hard time making reasonable estimates about the future value of that friendship. And that’s how we end up with deadweight.

For the friend who has betrayed your confidence, what you really want to know is the likelihood that she’s going to do it again. Instead of trying to remember and analyze every interaction you’ve ever had, just imagine yourself betting on it. Go back to that casino and head to the friendship roulette wheel. Where would you put your money? All in on “She can’t keep her mouth shut” or a few chips on “Not likely to happen again”?

Using a rough Bayesian model in our heads, we’re forcing ourselves to quantify what “good” is and what “bad” is. How good? How bad? How likely? How unlikely? Until we do some (rough) guessing at these things, we’re making decisions much more poorly than we need to be.

The great thing about using Bayes’s theorem is that it encourages constant updating. It also encourages an open mind by giving us the chance to look at a situation from multiple angles. Maybe she really is sorry about the betrayal. Maybe she thought she was acting in your best interests. There are many possible explanations for her behavior and you can use Bayes’s theorem to integrate all of her later actions into your bet. If you find yourself reducing the amount of money you’d bet on further betrayal, you can accurately assume that the probability she will betray your trust again has gone down.

Using this strategy can also stop the endless rounds of asking why. Why did that co-worker steal my idea? Who else do I have to watch out for? This what-if thinking is paralyzing. You end up self-justifying your behavior through anticipating the worst possible scenarios you can imagine. Thus, you don’t change anything, and you step further away from a solution.

In reality, who cares? The why isn’t important; the most relevant task for you is to figure out the probability that your coworker will do it again. Don’t spend hours analyzing what to do, get upset over the doomsday scenarios you have come up with, or let a few glasses of wine soften the experience.

Head to your mental casino and place the bet, quantifying all the subjective information in your head that is messy and hard to articulate. You will cut through the endless “but maybes” and have a clear path forward that addresses the probable future. It may make sense to give him the benefit of the doubt. It may also be reasonable to avoid him as much as possible. When you figure out how much you would wager on the potential outcomes, you’ll know what to do.

Sometimes we can’t just get rid of people who aren’t good for us — family being the prime example. But you can also use Bayes to test how your actions will change the probability of outcomes to find ways of keeping the negativity minimal. Let’s say you have a cousin who always plans to visit but then cancels. You can’t stop being his cousin and saying “you aren’t welcome at my house” will cause a big family drama. So what else can you do?

Your initial equation — your probability estimate — indicates that the behavior is likely to continue. In your casino, you would comfortably bet your life savings that it will happen again. Now imagine ways in which you could change your behavior. Which of these would reduce your bet? You could have an honest conversation with him, telling him how his actions make you feel. To know if he’s able to openly receive this, consider whether your bet would change. Or would you wager significantly less after employing the strategy of always being busy when he calls to set up future visits?

And you can dig even deeper. Which of your behaviors would increase the probability that he actually comes? Which behaviors would increase the probability that he doesn’t bother making plans in the first place? Depending on how much you like him, you can steer your changes to the outcome you’d prefer.

Quantifying the subjective and using Bayes’s theorem can help us clear out some of the relationship negativity in our lives.

Hanlon’s Razor: Relax, Not Everything is Out to Get You

If you ever feel that the world is against you, you are not alone.

We all have a tendency to assume that when anything goes wrong, the fault lies within some great conspiracy against us. A co-worker fails to give you a report in time? They must be trying to derail your career and beat you to a promotion. Your child drops and breaks an expensive plate? They must be trying to annoy you and waste your time. WiFi in a coffee shop not working? The staff must be lying about having it to lure you in and sample their crappy espresso.

But the simple fact is that these explanations which we tend to jump to are rarely true. Maybe your co-worker thought today was Tuesday, not Wednesday. Maybe your child had sticky hands from playing with play-doh. Maybe the WiFi router was just broken. This is where Hanlon’s razor comes in.

The Basics

Hanlon’s Razor is a useful mental model which can be best summarized as such:

‘Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect.’

Like Occam’s razor, this heuristic is a useful tool for rapid decision-making and intelligent cognition.

Applying Hanlon’s razor in our day-to-day lives, allows us to better develop relationships, become less judgmental, and improves rationality. Hanlon’s razor allows us to give people the benefit of the doubt and have more empathy. In this way, the value of Hanlon’s razor is pronounced in relationships and business matters.

It’s a simple fact that most of us spend a large part of our day communicating with others and making choices based on that. We all lead complex lives wherein (as Murphy’s law states) things are constantly going wrong. When this occurs, a common response is to blame the nearest person and assume they have malicious intent. People are quick to accuse corporations, politicians, their bosses, employees, coffee shop workers and even family of trying to derail them. When someone messes up around us, we forget how many times we too have done the same. We forget how many times we have elbowed someone in the street, knocked over a drink at a relative’s house or forgotten to meet a friend at the right time. Instead, the perpetrator becomes a source of intense irritation.

To assume intent in such a situation is likely to worsen the problem. None of us can ever know what someone else wanted to happen. The smartest people make a lot of mistakes. Inability or neglect is far more likely to be the cause than malice. When a situation causes us to become angry or frustrated, it can be valuable to consider if those emotions are justified. Often, the best way to react to other people causing us problems is by seeking to educate them, not to disdain them. In this way, we can avoid repeats of the same situation.

Origins

The phrase ‘Hanlon’s razor’ was coined by Robert J. Hanlon, but it has been voiced by many people throughout history, as far back as 1774.

Napoleon Bonaparte famously declared:

‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.’

Goethe wrote similarly in The Sorrows of Young Werther in 1774:

Misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.

