
English: 
CHRIS VOSS: Everybody has cards they're not
showing in a negotiation.
Everybody.
DAYMOND JOHN: Understanding that when you're
negotiating it's what's in it for the other
party as well and it's not just self-serving.
DANIEL H PINK: The key here is that we tend
to think that persuasion or motivation is
something that one person does to another.
KEVIN ZOLLMAN: In such a situation oftentimes
the best strategy is very counterintuitive
because it involves flipping a coin, rolling
a dice or doing something random.
DAN SHAPIRO: So the classic approach to negotiation
is positional bargaining.
In positional bargaining I have a position,
you have a position and we haggle over those
positions.

Korean: 
모든 사람들은 협상할 때 자기 패의 전부를 보여주지 않습니다.
누구든 예외없이 말이죠.
 
 
여기서 중요한 점은, 우리는 설득이나 동기부여가
마치 상대방한테 하는 행위로 여기는 경향이 있다는 것입니다.
그러한 경우, 보통 최선의 전략은 우리의 직관과 완전 반대죠.
왜냐하면 동전 던지기나 주사위를 던지는 등 무작위로 추출하기 때문이죠.
설명하자면, 고전적인 협상 방식에는 '입장적 협상'이란 것이 있습니다.
'입장적 협상'이란, 마치 서로 다른 입장을 가진 나와 상대방이
서로의 입장에 대해 논쟁을 벌이는 것입니다.

Korean: 
이때 '입장적 협상'의 규칙은 엄청 간단합니다.
처음에는 극단적인 것을 요구합니다. 물론 상대방이 미쳤다고 생각하지 않을 정도로
너무 지나치지만 않게 요구합니다.
그리고 당신은 그러한 요구를 쉽게 포기하지 않음으로써 상대방보다 더 의지가 강하다는 것을 보여줍니다.
협상 테이블에 큰 미련이 없는 것처럼 보이게 말이죠.
(비유를 들자면) 어디가 바닥이고 어디가 천장인지, 범위를 정하는 것이 매우 중요합니다.
그래야 어떤 범위 안에서 행동할 지 알기 때문이죠.
만약 그렇게 하지 않는다면, 당신은 상대방에 의해 조정 당하고 감정에 휘말리게 됩니다.
당신이 만약 능숙한 협상가라면, 당신은 분명 감정으로 부터 완전히 독립된 상태로
협상을 할 것입니다. 물론 겉으론 감정적인 척 연기를 하겠지요.
따라서 당신이 기분이 상하지 않아야만 마치 기분이 상한 것 처럼 연기할 수 있습니다.
그러나 이 모두 '바닥과 천장'이 있어야만 가능합니다.
따라서 바닥으로 다닐 지, 밖으로 나갈 지, 아니면 아예 협상을 끝낼 지를 아는 것이 매우 중요합니다.
게임 이론 학자들이 발견한 것 중에 뭐가 있냐하면

English: 
Now, the rules to positional bargaining are
very clear.
You start with an extreme demand, but not
so extreme that the other side thinks that
you're crazy or bluffing.
You concede stubbornly, and you demonstrate
a greater willingness than the other side
to walk away from the negotiation table.
FREDRIK EKLUND: It's very important to set
a floor and a ceiling so you know where to
move.
Because if you don't you can be manipulated
and you can lose yourself in the emotions.
If you're a good negotiator you will obviously
try at least to be completely disconnected
emotionally from the deal and negotiation
itself, although you will play emotional.
So if you're not upset you can play upset.
But none of that matters unless you don't
have a floor and a ceiling.
So you need to know if you go under the floor
you need to walk out or end the negotiation.
KEVIN ZOLLMAN: One of the things that game
theorists have found is that in negotiation,

