Difference between revisions of "Hierarchy of agreement"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Woozle moved page Hierarchy of negotiation to Hierarchy of trust: This is the name which came up in my head when I was trying to remember the name of this page, and it seems like a better one.)
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Types of Participant==
+
<hide>
−
In general, any negotiation descends to the outermost level of any participant in that discussion; the level of any discussion can therefore be characterized by the outermost-level participant present. From inner to outer, possible levels are:
+
[[page type::article]]
−
===Honest and Well-Meaning===
+
[[thing type::hierarchy]]
−
* '''Ring''': innermost ring, inside "common interest"
+
[[category:hierarchies]]
−
* '''Definition''': Participant is believed to be both:
+
</hide>
−
** '''honest''': neither knowingly inventing details nor leaving out important information
+
==About==
−
** '''well-meaning''': allowing the [[common good]], in at least some areas, to take priority over self-interest
+
The [[hierarchy of agreement]] (or [[hierarchy of negotiation]]) is a way of ordering different levels of [[agreement]] in negotiations or discussions between two or more different entities. These levels are typically characterized by increasing levels of [[trustworthiness]] as agreement moves upward &ndash; which itself is generally measured by the degree of [[honesty]] and [[rationality]] a [[good faith]] participant can [[rationality detection|detect]] in the other participant(s).
−
* '''Goal''': to maximize some combination of the [[common good]] and personal gain.
 
−
* '''Benefits''':
 
−
** Participant's opinions may be presumed to reflect what is good for everyone, not just for them (and argued with on that basis, if there is disagreement)
 
  
−
The participant may have more ''awareness'' of any decision's possible effects on her/his special areas of interest, and hence act as a sort of advisor to the group in that area, but s/he would not choose an action which favored such interests over the interests of others ''unless'' it also seemed to produce the best results overall (for society at large).
+
As one entity loses trust in the other(s), the discussion moves down the hierarchy; as entities come to trust each other more, the discussion can move up the hierarchy. Higher levels are more likely to result in generally favorable (positive-sum) outcomes than lower levels.
  
−
This level of negotiation is especially vital in [[science]], where the convention in a disagreement is not only to assume your opponent's unswerving devotion to the discovery of [[truth]] (the "common good" which science aims to serve) but also to put the ''most charitable possible interpretation'' on any ambiguous statements s/he makes
+
The most basic levels are:
 +
* '''agreement''': no real dispute; maybe some haggling over details, but nobody feels strongly that someone else is wrong
 +
* '''reasonable disagreement''': A and B have reached different conclusions, but neither A nor B believes that the other's conclusion is unreasonable.
 +
** That is, A and B are reaching different conclusions via intuition, but both A and B agree that the other's conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
 +
** This presumes that A and B also have a body of mutually-agreed upon evidence.
 +
* '''unreasonable disagreement''': A states that B's conclusions make no sense, and vice-versa.
 +
** To the extent that the issue involves some decision which affects both parties, disagreement tends to become hostility, as both parties may feel threatened by the choice the other party prefers.
 +
** One or both parties may in fact be arguing in [[bad faith]].
 +
*** One party may be aware that the other party is making sense, but does not want to "lose" the debate; they wish to retain control regardless of what's [[fair]], and are engaging in [[manipulative tactic]]s in order to make their case seem stronger.
 +
*** Both parties may be engaging in manipulative tactics in order to "win the argument", whether or not they see the other side's point.
 +
* '''coercive threats''': one party believes they have no hope of persuading the other(s) to update their beliefs through reason and evidence, so they decide to use their power (or the appearance of power) to get what they want.
 +
* '''physical conflict''': any negotiations end, and one or more parties attempt to subdue the other(s)
  
−
''There is a certain kind of discussion which can only take place at this level, but I am having difficulty characterizing it. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)''
+
The further ''down'' the hierarchy you go, the more the following become true:
−
 
+
* A and B are working from a very different set of basic beliefs, and at least one party's beliefs are not subject to updating.
−
===Openly Self-Interested===
+
* One or both parties are not using rational analysis at all, but some other form of [[epistemology]] (e.g. [[received truth]])
−
* '''Ring''': outside "common interest", still inside "trustable"
+
* One or both parties are not being honest about their goals and intentions.
−
* '''Definition''': The participant is believed to be '''honest''' (as above), but isn't willing to sacrifice local gains (i.e. gains for her/himself or the interests s/he represents) for the greater good without some sort of compensation.
+
* Where there is conflict over a decision involving both parties, that conflict can only be resolved coercively.
−
** Such compensation may be unwritten, as in "you owe me for this one", and hence is not always obvious.
+
===Hostility===
−
* '''Goal''': to maximize local gain (for self or constituency).
+
"Hostility" can be either overt (a declaration of opposition/enmity/war) or covert (behind-the-scenes maneuvering to favor one's own position) to various degrees. [[Propaganda]], [[cold war]], [[dog-whistle]]s, and [[trade sanction]]s all fall somewhere along this spectrum.
−
** In practice, there is a social cost to embracing opinions seen to be harmful to society at large, so a self-interested negotiator will generally be willing to give the greater good ''some'' priority -- but only to the extent that the social gain of doing so outweighs the loss (or increased risk of loss) of supporting a decision which is locally detrimental.
+
===Dimensions===
−
* '''Benefits''':
+
There may actually be more than one dimension here:
−
** Participant can be trusted not to hide their personal stake in any particular decision; if they make a statement, it is because that is what they believe, not because they are trying to manipulate the discussion somehow.
+
* strength of disagreement (how fervently one party believes in the rightness of their own position in comparison to the positions taken by others)
−
 