The German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord used Hanlon’s razor to assess his men, saying:

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent – their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy – they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent – he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

The Place of Hanlon’s Razor in a Latticework of Knowledge

Hanlon’s razor works best when combined and contrasted with other mental models in our latticework of knowledge. Here are some examples of the useful interactions:

• The availability heuristic. This mental model states we misjudge the frequency of recent events. In particular, this occurs if they are vivid and memorable. Many people have a tendency to keep an internal scorecard of other people’s mistakes. For example, imagine that a taxi driver takes a wrong turn and makes a journey more expensive. A month later, the same thing occurs with a different driver. We are likely to recall the previous event and react by seeing all taxi drivers as malicious. Instead of accepting both as simple mistakes, the availability of the memory makes us imagine malicious intent. By combining these two mental models, we can understand why certain situations provoke such strong emotions. When a memory is vivid and easy to recall, we may ignore Hanlon’s razor.
• Confirmation bias. We all have a tendency to look for information which confirms preexisting beliefs. When cognitive dissonance arises, we aim to realign our worldviews. Overcoming confirmation bias is a huge step towards making better choices motivated by logic, not emotions. Hanlon’s razor assists with this. If we expect malicious intent, we are likely to attribute it wherever possible. For example, if someone sees a certain politician as corrupt, they will look for information which confirms that. They become unable to identify when mistakes are the result of incompetence or accident.
• Bias from disliking/hating. Hanlon’s razor can provide insights when we deal with people, institutions, or entities which we dislike. The more we dislike someone or something, the more likely we are to attribute their actions to malice. When someone we dislike makes a mistake, reacting with empathy and understanding tends to be the last response. Acting in an emotional way is natural, yet immature. It can only worsen the situation. The smartest solution is, no matter how much we dislike someone, to assume neglect or incompetence.
• We also like to attribute our own flaws and failures to someone else, which is a cheap psychological protective mechanism called projection. This allows us to maintain a positive self-image and view friction as someone else’s fault rather than our own. It’s best to run a reality check before blaming others.

The Uses of Hanlon’s Razor

The Media

Modern media treats outrage as a profitable commodity. This often takes the form of articles which attribute malice to that which could be explained by incompetence or ignorance. We see examples of this play out in the media multiple times a day. People rush to take offense at anything which contradicts their worldview or which they imagine to do so. Media outlets are becoming increasingly skilled at generating assumptions of malicious intent. When looking at newspapers, websites, and social media, it can be beneficial to apply Hanlon’s razor to what we see.

For example, when Apple’s Siri voice search launched, people noticed that it could not search for abortion clinics. This was immediately taken up as proof of misogyny within the company when in fact, a programming error caused the problem.

A similar issue has occurred a number of times with YouTube content policies. When videos discussing LGBTQ matters were filtered on the restrictive viewing mode, many people took extreme offense at this. The reality is that again, this was an algorithm error and not a case of homophobia on the part of their programmers. Countless videos which do not discuss anything related to LGBTQ issues have also been filtered. This shows it to be a case of confirmation bias, wherein people see the malice they expect to see.

Communication and Relationships

One of the most valuable uses of Hanlon’s razor is in relationships and communication. It is common for people to damage relationships by believing other people are intentionally trying to cause problems for them, or behaving in a way intended to be annoying. In most cases, these situations are the result of inability or accidental mistakes.

Douglas Hubbard expanded upon the idea in Failure of Risk Management: Why it’s Broken and How to Fix it:

I would add a clumsier but more accurate corollary to this: ‘Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system of interactions.' People behaving with no central coordination and acting in their own best interest can still create results that appear to some to be clear proof of conspiracy or a plague of ignorance.

A further example can be seen when semantic barriers interfere with communication. We have all encountered people struggling to speak our native language, perhaps because they are a tourist or have recently moved to the county. You have probably seen someone gets frustrated at them or even been the one getting annoyed. Or if you have ever traveled to or lived in a country where you are not fluent in the language, you might have been the one people got annoyed at. Realistically, the person asking you for directions or struggling to order their coffee is not mixing up their nouns and speaking in a strong accent on purpose.

Hanlon’s razor tells us they are merely inarticulate and are not trying to waste anyone’s time. The same issues occur when a person uses language which is considered too complex or too basic. This may form a semantic barrier, as other people assume they are trying to confuse them or are being blunt.

A short-cut to regulating what can be strong reactions to inadvertent events is to conscientiously reframe the perpetrator as a toddler knocking over a vase. Their actions are rendered unintentional and clumsy, highlighting their need for help, maturation or supervision, allowing you to rapidly regain composure and not take it personally.

Exceptions and Issues

Like any mental model, Hanlon’s razor has its limitations and its validity has been contested. Some critics consider Hanlon’s razor to be an overly naive idea which can blind people to true malice. While people have malicious intent far less often than we think, it is still something which must be taken into account. Sometimes actions which could be attributed to incompetence are in fact consciously or unconsciously malicious.

An instance of Hanlon’s razor being proven wrong is the mafia. Prior to the 1960s, the existence of the mafia was considered to be a conspiracy theory. Only when a member contacted law enforcement, did police realize that the malice being perpetrated was carefully orchestrated.

To make the best use of Hanlon’s razor, we must be sure to put it in context, taking into account logic, experience, and empirical evidence. Make it a part of your latticework of mental models, but do not be blind to behavior which is intended to be harmful.

Roger Fisher on a Better Way to Negotiate, Part 2

In Part 1 of our series on the best-selling negotiation book Getting to Yes, we covered Roger Fisher’s four-part framework on Principled Negotiation — his “way out” of highly contentious negotiation. To review, the four parts were as follows:

1. Separate the People from the Problem
2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions
3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain
4. Insist on Objective Criteria

Habitual use of these four criteria is a way to build, or at least not destroy, win-win relationships in the process of negotiation. The truth is we all must negotiate from time to time. Refusing to negotiate is a strategy in and of itself — and usually a pretty bad one relative to the alternatives.