English: 
especially in negotiations where we're debating
how to divide up some resource—classic example
in game theory is dividing up a pie but it
could be anything like money or some time
with a toy or anything where we have to decide
how to divide it up.
Game theorists have discovered a couple of
central principles that make a big difference
to who does better in those negotiations.
One of the critical things is how patient
you are.
How willing you are to stay and continue to
negotiate.
So if I come in in a rush to a car dealership
and I say I need a car right now, everyone
knows that the car dealer is going to try
and take advantage of the fact that you need
a car right now and say sorry, we can't give
you a discount.
But if you come into a car dealership and
you say I don't need a car anytime soon.
If you give me a good deal today I'll take
it, but if you don't I'll leave.
Maybe I'll come back tomorrow, maybe the next
day, maybe a month later.
Then you'll get a better deal.

Korean: 
어떠한 자원을 어떻게 나눌 지를 정하는 협상은 사실은
게임 이론에서 대표적인 예로, 파이 나눠먹기와 같이 돈이나 시간 등의
배분할 수 있는 모든 것으로 설명된다는 점입니다.
게임 이론 학자들은 이러한 협상에서 누가 더 협상을 잘하는 지에 영향을 끼치는
주요한 몇 가지 원칙을 발견합니다.
그 원칙들 중 가장 중요한 것 중 하나는 당신이 얼마나 인내하느냐 입니다.
다시말하면, 버티고자 하는 의지 또는 협상을 지속할 의지가 중요하단 겁니다.
가령, 내가 자동차 판매 대리점에 급하게 찾아가서 지금 당장 차가 필요하다라고 말한다면
자동차 딜러는 분명 당신이 차가 급하게 필요하다라는 점을 알고선 이득을 취하려
이렇게 말하겠죠. "죄송하지만, 할인은 해드릴 수 없습니다".
반대로 당신이 자동차 판매 대리점에 와서 말하길, "당장 차가 필요한 건 아니고,
만약 괜찮은 가격을 제시해 준다면, 오늘 바로 승락하던가 아니면 그냥 돌아가겠다"
"내일 다시 온다" 던가 아니면 "내일모레 올거 같다" 던가 아니면 "한달 뒤에 오겠다"라고 말한다면,
당신은 할인을 받을 것입니다.

Korean: 
그렇지만, 아마도 이러한 협상이 최상은 아닐겁니다.
이러한 협상은 단지 하나의 요소, 즉, 숫자에 대해 논쟁하는 것에 지나지 않습니다.
이것이 바로 '입장적 협상'의 단점입니다. 즉, 나에게 있어 우선시 되는 고려대상이 여러 개 있을 수 있음에도
'입장적 협상'과 같은 엄격한 형식의 협상에서는
그러한 사항들이 통하지 않는 다는 것이죠.
또 다른 형식의 협상이 있는 데, H.N.P에서 제 동료 교수들이 구상해낸 협상이죠.
우리는 이 협상을 'Interest Based Negotiation'이라 부릅니다.
이 개념은 위치를 두고서 논쟁하기 보단
기저에 깔린 서로의 이익에 대해 논쟁하자는 것입니다.
절대
 
 
예를 들어, "나는 회사에서 지원해주는 코딩 수업을 듣고 싶다" 던가
"마케팅 관련 업계에서 잠깐동안 일해보고 싶다"던가
"일정기간 동안 해외에서 일해보고 싶다"던가
"무슨 무슨 아무개한테 조언을 받고 싶다"던가
"큰 프로젝트를 해보고 싶다"던가
"뭐든 지 해보고 싶다"

English: 
SHAPIRO: However, this probably isn't the
best agreement that you could have come to.
All this is doing is arguing over one single
factor, a number.
And that's the problem of positional bargaining
is that I might have a lot of other interests
at stake, but none of them are getting shared
within this very strict form of positional
bargaining.
There's another form of negotiation that at
the Harvard Negotiation Project some of my
colleagues have developed we call it interest
based negotiation.
The idea here is let's not argue over positions.
Let's argue over underlying interests.
SALLIE KRAWCHECK: Never have one ask and take
no for an answer.
That if you're told no on the raise or even
if you're told yes, come in with 12 other
requests.
I want to take a coding class that the company
pays for.
I want to have a stint in marketing.
I want to work overseas for a period of time.
I want to be mentored by XYZ.
I want to work on this big project.
I want to, I want to, I want to.