+
* disparity of value (how much difference there is in the amount of benefit/harm each party assigns to each of the choices being considered)
−
Negotiation at this level is generally of a [[quid pro quo]] nature.
+
==Related==
−
 
+
* This is related to [[rationality detection]].
−
Political policy can be discussed at this level, but the results are generally consistent with the classic one-liner "if you like sausage and respect the law, you shouldn't watch either one being made". Policy is almost always better constructed if it is consistent with an overall political philosophy (or at least a set of mutually agreed-upon goals), for which an "honest and well-intentioned" discussion is required.
+
* A prior attempt at delineating this hierarchy is [[/v1|here]].
−
 
 
−
===Untrustworthy===
 
−
* '''Ring''': outside "trustability", still inside "negotiation"
 
−
* '''Definition''': The participant knowingly misrepresents facts or her/himself, but always acts for her/his own local interest
 
−
* '''Goal''': same as "openly self-interested", but may claim to have the greater interest as a top priority
 
−
* '''Benefits for group''': is at least a rational actor; once her/his motives are understood, meaningful negotiation can take place
 
−
* '''Disadvantages for group''': can't be trusted to keep promises, so agreements must have reliable means of enforcement
 
−
 
 
−
Note that an untrustworthy participant who ''actually'' has the common good as a priority still cannot be trusted, as there is no way to establish that this is truly their goal. Such a participant might behave deceptively with good cause until s/he determined that others in the group could be trusted at a higher level.
 
−
 
 
−
An untrustworthy negotiator may or may not be a rational actor.
 
−
 
 
−
Negotiation at this level is generally of a [[carrot-and-stick]] nature.
 
−
===Hostile===
 
−
* '''Ring''': (outermost) outside "negotiation"
 
−
* '''Definition''': Entity either refuses to negotiate or knowingly takes actions which prevent negotiation from occurring (e.g. insulting or harming an agent who offers negotiation).
 
−
 
 
−
A hostile may or may not be a rational actor.
 

Revision as of 19:23, 3 August 2020

About

The hierarchy of agreement (or hierarchy of negotiation) is a way of ordering different levels of agreement in negotiations or discussions between two or more different entities. These levels are typically characterized by increasing levels of trustworthiness as agreement moves upward – which itself is generally measured by the degree of honesty and rationality a good faith participant can detect in the other participant(s).

As one entity loses trust in the other(s), the discussion moves down the hierarchy; as entities come to trust each other more, the discussion can move up the hierarchy. Higher levels are more likely to result in generally favorable (positive-sum) outcomes than lower levels.

The most basic levels are:

  • agreement: no real dispute; maybe some haggling over details, but nobody feels strongly that someone else is wrong
  • reasonable disagreement: A and B have reached different conclusions, but neither A nor B believes that the other's conclusion is unreasonable.
    • That is, A and B are reaching different conclusions via intuition, but both A and B agree that the other's conclusions are consistent with the evidence.
    • This presumes that A and B also have a body of mutually-agreed upon evidence.
  • unreasonable disagreement: A states that B's conclusions make no sense, and vice-versa.
    • To the extent that the issue involves some decision which affects both parties, disagreement tends to become hostility, as both parties may feel threatened by the choice the other party prefers.
    • One or both parties may in fact be arguing in bad faith.
      • One party may be aware that the other party is making sense, but does not want to "lose" the debate; they wish to retain control regardless of what's fair, and are engaging in manipulative tactics in order to make their case seem stronger.
      • Both parties may be engaging in manipulative tactics in order to "win the argument", whether or not they see the other side's point.
  • coercive threats: one party believes they have no hope of persuading the other(s) to update their beliefs through reason and evidence, so they decide to use their power (or the appearance of power) to get what they want.
  • physical conflict: any negotiations end, and one or more parties attempt to subdue the other(s)

The further down the hierarchy you go, the more the following become true:

  • A and B are working from a very different set of basic beliefs, and at least one party's beliefs are not subject to updating.
  • One or both parties are not using rational analysis at all, but some other form of epistemology (e.g. received truth)
  • One or both parties are not being honest about their goals and intentions.
  • Where there is conflict over a decision involving both parties, that conflict can only be resolved coercively.

Hostility

"Hostility" can be either overt (a declaration of opposition/enmity/war) or covert (behind-the-scenes maneuvering to favor one's own position) to various degrees. Propaganda, cold war, dog-whistles, and trade sanctions all fall somewhere along this spectrum.

Dimensions

There may actually be more than one dimension here:

  • strength of disagreement (how fervently one party believes in the rightness of their own position in comparison to the positions taken by others)
  • disparity of value (how much difference there is in the amount of benefit/harm each party assigns to each of the choices being considered)

Related

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Hierarchy_of_agreement&oldid=66941"