Fisher’s framework brings up some obvious follow-on questions: What if the other side is more powerful? What if they refuse to play by your rules? What if they play dirty?

Let’s check out a few.

(Don't want to read online? Purchase a sexy PDF of the two-part series for only \$3.99.)

What if they are more Powerful?

We’re all afraid of being taken advantage of in a negotiation. Our tendency to demand fairness is a big part of it, as is our tendency to try to minimize future regret. In a negotiation with a more “powerful” part, it would seem at times like our only play is to make a stand — demand that they meet us or we will not negotiate. That turns out to be a bad play sometimes, and completely unnecessary at other times.

To combat this, Roger Fisher introduced a concept that a lot of people know the name of but not how to use: the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. He addresses the basic problem of powerlessness first:

In response to power, the most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives: first, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interest as well as possible.

The common tactics are to either cave very easily, thus ending the negotiation and any possible bitterness, or to set a “bottom line” and walk away if it’s not met. They’re both weak responses: The “softie” tactic almost assures you’ll take a deal that’s not in your best interest, while the “bottom line” mentality makes you rigid, unable to learn and adapt during the negotiation process and probably too focused on one single variable at the expense of other ones. (Lack of creativity.)

The better approach to understand your BATNABest Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It’s simple to understand in the context of a job offer negotiation: If you lose this negotiation, what alternatives do you have? If you set your “bottom line” too high and you lose, are you on the street? Or, do you have a great second or third option to go to?

While the BATNA acronym is useful and explanatory, it’s really just a dressed-up version of the elementary concept we call opportunity cost, which is constantly at play in life. Realizing that opportunity cost is a “superpower” in negotiation, we can derive the following:

1. He with the best opportunity cost holds the power. Let’s say you’re negotiating with a large car dealership over the price of a new sedan. Who holds the power? On the surface it might look like the dealer does, given their stature in power. But if you have three dealerships in a 30-mile radius which can sell you the same car, the power is yours, not the dealer’s. When you enter into negotiation, you can almost always afford to lose and go down the street to another dealership, find a different type of car to buy, change your mind and go used, or even keep your current car longer. (That’s one reason why the car business is such a tough one.) Point being, size does not = power. Opportunity cost = power.
2. Developing alternative opportunities is the way to gain power. If you’re afraid you’re entering into a job negotiation with no power, your best bet probably isn’t to play hardball, it’s to develop other job offers, or even figure out if you can afford to start your own business. Once you can afford to walk away, the power shifts at least slightly. Raise your opportunity cost bar to shift the odds and make the negotiation a little more fair.
3. Think about their opportunity cost as much as your own. Can they afford to lose? If not, you probably have more power than you think.
4. If they win the opportunity cost battle, argue on merit. Roger Fisher makes this final point well: To the extent that they have muscle and you have principle, the larger a role you can establish for principle, the better off you are. If your opportunity costs are weak, you must resort to making it clear that the house is objectively worth X, that you deserve to be paid Y, or that a drawn-out fight will only ruin your relationship. This goes back to insisting on objective criteria.

What if they Won’t Play?

A problem arises if you aren’t successful in shifting the negotiation to objective criteria or creating win-wins. Sometimes the other side simply takes a position and stubbornly (often irrationally) holds their ground. What then? There are two approaches.

The first tactic Fisher argues for is Negotiation Jujitsu. In other words, using their own forcefulness against them. Not playing their game. It’s nuanced and we won’t try to cover it all here — the book does it well. But the salient point is that you can’t react emotionally to forceful negotiation. Let them criticize, let them attack if they must. But your job is to keep asking objective questions. “You say you won’t accept less than \$2,000 — where do you get that figure from? What makes you say that this is a fair number?” Keep things in the realm of objectivity and don’t get them further entrenched by “attacking back.”

Another part of the jujitsu is to explain to them the consequences of adopting an extreme position. Ask them, hypothetically, what would happen if things went the way they preferred. Fisher gives the example of an Arab-Israeli negotiation where an American was able to get the Arab contingent to understand that if the Israelis gave in entirely, their people would castigate them back home. It was enough to end that line of negotiation.

The last jujitsu tactic is to take criticism unusually well — not allowing the discussion to get personal, even if the other side wants to make it so. I understand you don’t want to be taken advantage of, neither do I — can you explain how your proposal is fair to me as well as you? Can you explain how my position could be altered to be more fair? What would you do if you were in my position? Soliciting an adversary for advice can be disarming if used wisely. All it takes is tamping down your ego. Good lines of inquiry don’t criticize, they probe and try to be helpful. And when you do so, simply pausing and letting the other side talk themselves into or out of a corner can work as well. Use silence to your advantage if you’re making sense and they’re reacting emotionally.

***

The second approach is to use a third-party to mediate. Have them draft up a solution as impartially as possible, with both parties giving input, and the final decision being a mere “yes” or “no” by each party. This can simplify and de-personalize the process.

If you cannot change the process to one of seeking a solution on its merits, perhaps a third party can. More easily than one of those directly involved, a mediator can separate the people from the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. Further, he or she can often suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences. A third party can also separate inventing from decision-making, reduce the number of decisions required to reach agreement, and help the sprites know what they will get when they do decide. One process designed to enable a third party to do all this is known as the one-text procedure.

The essence of that procedure is to have a draft drawn up that best satisfies both sides impartially and without pre-commitment. The final decision for each party is a simple “yes” or “no” to the draft solution. You can do it yourself, asking for opinions and revisions as you go along, or have a third party take it on. In either case, you’re trying to change the game rather than fight a losing battle.

What if they Play Dirty?