English: 
And if by number 20, typically your boss is
going to say yes to something that can turn
into professional advancement or money down
the road.
DAYMOND JOHN: Understanding that when you're
negotiating is what's in it for the other
party as well and it's not just self-serving.
A lot of times people just don't ask the right
questions.
Instead they're just stating what they want
instead of saying how can this situation be
better.
What do you need for this situation or what
are your obstacles.
SHAPIRO: Why do you want the car?
Well, I want the car because I have three
kids, three boys.
I want a safe car.
I don't really care about the sunroof—I
don't need to look that cool.
But I want a car that's not that expensive.
I want one that's energy efficient.
These are all of my interests.
Now, the car dealer has his or her own interests.
If I ask you right now on camera what day
do you think I bought my most recent car.
Literally what day, you should know.

Korean: 
그리고 20개 정도의 제안을 제시하게 되면, 보통 당신의 상사는 그 중
당신을 출세시켜주고 돈방석에 앉을 수 있게 해주는 몇몇 제안들을 채택할 것입니다.
 
 
대부분의 경우 사람들은 제대로 자문해 보지 않습니다.
그 대신에 단순히 원하는 것을 말한다거나
상황을 개선시킬 수 있는 것을 말하지 않죠.
지금 이 상황에 필요한 것이 무엇인지 장애물은 무엇인지에 대해 자문해보지 않죠.
누군가 '당신은 왜 차를 원하나요?' 묻는 다면,
당신은 '아무래도 자식이나 아들이 셋이 있기 때문이겠죠'
'안전한 차를 원해서 일수도 있구요'
'선루프는 크게 신경쓰지 않아요, 멋있어 보일 필요가 없으니까요'
'그치만 비싸지 않은 차를 갖길 원해요'
'연비가 좋은 차를 원해요'라고 대답하겠죠.
이런 것들이 전부 나의 관심사입니다.
동시에, 자동차 딜러는 그 사람만의 관심사가 있습니다.
만약 지금 제가 이 화면을 통해 여러분에게 새 차를 언제 샀는 지 물어본다면,
정확히 어떤 날짜인지를 묻는 다면, 당신은 알고 있어야 합니다.

English: 
It was December 31 right at the end of the
year because I knew one of the interests of
the car dealer in my area was they needed
to get these cars off the lot for the next
year's cars.
They were more likely to go lower because
they had other interests at stake.
So interest based negotiation says don't just
focus on the positions what you say you want.
Focus on the underlying interests.
And this is just as true in contemporary society,
whether it's a business example, two people
arguing over a contract.
Don't just focus on the positions, focus on
the underlying interests.
CHRIS VOSS: You know successful negotiation
is not about getting to yes.
It's about mastering no and understanding
what the path to an agreement is.
We get hammered so much day in and day out
with people trying to trap us with yes, trying

Korean: 
12월 31일에 샀다는 사실을 말이죠. 왜냐하면 나와의 관계에 있어서 자동차 딜러의 관심사는
내년에 나올 차들을 위해 올해 있는 차들을  많이 팔아야 하는 지에
관한 것이죠.
그들은 저자세를 취할 가능성이 큽니다. 왜냐하면 우선적으로 고려할 여러 다른 관심사항들이 있기 때문이죠.
그렇기 때문에, Interest Based Negotiation에서는 당신이 무엇을 원하는 지에 대해
초점을 맞추기 보단 기저에 깔린 관심사항들에 초점을 맞추죠.
그리고 이런 협상방식은 현대사회에서도 마찬가지 입니다.
두 사람이 어떤 계약을 하는 것을 놓고 비즈니스를 하는 경우와 같이 말입니다.
입장에 대해서 집중하기 보단 관심사항에대 집중하십쇼.
성공적인 협상은 승낙을 받는 것이 아닙니다.
거절에 대해 익숙해지고 어떠한 경로를 통해야 합의에 도달하는 지에 관한 것이죠.
 

