The discussion revolves around effective strategies to assess the seriousness and intentions of individuals in negotiations, particularly when dealing with those who may not be forthcoming or honest about their demands. The technique of posing 'how' and 'what' questions is explored as a means to prompt deep thinking and reveal the genuine stance of the negotiator. By analyzing not just the content but also the manner in which an answer is provided, one can form a better understanding of the counterpart's true motives.

The video highlights practical approaches to handling high-stakes, combative negotiations by wearing down the adversary through strategic questioning. Instead of confronting a 'cutthroat' negotiator directly, using passive-aggressive tactics by continuously posing thought-provoking questions can exhaust and de-escalate their aggressive stance. The conversation underscores that such strategies are not manipulative but are designed to neutralize bad actors and facilitate more equitable negotiations.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. diagnose [ˈdaɪəɡnoʊs] - (verb) - To determine the nature or cause of a problem or situation through examination. - Synonyms: (analyze, examine, identify)

You're asking a question to get a, to diagnose how they respond.

2. exhaust [ɪɡˈzɔst] - (verb) - To wear out completely, make someone very tired. - Synonyms: (fatigue, tire, deplete)

One of the great secrets to negotiation is learning how to exhaust the other side.

3. implement [ˈɪmpləˌmɛnt] - (verb) - To put a decision, plan, or agreement into effect. - Synonyms: (execute, carry out, perform)

I'm trying to get you to clarify what implementation looks like.

4. comply [kəmˈplaɪ] - (verb) - To act in accordance with a wish, command, or rule. - Synonyms: (obey, adhere, conform)

If you plan on following through, if I comply, you will already have that in your head or be open to it.

5. aggressor [əˈɡrɛsər] - (noun) - A person or country that attacks or initiates hostilities. - Synonyms: (attacker, assailant, belligerent)

If I got a cutthroat aggressor on the other side, I'm going to drop into passive aggressive behavior to slow them down and wear them out

6. deferential [ˌdɛfəˈrɛnʃəl] - (adjective) - Showing respect or submission to someone else. - Synonyms: (respectful, courteous, considerate)

It's passive aggressive and it's deferential and it really works.

7. stonewall [ˈstoʊnˌwɔl] - (verb) - To delay or block by refusing to answer questions or by evasive responses. - Synonyms: (obstruct, impede, hinder)

a stonewall kind of approach

8. peppering [ˈpɛpərɪŋ] - (verb) - To direct numerous questions or statements at someone, often to make them more receptive or to gather information. - Synonyms: (bombarding, plying, besieging)

Start peppering them with how and what questions.

9. relent [rɪˈlɛnt] - (verb) - To cease resistance or abandon a harsh intention. - Synonyms: (yield, submit, capitulate)

And get them to just either relent or to reveal something.

10. adversary [ˈædvərˌsɛri] - (noun) - One's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute. - Synonyms: (opponent, rival, foe)

When you've got a really dangerous adversary on the other side of the table.

One of the Secrets to Negotiation - Chris Voss & Dr. Andrew Huberman

In assessing how serious somebody is, you said it's fair. You called it the f word. I like that. I'll never forget that. Just ask a fair question, like, how much money do you think you deserve? Or would that be a good example of a very direct question? Or is it, how likely are you to walk away if we don't give you the money? Because I can imagine there's all sorts of reasons why people would be dishonest about answering those questions well, and then how much money do you think you could deserve? You deserve is a really good question. Not necessarily what the answer is, but how they answer it. You're going to get, how quickly they fire back and whether or not they stop and think about it.

How and what questions typically are best to judge the other side's reaction? And the answer is secondary because the how or what question causes what we would refer to as deep thinking, slow thinking. Danny Kahneman, behavioral economics. Thinking fast and slow. Slow thinking is in depth thinking. You ask a how or what question to make the other side think first and judge their reaction to how they think about it. And do they actually think about it, or do they fire right back at you? That gives you a clearer picture of who you're dealing with, where the outcome is gonna go. How much money do you think that you deserve if they immediately, you know, $10 million.

All right, so this is, I got a shakedown artist on the other side. Or they say, all right, if they stop and think about it and they give you a thoughtful answer, that's a completely different person on the other side of you're asking a question to get a, to diagnose how they respond. First, the answer is second. And sometimes I, if it's a cutthroat on the other side, I'm going to start parenting them with how and what questions, just to wear them out. That's passive aggression.

If I got a cutthroat aggressor on the other side, I'm going to drop into passive aggressive behavior to slow them down and wear them out. One of my hostage negotiation heroes, a guy named Johnny Pico, was John Domenico Pico. Not Johnny, like Johnny Rockets, italian Johnny. John Domenico. Got all the western hostages out of Beirut in the mid eighties. Wrote a book called man without a gun, negotiated in person, face to face with Hezbollah. The only guy that ever did that got everybody out. And in his book he wrote, one of the great secrets to negotiation is learning how to exhaust the other side.

