Awaiting the Blue Buggy Scenario

Awaiting the Blue Buggy Scenario

It seems I have a little time here to await resolution of a file transfer problem so I would like to revisit the negotiation definition to ease a fear of being left behind to orphan in the dust as the pack moves on.

In Dust We Conquer!

Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. Wonderful introduction to the corpse (I mean course of course). In a competitive event these might seem useful aggregates of the ultimate failures in negotiation observed thus far in the train of human existence. In Roger Fisher's book, "Beyond Machiavelli: Tools for Coping With Conflict" (Penguin: 1996) one is able to observe a series of suggested tools and methods probably similar to what is available in "Getting Together."

I realize the concept of "win-win" in many routine daily events including digesting this definition of negotiation. However it appears obvious to an outside observer that the resolution of serious issues related to international negotiations resulting in the seeming reign of pestilence, war, famine, and death in so many parts of our world as a result of failure suggests that not enough negotiators ascribe to the definition of negotiation as, "a process by which two or more parties interact in order to reach an agreement."

In the examples given on what is or is not negotiation I infer that many people perhaps believe making decisions based on comparisons is in fact effective negotiation, or that consistently hardball competitive tactics constitutes effective negotiation, or that stalling is effective negotiation, or that even "good faith" could be a concept generally ascribed across cultures other than those of the traditionally western Judeo-Christian understanding of the terms of "good faith."

I do not believe that there is a global standard of "good faith." I think "anything goes" appears to be closer to observable reality.

Concerning myths and misconceptions I agree good negotiators are not born and few perhaps originate from the USA. I actually wish more did and often have a hard time rationalizing that out of 300 million souls the ones who seem to heave to the top appear often so unscrupulous or even at times the riders of those horses. If these were patient abiders of "good faith" every major global conflict, particularly those that the media glorifies in terms of pestilence, war, famine, and death might already be resolved and American negotiators would no longer need to claim to be intending to resolve anything with weapons of war. It seems a few other myths might exist?

As in "1984" Orwell contends a seemingly perpetual war with one's perceived or conceived enemies is an aim to distract from serious issues concerning who does and does not contend with the issues of negotiation in assessing the democratic state within a society itself. Having read little of the topic of negotiation itself I would hazard the guess that self-censorship is so often the culprit behind intransigence and a collective unwillingness to explore "win win" rarely beyond immediate aims.

I also believe book knowledge is under-rated and would caution anyone to suggest that one should not read too much in a nation which reads on average a book a year. How many people are in fact reading the same copy of TV Guide over and over again?

I do look forward to reading the Blue Buggy Scenario.