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
to corner us, trying to lead us places by
getting us to say yes that we get defensive
instantly when someone tries to get us to
say yes.
So you've got to get out of the getting to
yes mindset and instead understand that yes
is commitment and we're always worried about
what we've let ourselves in for when we make
a commitment.
There are three kinds of yeses: there's commitment,
confirmation, and counterfeit.
People are most used to giving the counterfeit
yes because they've been trapped by the confirmation
yes so many times.
So the way you master no is understanding
what really happens when somebody says no.
When yes is commitment, no is protection.
If you say no and you've just protected yourself
you're actually a little more open to hearing
what the other side has to say because you're
not worried about what you've committed yourself
to.

English: 
So you can take most questions that are designed
to get yes and simply turn them into the same
question where the answer is no and it gets
you to the same place.
If a boss gives an employee an impossible
task and the employee says 'Well, you want
me to be successful, don't you?'
Well, that's pushing for a yes.
The flip side question of that instead is,
'Do you want me to fail?'
It's stunning what people are comfortable
saying no to.
So, first of all understanding that you can
use a no to make somebody feel protected and
a little more open-minded to hearing what
you have to say.
Now, the second move after that is what do
you want them to say next?
What you really want them to say is 'That's
right.'
You want to be able to summarize how they
feel about things and what the circumstances
are so that they feel that you've got it.
So much so that you look at you in the eye
and say 'That's right.'
And that's what we say at any given point
of time when we see something that we know
is completely true and that we're in complete
agreement.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
We say 'That's right!' almost as if we're
so totally behind it, it may have even have
been a partial epiphany.
We're so behind it.
We just heard something that we feel is the
indisputable truth and in many cases a really
good 'That's right' summarized in a way that
the other person was actually blind to.
They didn't know that those forces were driving
them or those passions.
But when you say it to them it creates an
epiphany on some level where you pointed something
out to them that's true that they didn't even
realize.
They're showing us and telling us that they
feel empathy from us.
And any time you feel empathy from somebody
else, you feel bonded to them.
You want to collaborate with them.
You want to do whatever you can for them.
And that's a great way to find out what kind
of latitude somebody has in a deal.
And everybody's got latitude someplace.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
VOSS: How you use your voice is really important
and it's really driven by context more than
anything else.
And your tone of voice will immediately begin
to impact somebody's mood and then immediately
how their brain functions.
There's actually scientific data out there
now that shows us that our brains will work
up to 31 percent more effectively if we're
in a good mood.
So if I smile at you and you see it or you
can hear a smile in someone's voice.
If I automatically smile at you and you can
hear that I like you I will actually be able
to reach into your brain, flip the positive
switch, put you in a better mood, there are
mirror neurons in our brain that we have no
control over.
They automatically respond.
And if I intentionally pout you in a good
mood your brain will be working more effectively
and that already begins to increase the chances
that you're going to collaborate with me.
You'll be smarter and you'll like me more
at the same time.
JOHN: Also, body language.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Over 65 percent of communication is body language.
Only seven percent is what you say.
The other is how you say it.
When you're at a table communicating with
somebody do you notice them putting a lot
of obstacles in front of you to gather space
and push you away, or are they lifting their
hair over their ears when they're writing
because they're more interested in what you're
saying.
VOSS: Now upward and downward inflection.
Downward inflection is often used to say this
is the way it is.
There's no other way.
And I will say it exactly like that.
If there's a term in a contract that there's
no movement on and I want you to know it and
feel it without me having to say 'There's
no movement on this!'
Maybe you want to yell at somebody.
That's ineffective because that triggers a
different part of the brain and makes people
angry and they want to fight.
And I've done this in contract negotiations.
I've said things like, 'We don't do work for
hire.'
Just like that.