And when you've got a really dangerous adversary on the other side of the table. You don't go nose to nose. You don't argue. You're not combative. You wear them out, exhaust them. And if you got somebody really combative or cutthroat on the other side, start peppering them with how and what questions, because to even think about the answer, it tires them out and it's passive aggressive and it's deferential and it really works. So if the person on the opposite side of a high friction negotiation is aggressive, the goal is to slow things down, fatigue them.

Yeah. And get them to just either relent or to reveal something. That's, that's a loophole. Yeah. Right. Yeah. If, if I have to make the deal, then I'm gonna wear them out. I'm interested in drilling a little bit further into this process of wearing them down and the passive aggressive way of reducing the aggressor's stance. And I want to highlight for people that, you know, what we're talking about here isn't manipulation to extract something. We're actually talking about the reverse. We're talking about a bad actor who's aggressive and trying to defang that bad actor.

What does that process of wearing them down look like or sound like? Could you give us a couple of examples of, let's say I'm the bad actor. We could play this game. I won't be very good at this. And I am saying, look, I want x number of dollars by this date or you're not going to get what you want. They're going to die or disappear. It's that simple. And I'm, you know, a stonewall kind of approach. What is the approach that you take to wear that person down? Well, what are they're going to be questions that are mostly how and what?

And they're going to be legitimate questions, which is how do I know you're going to follow through? What does that look like? Like, if I do what you want, how do I know you're going to follow through? So get them to talk about the alternative. Okay, so if you were to, well, if you deliver by that date, I'm going to pass them to you without fail. Like if they're just getting kind of brief answers where the person is just, again, this kind of like rigid stonewall approach. Yeah. Well, and so there's a phrase that we use all the time, vision drives decision.

So if you're really going to comply, if I give in and when I say how do I know you're going to follow through? I'm not talking about the threat. I'm not trying to get you to clarify the threat. I'm trying to get you to clarify what implementation looks like. So I need to know. I'm based on your reaction to that. If you plan on following through. If I comply, you will already have that in your head or be open to it. Vision drives decision. You've thought it through in advance. What does letting the hostages go look like if you have no intention of ever releasing the hostage?

If I follow through, then you're not going to be able to answer the question, and you're probably going to throw it back on me really quickly. Now I know. All right, so you got no plans on complying if I give in, you're not going to comply, but you still want the money? Then I'm going to ask, well, how am I supposed to pay you if you don't have any plans for compliant, and if you're willing to entertain a conversation about what compliance looks like? There was a kidnapping that my unit worked just before I was in it in Venezuela, where they weren't entirely sure that the bad guys were going to the FARC, I think, had the hostage. They agreed on an exchange point to let the hostage go.

That was some distance from where they had a pretty good idea the hostage was being held. So they figured they're not going to drag the hostage all the way to this river crossing if they're not going to let them go. It's just too much effort. And then it was one of the few times there was going to be, theoretically a simultaneous exchange. But they're going to have to send the money across the river before the hostage was let go. So if we agree to this. All right, so they're not going to drag this guy all the way to this river crossing if they don't plan on letting them go. And if it's a long way to drag them and they got their money, do they want to drag them back? Like, even if they're ambivalent once they get there, if they've gone through all the effort to get to the meeting location and the hostages there, we've now just increased the chances significantly.

They're going to go ahead and comply because it's a pain in the neck to take them back. This is all human nature stuff. Human nature investment. How do you get them to engage in actions and behaviors and then verbal commitments that actually mean something to them? When I was working kidnappings, the very last thing we'd always have the family get the bad guys to say it last, not first, but last was we'd actually get a verbal promise to let them go again at the end because we've been talking to them long enough. At this point in time, we got a pretty good idea of what they sound like when they're lying and what they sound like when they tell them the truth.

If somebody tells the truth, they pretty much tend to tell the truth the same way every time. If they tell the truth, you talk to somebody long enough, you got a line on do they ever tell the truth? And if they do, what does it sound like? People lie 20 ways. They tell the truth one way. So we've been coaching in negotiations with the kidnappers long enough that we know what they sound like when they tell the truth. So when they ask at the very end, if we pay, do you promise to let them go? It's not that they answered, but how they answered it, and that'll be the last thing to seal the deal. How do you continually stack the odds in your favor for implementation?

Our.

Psychology, Negotiation, Strategy, Behavioral Economics, Leadership, Motivation, Huberman Lab Clips