A tricky tactic is defined as one that fails the test of reciprocity — they are designed to benefit one side only, and most often, the other side is not supposed to know they’re being used . Some of the most common dirty tactics include: Using phony facts, introducing phony authority, hiding dubious intentions, psychological manipulation, refusal to negotiate, and good-cop, bad-cop type routines. There are too many to enumerate, but the basic answer to all of them will be to refer back to the four central ideas of principle negotiation. You need to point out and negotiate the rules of the game itself when you suspect you’re becoming a victim of “tricky tactics” which you’re not supposed to know about.

There are three steps in negotiating the rules of the negotiating game where the other side seems to be using a tricky tactic: recognize the tactic, raise the issue explicitly, and question the tactics’s legitimacy and desirability — negotiate over it.

You have to know what is going on to be able to do something about it. Learn to spot particular ploys that indicate deception, those designed to make you uncomfortable, and those which lock the other side into their position. Often just recognizing a tactic will neutralize it. Realizing, for example, that the other side is attacking you personally in order to impair your judgment may well frustrate the effort.

The book has some great examples of dirty tactics in play, which are good to refer to. Another book to pick up some of these ploys is Cialdini’s Influence, one of the great books written to protect people against manipulation. However you learn them, it’s good to learn them well. Once you can see that it’s happening, you need to gently, non-threateningly, point out what’s going on and ask to return to principles, or to excuse yourself momentarily. These things serve to defuse an embarrassing situation. And never forget that the best defense in most cases is a worthy set of alternative opportunities, what Fisher calls the BATNA. These give you the ability to walk away if you feel yourself being manipulated with no recourse.

***

Negotiating is difficult. It’s a part of life that some people enjoy and some do not, leading to outcomes in the vein of the old saying Don’t ever wrestle with a pig — you’ll both get dirty but the pig will like it. Strong-willed negotiators have a natural advantage over those of us more averse to confrontation, and yet if we push back, stalemate is a usual result. Adopting the Principled Negotiation approach, rooted deeply in human nature, seems to give us the best chance of getting fair results for all involved.

Still Interested? Check out Fisher's bestselling book, read Part 1 of our two-part series, or check out our post on Fisher's approach to giving better feedback in the workplace.

Roger Fisher on a Better Way to Negotiate, Part 1

“Peace is not a piece of paper,
but a way of dealing with conflict when it arises.”

— Roger Fisher

***

(Don't want to read online? Purchase a sexy PDF of the two-part series for only \$3.99.)

Why are most negotiations so awful? Why do we go into them ready to defend our turf to the death, only to find that our opponent is doing the same? Roger Fisher argues that this is a natural outcome, but one that we need to learn to avoid if we’re going to get things done and maintain good relationships in life. His bestseller Getting to Yes shows the way.

Fisher graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1948, in the same class as Charlie Munger, and by 1958 he was a full-time professor. Over a long career specializing in high-stakes negotiation, Fisher played a role in the outcome of the Camp David Accords, the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, and the apartheid negotiations in South Africa, among other events. He operated at the highest level. (We've covered his ideas on giving better feedback before.)

In 1981, Fisher released his magnum opus, Getting to Yes, a short treatise on negotiating in a different way. Fisher recognized that the contentious, heels-dug-in style of most negotiators failed because it either failed to get results, or if it did, destroyed a relationship in the process. He asked the simple question: If being a hard-ass is one style and being a softie is another, is there a third, better style?

Yes there is, and Fisher called it Principled Negotiation. While most businesspeople are now aware of the term Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, and most are familiar with the phrase Hard on the issues, soft on the people, very few know that Fisher introduced those concepts in his bestselling book, and even fewer have actually read and applied what he had to teach.

So, how do we negotiate better?

An Intro to Principled Negotiation

How does principled negotiation differ from the traditional kind? It’s an attempt to create a win-win in a situation that doesn’t obviously offer one. And as we know, of the four kinds of possible relationships, win-win is the only sustainable one over time. That’s why we want to learn Fisher’s approach. Here’s how he describes it:

There is a third way to negotiate, a way neither hard nor soft, but rather hard and soft. The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent. It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who would take advantage of your fairness.

The most wonderful part of Fisher’s ideas on negotiation is that they don't require any secrecy. In fact, Fisher thinks it's just the opposite, saying that Unlike almost all other strategies, if the other side learns this one, it does not become more difficult to use; it becomes easier. If they read this book, all the better. That’s our kind of strategy.

Step One: Separate the People from the Problem

Early in the book, Fisher lays out the goal of better negotiation with three criteria.

Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and take community interests into account.)

The first step of the process is to separate the people from the problem. Fisher’s method of depersonalizing in negotiation is the same method he advises to give better feedback. Why? Because it works! People are emotional creatures — you and I included. In order to deal with each other fairly, we must do our best to move from personal attack into the realm of reason and merit, even when our every fiber is telling us to attack. If we don't, we miss a chance to build the exact sort of win-win relationship we’d love to have. We fail to understand people.

This human aspect of negotiation can be either helpful or disastrous. The process of working out an agreement may produce a psychological commitment to a mutually satisfactory outcome. A working relationship where trust, understanding, respect, and friendship are built up over time can make each new negotiation smoother and more efficient. And people’s desire to feel good about themselves, and their concern for what others will think of them, can often make them more sensitive to another negotiator’s interests.

On the other hand, people get angry, depressed, fearful, hostile, frustrated, and offended. They have egos that are easily threatened. They see the world from their own personal vantage point, and they frequently confuse their perceptions with reality. Routinely, they fail to interpret what you say in the way you intend and do not mean what you understand them to say. Misunderstanding can reinforce prejudice and lead to reactions that produce counteractions in a vicious circle; rational exploration of possible solutions becomes impossible and a negotiation fails. The purpose of the game becomes scoring points, confirming negative impressions, and apportioning blame at the expense of the substantive interest of both parties.