English: 
That let's the other side know there's no
movement, whatsoever.
I also may need to put you in a more collaborative
frame of mind and if I want to ask you a question
I'll say something like, 'it seems like this
is important to you?'
And I'll inflect up.
It's more driven by context and I can use
an upward inflection to encourage you and
smile while I'm questioning you.
And that will make you feel less attacked
by being questioned because people are made
to feel a little bit defensive when they're
questioned anyway.
So if I know if I have to question you, if
I want you to think about a different option,
then I'm going to be as encouraging as possible
while I may be very assertive at the same
time.
DANIEL H. PINK: So let me give you a hypothetical.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Suppose that you're a parent and you have
a daughter, say a teenage daughter whose room
is an absolute mess.
It just looks like a bomb went off in there
and you want your daughter to clean her room.
You're trying to sell her on the idea of cleaning
her room.
What do you do?
Well, you could try to bribe her and that
might work in the sort term.
You could try to threaten her.
That might work in the short term.
You could try to exhort her.
You can try to tell her about the meaning
of clean rooms.
But there's actually a technique from the
counseling literature, really crystallized
by a fellow named Mike Pantalon of Yale University,
called motivational interviewing.
And what you can do more effectively is ask
two irrational questions.
So, let's say that you have a daughter named
Maria, and Maria has a messy room, and you
want Maria to clean her room.
The two questions you could ask Maria are
this: 'Maria, on a scale of one to ten, one
meaning I'm not ready at all, ten meaning
I'm ready to do it right now.
How ready are you, Maria, to clean your room?'

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Now Maria's room is a pigsty so she's not
going to give you a ten or a nine or even
a five.
Maybe she'll give you a two.
So she says 'Dad, I'm a two.'
Well, here's where the second question comes
in and it's a really interesting counterintuitive
question.
You say to Maria, 'Okay Maria you're a two.
Why didn't you pick a lower number?'
Now our instincts as parents is to say, as
a parent of three kids I have this instinct
very strongly.
If my kid were to say to me I'm a two I would
say what, 'Why are you a two?
You should be a nine!'
But you say 'Why didn't you pick a lower number,
Maria?'
So here's what happens.
Maria has to explain why she isn't a one.
And so she says, 'Well, you know, I am 15
and I probably should get my act together.
If I had my room cleaner I'd be able to get
to school on time faster and maybe see my
friends a little bit more.
You know, you and mom never know where anything
is anyway, so I'm kind of wasting my time
asking you to help me.'
What happens?

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
With that second question, why didn't you
pick a lower number, Maria begins articulating
her own reasons for doing something.
And this is really axiomatic in sales and
persuasion.
When people have their own reasons for doing
something, not yours, their own reasons for
doing something, they believe those reasons
more deeply and adhere to the behavior more
strongly.
Now suppose Maria says, 'Dad, on a scale of
one to ten I'm a one.'
Okay, that makes things a little more complicated,
but it's actually really, really important
to understand this.
If you say to Maria – if Maria says, 'Dad,
I'm a one,' here's what you say to Maria:
'Maria, what can we do to make you a two?'
And what often that does is this.
Maria will say, 'Well maybe if you and mom
help me for 15 minutes to get this started.
Maybe if you maybe not set the table and take
out the trash tonight that would free up some
time for me.'

