Hierarchy of agreement

About

The hierarchy of trust (or hierarchy of negotiation) is a way of ordering different levels of rationality in negotiations or discussions between two or more different entities.

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 believes that B's conclusions make no sense, and vice-versa – but neither party feels it necessary to force their opinion on the other.
  • This can mean either of the following:
    • A and B are working from a very different set of presumptions – but if both parties are reasoning from evidence, this can eventually be resolved.
    • Either A or B is not using rational analysis at all, but some other form of epistemology (e.g. received truth)
• hostility: either A or B (or both) feels threatened by the other's position, and is prepared to use coercion (whether defensive or offensive) in order to ensure that their own position prevails within a given arena.
  • Hostility can be either overt (a declaration of 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.

(An older attempt at enumerating these levels is here.)