It’s important to understand the point: There are major transmission errors in a negotiating process. What’s heard is frequently not what’s said or intended. And once a negative feedback loop has been initiated, it can be very hard to pull out. A certain critical mass of bad blood ends the negotiation. This doesn't have to happen — one thing that separates us from lesser animals is the ability to resist our baser instincts when we know it’s a bad idea, and negotiation is an arena where we’d be wise to learn how to do so.

***

There are three areas to manage: Perception, Emotion, and Communication. Our biggest problem with perception seems to be successfully putting ourselves in the shoes of our adversary, or even seeing them as an adversary to start with. It’s almost impossible to influence somebody who you don’t empathetically understand, except through brute force — something we’re clearly not after. To be clear, just because you understand someone’s position doesn’t mean you agree with it. You may well change your mind, but even without that it allows you to consider the problem on its merits.

The emotional side is fairly simple: How do you feel during a negotiation and how does the other side feel? Fisher makes a great point in the book that we don’t need to be afraid to make our own emotions or theirs explicitI feel like you have not been fair with me thus far, and in order for us to make progress, we will need to establish mutual fairness as a goal. Otherwise, I think we will run into a stalemate.

The communication problem isn’t hard for anyone in a relationship to understand. When we’re in a contentious negotiation, both sides feel like they’re not being heard. Solving that problem requires deep listening skills and as with the perception issue, requires us to understand the person on the other side of the table at their level, not at ours. This feels impossible and unnatural, but it works. Think of the last time you felt someone truly understood and empathized with you. Did you feel contentious towards them?

In the end, the environment we want to create is that of two people sitting next to each other, trying to solve a problem together. Even if you don’t have a great relationship with the other party, or any relationship at all, it helps to make the other person feel like you’re in it together. Which brings us to the next point.

Focus on Interests, Not Positions

This is the simplest and probably the most important aspect on principled negotiation: What do I really want? And what does the other guy really want? It’s the difference between saying you want an open window when what you really want is fresh air.

It’s not always as clear as it seems. Let’s take the case of a couple arguing over who’s going to do the dishes. Both people, in the moment, start to feel like it’s really about the damn dishes. But when we step back, we realize it’s probably more about fairness — we want to feel like both parties are chipping in. A sense of fairness is a deeply held human need. And thus, if we focus on creating fairness and using the elementary idea of leading by going first, then we can end the negotiation fairly. (I’ll do the dishes tonight and then we’ll trade every night, sound good?)

It’s this basic method of figuring out what you want and what they want, and satisfying each, that leads us to win-win style outcomes. Viewing a negotiation as something to be “won” is the best way to lose.

Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, for every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it. All too often people simply adopt the most obvious position, as Israel did, for example, in announcing that they intended to keep part of the Sinai. When you do look behind opposed positions for the motivating interest, you can often find an alternative position which meets not only our interests but theirs as well.

At the end of the day, all humans have the same basic needs like food, shelter, well-being, belonging, respect, and autonomy. Never violate these in a negotiation.

Invent Options for Mutual Gain

The key here is that we avoid being rigid in our solutions, and if we've taken the prior step seriously by focusing on interests, we can start getting creative with our problem-solving.

Let’s imagine you’re renting an apartment. It’s easy to think that you and the landlord are at odds — you want to pay the least amount of money and they want you to pay the most amount of money over the period of the rental. But that’s the wrong way to consider the problem. What you really want is to pay a fair price for a clean and well-maintained living space that you won’t get kicked out of. What the landlord wants is steady rent from a respectful tenant who won’t trash the place and is easy to deal with. Actually, most of your interests probably overlap. If you start any negotiation with that in mind, you’ll find it easier to get along.

Let’s say you're at odds regarding who pays for repairs: Agreeing to share the cost of repairs as long as they're completed promptly is where overlapping interests and incentives might create an agreement that could have been contentious. Outline the split, define what promptly means, and you have a settled point. If you were rigid about the problem — I refuse to pay for repairs! — you’d have lost.

Fisher lays out four pretty good reasons we fail to do this:

In most negotiations there are four obstacles that inhibit the inventing of an abundance of options: (1) Premature judgment; (2) searching for the single answer; (3) the assumption of a fixed pie; and (4) thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”.

Any negotiation can get pretty complex when all relevant interests are brought to the table, but the principle to heed is pretty simple: Where do our interests overlap, and where do they not? In the cases where they don’t, what is a mutually satisfying solution? This takes some creative thinking, of course. Rigidity doesn’t work. But if you realize that the car salesman is trying to make a living and wants a quick sale, and you want a good car at a low price, it’s not impossible to mutually satisfy those goals or exit the negotiation if they can't both be met. The “combat of negotiation” is only in our minds.

This doesn't mean you'd want to fold to end the negotiation without argument, or to give in. That's the “softie” style of negotiation. You should have your needs fairly satisfied. But you don’t need to do so at the expense of the other party if it can at all be avoided. Win-lose will eventually haunt you, whether you realize it or not.

Insist on Using Objective Criteria

What is fair? Sometimes in the process of trying to satisfy mutual interests we hit a roadblock in determining just what fair actually means. If two parties can’t agree here, it’s hard to create a win-win solution that maintains and builds the relationship. The usual way is to have a contest of wills. It’s worth \$50. No, it’s worth \$75! No, \$50! And so on.

To solve this, Fisher insists on finding objective criteria by which to measure the fairness of proposed solutions. He’s gives a good example of how this can work in practice.

Suppose you have entered into a fixed-price construction contract for your house that calls for reinforced concrete foundations but fails to specify how deep they should be. The contractor suggests two feet. You think five feet is closer to the usual depth for your type of house.