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Because usually when people are a one it's
often not because they're purely obstinate.
It's because there's some kind of environmental
obstacle in front of them.
And if someone says they're a one, find out
what that obstacle is, try to make them a
two and that might give you some more momentum.
The example I just gave had to do with parenting,
but you can use this more universally.
Now you can't whip it out at every single
persuasive encounter but you can use it to
persuade your boss.
You can use it maybe to persuade a reluctant
prospect in an actual sales encounter.
You can use it with someone – your neighbor
who's resisting moving his garbage cans or
something like that.
The key here, and again you've got to go back
to first principles here.
The key here is that we tend to think that
persuasion or motivation is something that
one person does to another, and what the social
science tells us very clearly is that it's
really something that people do for themselves.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
And your job as a persuader, as a motivator
is to reset the context and surface people's
own reasons for doing something.
Because it works a lot better.
VOSS: The secret to gaining the upper hand
in negotiations is giving the other side the
illusion of control.
And the illusion of control is typically best
given with either questions that begin with
the words what or how.
Both what and how should be the form of nearly
any question where you're trying to gather
information.
And it's actually one of the ways we say no.
The first and best way to say no to anyone
is: 'How am I supposed to do that?'
Now, the other side actually has no idea as
to the number of things you've done with them
at the same time.

English: 
You've conveyed to them you have a problem.
It's something that we also refer to as forced
empathy, because one of the reasons why we
exercise tactical empathy is because we want
the other side to see us fairly.
We want them to see our position.
We want them to see the issues we have.
We want them to see the constraints that we
have.
And when you say to somebody 'How am I supposed
to do that,' you make them take a look at
your situation before they respond.
And they think about it in a number of different
ways.
And a number of different people I've coached
through negotiations who have felt completely
helpless.
They felt completely taken hostage.
In one instance a woman thought she was taken
hostage to the future and she just wasn't
getting paid.
They called her up to give her more work and
we taught her to say, trained her, counseled
her to say how am I supposed to do that.
They thought about it for a while and they
said you're right, you can't.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Now notice that response is not word for word
directly responsive to her question.
What they responded to was they felt like
she said to them I can't do this anymore.
I've reached my limit.
And it's a way to establish a limit in a way
that doesn't back the other side into a corner.
You really want to be able to let out no a
little bit at a time, and the first way to
start letting out no as an answer is how am
I supposed to do that.
Now ultimately with that question we all imagine
that the other side is going to say 'Because
I said so' or 'Because you have to.'
That's actually where you ultimately want
to be with that question.
That's a great way to find out whether or
not you've gotten everything you could on
that particular term.
Because the other side's most angry response
is 'Because you have to.'
It's not them walking away.
It's not them terminating the deal.

English: 
It's not them giving you any more of an ultimatum.
It's them saying no, I've got no more room
to give with out the negotiations breaking
off.
So given the other side the illusion of control
while signaling limits, it's a great way to
stay in the conversation and find out that
you're not leaving anything on the table.
So the more you let the other side feel like
they're in control, the more amenable they
are to collaboration.
You really don't want people to feel out of
control.
VOSS: The F word in negotiations is fair.
Fair is the F bomb, and when you begin to
look for it, it's stunning.
In how many negotiations somebody drops the
F bomb in the negotiation?

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
And when somebody says we just want what's
fair, That's actually a really bad sign.
One of two things is going on.
Now, the cutthroat negotiators know how much
I can punch your buttons if I say I've given
you a fair offer.
And that will immediately put you on the defensive
and make you worry about whether or not you're
being fair and most people have an instinctive
feeling about fair price, fair market.
Fair is just like this incredibly overused
term in negotiations.
I just want what's fair, what's the fair market
price.
So if I say I've given you a fair offer and
I'm accusing you of being unfair I've immediately
knocked you back on your heels.
It's a way for me to gain an advantage on
you, if I'm that kind of a negotiator.
The flip side of it is, maybe I've been assertive
enough in the negotiations and I haven't been
using enough tactical empathy that the other
person feels like I'm taking, taking, taking