Now suppose the contractor says: “I went along with you on steel girders for the roof. It’s your turn to go along with me on shallower foundations.” No owner in his right mind would yield. Rather than horse-trade, you would insist on deciding the issue in terms of objective safety standards. “Look, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe two feet is enough. What I want are foundations strong enough and deep enough to hold up the building safely. Does the government have standard specifications for these soil conditions? How deep are the foundations of other buildings in this area? What is the earthquake risk here? where do you suggest we look for standards to resolve this question?”

It is no easier to build a good contract than it is to build strong foundation. If relying on objective standards applies so clearly to a negotiation between the house owner and a contractor, why not to business deals, collective bargaining, legal settlements, and international negotiations?

The idea is to stick to principles over back-and-forth wagering. Refuse to trade tit for tat without setting some standards upon which the decision can be made. Are there a set of precedent transactions? Is there a market for the item? Is there an agreed upon method somewhere? Fisher refers to the sound parenting idea of having one child cut the piece of cake and the other choose the piece. No one can cry foul.

And so there are three main principles to abide by:

Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria.

Reason and be open to reason as to which standards are most appropriate and how they should be applied.

Never yield to pressure, only to principle.

[…]

Pressure can take many forms: a bribe, a threat, a manipulative appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. In all these cases, the principled response is the same: invite them to state their reasoning, suggest objective criteria you think apply, and refuse to budge except on this basis. Never yield to pressure, only to principle.

The last is worth cogitating on. When the heat comes, as it can in many negotiations, can you stick to your guns? If you’re in a traditional battle of wills, you may not be able to. But if you’ve taken some of the steps outlined here and stuck to objective criteria, sticking to the issue and not the person, you may find it’s a lot easier to hold your ground. In this way, fairness is helpful to you as much as to the other party.

Still Interested? Check out the book for a lot more depth on these topics. In Part 2, we address some negotiating questions like What if they are more powerful?, What if they won’t play?, and What if they use dirty tricks? Stay tuned.

***

Two related Farnam Street Posts:

Roger Fisher and Alan Sharp On How to Provide Feedback. When was the last time you really felt your feedback improved someone else’s life, whether it was your spouse’s cooking or your employee’s performance? The problem is that we forget we’re giving feedback to a fellow human being, not an advice-taking robot.

Dan Ariely takes us to Grand Bazaar to demonstrate the psychology of Negotiation.

Need to Improve your Relations with Others? Start by Getting Human Nature Right

Most of us periodically struggle to manage our relationships, whether we're trying to manage a company, a team, a marriage, or a friendship. The problem is that we're often fighting, rather than riding, the tremendous current of human nature. And when we fight a tide we could be riding, we do ourselves a great disservice.

There are two possible causes of our struggle to act in harmony with the way people really are:

1. We don't understand human nature well enough, or
2. We understand human nature well, but aren't living in harmony with it.

The first one is addressable. Studying great practical philosophers is one step. AristotleMontaigneMarcus AureliusSeneca, and Munger are just a few of our favorites. Much has been written about human nature. The great classics of literature are really all about human nature. Great biographical works give us tremendous understanding of people if we are willing to read them and understand them. Even Seinfeld wasn't really a show about nothing, but about how silly our behavior is around one another.

Studying evolutionary biology, a more modern development, is the other place to go. The biologists have done a good job explaining where we come from and what's sitting there in our DNA. We get a lot of that by studying our evolutionary ancestors and cousins — the members of the animal kingdom. Chimps go to war. Bonobos have non-procreative sex, just like we do. Ants organize towards a common goal. We can derive a lot of knowledge about ourselves by asking how we're similar and dissimilar to our “family tree.”

The second cause of our lack of congruence with human nature is tougher to solve for most. Are we aware of human nature but not executing on what we know? You might call this an Intention-Execution Gap. We know what to do, we just don't have the discipline to do it. Success would mean closing that gap, probably through a great deal of self-criticism and working on our emotional discipline.

A wonderful Edge talk with Darwinian philosopher Helena Cronin has a telling excerpt on the topic:

Certainly, human nature is fixed. It's universal and unchanging — common to every baby that's born, down through the history of our species. But human behavior — which is generated by that nature — is endlessly variable and diverse. After all, fixed rules can give rise to an inexhaustible range of outcomes. Natural selection equipped us with the fixed rules — the rules that constitute our human nature. And it designed those rules to generate behavior that's sensitive to the environment. So, the answer to ‘genetic determinism' is simple. If you want to change behavior, just change the environment. And, of course, to know which changes would be appropriate and effective, you have to know those Darwinian rules. You need only to understand human nature, not to change it.

Munger has echoed this in the past, arguing that the way to have a happy partnership is to be a great partner. Buffett has echoed the same: Marrying with the intention of changing the other person is insane. Better to marry right with the intention to change yourself. Learn to be a better partner and create a better environment for the relationship to succeed. How do you think a manager operating in a business environment as awful as steel production was able to do it? He understood human nature and acted in accordance.

***

Who else understood human nature pretty well? Machiavelli. Quite possibly the most talked about, least actually read, practical philosopher of all time. For an example, here he is discussing why hiring mercenary soldiers was such a poor choice for 16th century Italy:

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe.

Isn't that a pretty simple idea, in accordance with our nature? Incentives drive behavior. And of course we see, with insights like that, The Prince has held up pretty well.

***

The modern book on dealing with others is Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's so popular, and so “out of date” that it's easy to dismiss. But Carnegie, like Robin Dreeke, hit on some deep insights about human nature that, if taken seriously, really work. Like understanding others' incentives:

Why talk about what we want? That is childish. Absurd. Of course, you are interested in what you want. You are eternally interested in it. But no one else is. The rest of us are just like you: we are interested in what we want. So the only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it.

Again, Carnegie's wisdom is simple, but absolutely correct. (Another reminder that greats succeed by exploiting unrecognized simplicity.) We are all the protagonists of our own story, aren't we? And yet, how often do we forget that as we go about our relations with others?

Ben Franklin phrased it famously by saying “If you wish to persuade, appeal to interest, rather than reason.” All that Carnegie and Franklin are doing is recognizing people for what they are, and living in harmony with that reality. When we do so, we go a long way towards well-deserved success. Failing here costs us greatly.

So resolve this year, and all of the rest of your years, to come to a better understand of the way people really are and to start living in accordance with it.

The Powerful Predictor Behind Successful Relationships

When does a broken relationship start to go wrong?

Whatever you're thinking — an awkward conversation with your boss, the white lie you told about being busy that was discovered, the time you were supposed to be out with friends but were really somewhere else — you're probably wrong.

These seemingly big moments are not the defining ones that make or break relationships. Rather it's almost always the small things, like that time two weeks ago when your friend asked you if you wanted a cup of coffee. How you responded to that question may have influenced the relationship more than you can imagine.

These apparently inconsequential moments determine the fate of relationships more than arguments. Psychologist John Gottman can determine the fate of a married couple with an accuracy rate in the 90s.

Mind Gym: Achieve More by Thinking Differently, a fascinating new book, explores his research. Gottman looked at those “seemingly meaningless and inconsequential exchanges between people.”

As meaningless as they seemed on the surface, at a deeper level, the exchanges were highly nuanced, emotional signals, …

These emotional signals are what Gottman called “bids.” And it turns out that how we respond to bids is the key to successful relationships.

Sweat the Small Stuff

Picture this scene: Your boss is sitting in front of her computer. She’s working. Or perhaps she’s pretending to work when in fact she’s updating her Facebook page or reading her emails— you know her better than we do, so you choose.

Now imagine yourself entering her office and asking her “Do you want a cup of coffee?” Your boss could choose to respond in one of three ways:

1. She could acknowledge your offer in a positive way: “That’s really nice of you. I’ll have cream and sugar.” Or “Thanks, but I’m okay right now.” In psychologists’ speak, this is called a “turning-toward response” or a “toward bid.”

2. She could acknowledge your offer in a negative way: “Your coffee is disgusting. I’ll get it myself.” Or “You want to get me a cup of coffee? What do you want in return?” This is called an “against bid.”

3. She could just stay silent or change the subject: “There’s this new film out about the life of the flamingo.” This is called a “turning-away bid.” By replying, she acknowledges that you’ve spoken, but she doesn’t engage with what you’ve said. In effect, she ignores your bid.

Whatever response she chooses determines what you do next. Consider this for a second. Only the first, the “toward bid,” is likely to encourage you to make another of your own bids. Faced with an “against bid” or a “turning-away bid,” you’re more likely to make an unconscious mental note not to bother offering her a cup of coffee next time.

Positive bids create a virtuous cycle. When you respond to someone with a toward bid, the person feels good about him- or herself. As a result, that person is more likely to make more positive bids, which, in turn, lead to more positive interactions (and more offers of coffee).

When you use plenty of bids that move you toward one another, research shows that you laugh more, support each other more, dramatically reduce the odds of divorce, and you get more sex. (That alone makes this post worth reading, right?).

Couples that make more bids toward each other, rather than against or turning away are more likely to stay together.

Gottman discovered that there is a magic ratio: Couples who manage a ratio of five positive (toward) responses to one negative (turning away or against) response are more likely to have a healthy, long-lasting partnership.

Men who ended up divorced generally turned away from their wives' bids 82 percent of the time, “whereas men in ultimately stable relationships only ignored their wives bids 19 percent of the time.”

Women use turning-away responses slightly less often. The women who ended up divorced had ignored their husbands’ bids 50 percent of the time, as opposed to those in ultimately stable relationships, who had ignored their husbands’ bids 14 percent of the time.

Bids are present in every relationship.

At work, the ratio of positive to negative bids will affect the quality of your relationship with your boss, your peers, and those you manage. The bid ratio is likely to reflect the difference between those customers or suppliers you look forward to seeing and those you don’t. If you’ve ever had a customer who didn’t seem to care, you know exactly the feeling of a turning-away bid.

How can we make more effective toward bids?
Positive bids could be as simple as a laugh, a smile, a touch. The point is acknowledging.

[W]hatever form it takes, this positive response reassures the initial bidder that you have heard and accepted what they say (even if you don’t necessarily agree with it).

Psychologists have identified four types of positive bids. Healthy relationships have a mixture of these.

Nearly Passive
A friendly grunt, an affirming “uh-huh,” or a gesture of acknowledgment: a nod or a smile. (Note: This is a friendly grunt, not the “Go away and leave me alone” grunt favored by moody teenagers.)

Low Energy
A few words of acknowledgment—“okay” or “sure”— or a question to clarify the bid: “Sorry, what did you say?”

Attentive
Now you’re getting involved. These responses indicate sharing opinions, thoughts, and feelings. They include an offer of empathy, insight, a joke, or a question. Actions like a good-night kiss or a handshake are also attentive responses.

High Energy
Attentive responses, but even bigger— with more energy, complete attention, and full eye contact. These are usually enthusiastic responses (“Wow, congratulations!”). High-energy responses are often physical (big hugs, sloppy kisses) and loud (hearty laughs, giggles). They also have the most positive impact— when you get this kind of reaction, you really know you’ve been heard. But remember the experience of being greeted by a sloppy dog: too much of this kind of positive attention can be exhausting, particularly if the recipient is a rather shy person.