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
from them, and they'll respond with 'I just
want what's fair.'
That may be someone genuinely telling me very
indirectly that they feel I've been far too
aggressive.
And if they feel I've been aggressive, and
if they feel treated unfairly, one of two
things is going to happen.
They're either going to walk away from a great
deal, or they're going to make implementation
painful.
And when implementation of a negotiation is
painful, when they drag their feet, when they
don't make deadlines, when they don't deliver
the product quality they're supposed to deliver,
when they're not as thorough and paying as
much attention to detail because they didn't
feel it was a fair deal, they destroy your
profit.
So you have to really keep an eye out for
the F bomb in negotiations.
And when somebody else feels they've been
treated unfairly they're probably going to
hurt you over it.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
ZOLLMAN: When one is confronted with a situation
that's truly zero sum where one party is going
to win and the other party is going to lose,
the situation is very complicated and sometimes
difficult to analyze.
Game theory spent much of its early days analyzing
zero sum games and trying to figure out what's
the best strategy.
It's a little complicated because it depends
critically on how sophisticated you think
the other party is.
If they're very, very, very smart, the chances
that you're going to out-think them are not
very high.
In such a situation, oftentimes the best strategy
is very counterintuitive because it involves
flipping a coin or rolling a dice or doing
something random.
Professional poker players know this, and
they oftentimes advocate in poker strategy
books that one should occasionally do something
completely counterintuitive in order to keep
your opponents off guard.
And, in fact, game theory has shown that this
is good, solid mathematically well founded
advice.
That oftentimes what you want to do is engage
in a kind of random strategy – game theorists

English: 
call this a mixed strategy – in order to
make sure that your opponent can't get the
leg up on you.
The nice thing about these random strategies
is that they ensure that your opponent can
never out-think you.
So even if you think your opponent is a little
smarter than you, or a little bit more sophisticated
than you, or has a little bit more information
than you do, the fact that you're being random
to a certain extent means that they can't
out-think you.
Now how do you figure out how to be random?
I'm not saying just flip a coin all the time,
or whatever.
What game theorists have figured out is that
in zero sum games, the best strategy to pursue
when you're against a sophisticated opponent
is to adopt the strategy which minimizes your
maximum loss.
This is sometimes called the mini-max strategy.
So the idea is you think what's the worst
case scenario for me.
What could my opponent do that would make
me worse off?
And then you figure out what's the best strategy
against that.
So you're minimizing your maximum loss.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Game theorists prove that if you use this
way of thinking, minimizing your maximum loss,
you ensure that no matter how sophisticated
your opponent is you've guarded against the
worst case scenario and not only that, but
in zero sum games you've done the best you
can possibly do.
That's not true in games that aren't zero
sum, so one has to be very careful about employing
this strategy because if you're mistaken and
you're not in a zero sum interaction, you
can end up ruining it for everybody.
But if you're truly in a zero sum interaction,
this is one of the strategies that you could
use.
VOSS: A summary is designed to let the other
side know that you really understand what's
going on now and, if nothing else, at least
you understand their position.
There are a lot of negotiators that really
will give in on a deal because being understood
is more important than getting what they want.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
In particular, the assertive negotiator, being
understood is actually more important to them
than actually making the deal.
So, everybody wants to be understood anyway.
Let people know you completely understand
where they're coming from, and that's the
design of a summary.
Summarizing the facts and how they feel about
the facts.
And actually if you can summarize their feelings
about the facts that are driving them but
that they're blind to, it will make a big
difference to them because then they feel
really understood.
That empathy connection is there.
What you want to do is put people in a position
where they feel connected enough to you that
they're willing to collaborate with you.
They're willing to show you the things that
they were scared to tell you about before.
You know the cards that everybody holds in
a negotiation?
That if you could just see those cards, you
might be able to negotiate a completely different
deal?

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Well, that's where this entire approach is
really going—everybody has cards they're
not showing in a negotiation.
Everybody.
And if you could get the other side to show
you those cards, we call them black swans,
those little things that make all the difference.
If you can get them to show you the black
swans, to reveal those black swans, then you
can probably make a better deal than you ever
had in mind.

Korean: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