Most healthy relationships have a ratio of five positive to one negative response. There are three simple tips for keeping your approach moving toward, rather than away, from someone.

1. Always respond by showing that you’ve heard what has been said, even if you want to change the subject: “I’m so glad that you’ve found a flat that you like. That must be a weight off your mind. I’ve just finished a new draft of the report, so if you have a moment . . .”

2. Open every conversation with a positive bid. In his research, remember, Gottman found that he could predict, with over 90 percent accuracy, the outcome of a relationship based on what he heard in the first fifteen minutes of a conversation. In many cases, the first three minutes gave a strong sense of whether the relationship was going to survive. If those first minutes are full of negativity, blame, and criticism, the outcome will be negative as well.

3. Even when you vehemently disagree with a person’s suggestions, say what you like about those suggestions first. Establish common ground (e.g., “I like the fact you’re being totally up front”; “I appreciate how passionately you feel about this issue”) before presenting your case.

Against Bids
This is when people respond to you but you wish they hadn't. Responses in this category include “mocking, ridiculing, belittling, and making sarcastic comments about a bid or bidder.” These are the responses that make the other person feel bad and they are the virus of poor relationships.

Here are six against responses. If you're like me you winced reading these, with my last relationship in mind.

Contemptuous
A contemptuous response to “Shall we ask for directions?” would be “We wouldn’t need to if you could just read the map.” Ouch.

Belligerent
Someone is spoiling for a fight. If a person asks “Do you want to see a film?” and the response is “Do you really think I have time for a movie? Don’t you realize how busy I am?” it’s pretty obvious where the conversation is going.

These responses are designed to get a reaction— ideally “I’m sorry; you’re right” but usually something rather less savory. The following are all contradictory responses: “I think you’ll find there’s a better way to tie a garbage bag,” “Leave it alone; let me do it,” or the supremely irritating “Actually, I think you’ll find it’s pronounced . . .”

Domineering
These responses assert authority and attempt to force the other person to withdraw, retreat, or submit. For example, a daughter might say, “My dream is to be on America’s Got Talent.” A mother might respond, “Don’t be ridiculous. You’re not nearly talented enough.”

Character Attack
“I didn’t quite understand what Michael meant in the meeting today” gets the against response “Of course not. You weren’t paying attention, as usual.” “You always,” “you shouldn’t have,” or “you never” are early warning signals that a load of negative bids is on its way.

Defensive
Me: “I can’t find my book.” My spouse: “Well, don’t look at me!” Here, the respondent— even though no blame was being apportioned— is on the defensive.

What happens when someone moves away from you with one of these responses is that you feel undervalued and unappreciated. If you stay in the relationship for years, it sows the seeds of resentment and eventually you stop making toward bids.

If the other person is in a position of power (like an aggressive boss), you may suppress your emotions to avoid conflict, and the relationship will become one based on fear. But if you are the one responding against others, understand that these negative bids seriously undermine your relationships. It’s critical that you change your bids to positive ones.

I've been working hard recently on changing my against bids. I find that sometimes, especially when I'm busy, my default is to reply with a negative bid. To counteract this I've been doing a few things. First, I try to count to 3 before responding. This helps me ensure the other person is done speaking and gives me more of a chance to consider the impact of what I'm thinking of saying. Along the same lines, active listening is a great tool to help ensure you're understanding what other people are saying. Finally, the book recommends one that I've just implemented, which is basically trying to step out of the situation and name what's going on. Something along the lines of “I notice we're not having a productive conversation right now and we're both raising our voices, how can we approach this in a better way?”

Turning-Away Bids
This is when you ignore someone outright or act uninterested.

There may be a reason why you are being unresponsive; you might feel irritated or your attention may be elsewhere. But whatever your conscious motivation, turning away from a bid indicates that you have disengaged from the relationship. The outcome is not going to be good.

When you repeatedly ignore or dismiss the bids of another person the situation escalates. They often become hostile and defensive. Most of us turn away without even knowing that's what we're doing.

What do turning away responses look like?

Silence
Let’s say you’re searching the Internet or cooking or driving. You’re engrossed and, to be honest, you’re not really interested in whatever’s going on around you. So, you zone out and try to ignore any bids coming your way. No one wants the “silent treatment”; if someone is with you, that person may feel this is a snub. The trouble is that if this person keeps trying to interact with you, you’re just as likely to respond against (“Can’t you see I’m busy?”) as toward (“Sorry, I was completely away there; what did you say?”).

Dismissiveness
You ignore the substance of what the other person is saying and either focus on some incidental detail (“She had nice fingernails”), reframe the issue (“Yes, yes, but the real issue is . . .”), or minimize the importance of what’s being said (“Does it matter?”).

Changing Lanes
In the middle of a conversation, you change the subject, either by announcing a new and irrelevant piece of information (“It says here that penguins can do elementary algebra”; “I feel like going for a walk”) or with a deliberate non sequitur (Dad: “Did you finish your homework?” Son: “What are you cooking for supper?”).

Gottman's research indicates that turning away bids are more prevalent than against bids. The effects of both are disastrous.

Gottman found that during a conversation at dinner, stable couples engaged each other as many as a hundred times in ten minutes, whereas those headed for divorce engaged each other only sixty-five times.

What happens in stable relationships when one person is met with a turning-away response is that they rebid about 20% of the time. In couples headed for a divorce, re-bids were rarely attempted. It should come as no surprise that turning away bids increase conflict.

If a bidder is repeatedly ignored, he or she is likely to become angry and critical of the respondent. As a result, the emotional temperature goes up and small incidents become big issues. A small dismissal today can lead to a relationship meltdown next year.

A lot of us stonewall. We turn away and disengage, which has a disastrous effect on relationships. A better way to handle the situation is to accept the bid and “explain to the other person that you feel the need for space.”