Monthly Archives: January 2008

Resolve conflict in your marriage, live longer

Conflict resolution skills in marriage are good for your healthA recent study shows that the upside of marital fighting is not just the makeup sex afterwards.

Researchers at the University of Michigan followed 192 couples over a 17-year period and discovered something interesting:

Couples in which both the husband and wife suppress their anger when one attacks the other die earlier than members of couples where one or both partners express their anger and resolve the conflict…

The study results suggest that good conflict resolution skills may be key, but the problem is that few people possess the proper training. According to the study’s lead author,

“When couples get together, one of their main jobs is reconciliation about conflict…Usually nobody is trained to do this. If they have good parents, they can imitate, that’s fine, but usually the couple is ignorant about the process of resolving conflict. The key matter is, when the conflict happens, how do you resolve it?”

The lesson? If you want to save your marriage and your health, learn conflict resolution skills.

A treasure trove of optical illusions on display at Illusion of the Year contest site

optical illusionFans like me of optical illusions will want to mark their calendars. May 11, 2008, is the date set for the 4th Annual Best Visual Illusion of the Year Contest, held in Naples, Florida. This is a contest that takes illusion seriously — even the trophies that three lucky winners will receive are optical illusions.

You can view the work of previous contestants, which include enough visual marvels to delight and surprise even the most jaded illusion enthusiast, among them the world’s largest lightness illusion, “how many circles do you see?“, and bouncing brains.

A word of caution — you may want to pop a couple of Dramamine before viewing some of the entries.

Incidentally, I’ve added “Optical Illusions” as a category on this blog. Feel free to explore.

(Hat tip to Omni Brain.)

What have you changed your mind about?

What have you changed your mind about?A friend recently sent me a link to the Edge World Question Center. Each year, Edge, a foundation that promotes inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, poses a question to the world’s leading thinkers.

This year’s question, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About? Why?“, prompted many answers, to which I keep returning to explore.

It’s a good question, and one I’ve pondered often. Last March I asked, “Since when is changing your mind a bad thing?“:

There is no greater insult in America today than “flip-flopper”, a label anyone with political ambitions is eager to avoid. It’s as if the act of changing one’s mind as the result of reasoned self-reflection is somehow as shameful, as, say, lying about sex with an intern, rather than a mark of maturity and character.

Certainly anyone who changes their views with the prevailing wind as a matter of political expediency deserves our condemnation, as do those who fail to keep their promises, both political and otherwise.

But as a mediator I have to ask, what’s so great about consistency anyway? If you’re going in the wrong direction, what’s the problem with heading in a better one? When exactly did it get to be a bad thing to change your mind?

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in considering the question Edge posed, had this to say as he contemplated his own change of mind:

When a politician changes his mind, he is a ‘flip-flopper.’ Politicians will do almost anything to disown the virtue — as some of us might see it — of flexibility. Margaret Thatcher said, “The lady is not for turning.” Tony Blair said, “I don’t have a reverse gear.” Leading Democratic Presidential candidates, whose original decision to vote in favour of invading Iraq had been based on information believed in good faith but now known to be false, still stand by their earlier error for fear of the dread accusation: ‘flip-flopper’. How very different is the world of science. Scientists actually gain kudos through changing their minds. If a scientist cannot come up with an example where he has changed his mind during his career, he is hidebound, rigid, inflexible, dogmatic! It is not really all that paradoxical, when you think about it further, that prestige in politics and science should push in opposite directions.

What about you? Are you ready to exercise your reverse gear? Or, like Blair, do you deny owning one?

What have you changed your mind about?

Martin Luther King, Jr.: lessons in conflict resolution and negotiation

Martin Luther King and the march on WashingtonOne of the best blogs on cognition, behavior, and the mind sciences is The Situationist, which examines the implications of social psychology for law, policymaking, and legal theory. In honor of Martin Luther King Day, which is celebrated in the U.S. today, The Situationist has republished a post from 2007, “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Situationism“.

Pointing to excerpts from the text of King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail“, this post makes the case that “Martin Luther King, Jr. was, among other things, a situationist“:

To be sure, King is most revered in some circles for quotations that are easily construed as dispositionist, such as: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Taken alone, as it often is, that sentence seems to set a low bar. Indeed, some Americans contend that we’ve arrived at that promised land; after all, most of us (mostly incorrectly) imagine ourselves to be judging people based solely on their dispositions, choices, personalities, or, in short, their characters.

Putting King’s quotation in context, however, it becomes clear that his was largely a situationist message. He was encouraging us all to recognize the subtle and not-so-subtle situational forces that caused inequalities and to question (what John Jost calls) system-justifying ideologies that helped maintain those inequalities.

In reading King’s movingly written “Letter”, and The Situationist post, I would say that not only was King a situationist but a skilled master of negotiation and conflict resolution. Consider what King says about community and the mutual responsibility that flows from it:

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

Or this about negotiation and the need to confront issues and talk them through:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

Read King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail“. What messages does it hold for you, as a mediator, as a negotiator, as a resolver of disputes, or simply as a human being?

Blawg Review hosts honor Martin Luther King Day, provide advice to new lawyers

Last week in joint posts fellow blogger Colin Samuel and I saluted the anonymous editor of Blawg Review for his significant contributions to the legal community in creating the  invaluable resource that Blawg Review shows itself to be, week after week.

The most recent two editions of Blawg Review demonstrate why Colin and I were moved to say,

Presented each week by a different host, Blawg Review shows readers the many faces of the law, both in the U.S. and across the globe. In the best tradition of law and justice, as an institution it is open for all to participate, bringing well-deserved attention, appreciation, and traffic to the many lawyers, legal academics, law students, legal professionals, and others who blog about legal topics and issues.

Today’s presentation of Blawg Review #143 is hosted by Public Defender Stuff, which celebrates the enduring legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., and reminds readers of the principles of equality and justice that Dr. King stood for.

Meanwhile, the widely respected legal business coach Susan Cartier Liebel hosts Blawg Review #142 at Build a Solo Practice, where she distills a week’s worth of posts and expert advice into a “Letter to a New Lawyer”.

Short Canadian film depicts aboriginal woman's experience with mediation

An aboriginal woman’s experience with mediationAn Aboriginal Woman’s Experience with Mediation” is a six-minute-long film that allows a woman to describe what mediation meant for her and the changes in her life it helped her produce:

…When you go to appear in front of a judge with a lawyer, your lawyer does all the talking and you don’t get to be heard. Whereas with mediation you have a voice and there’s options…and things get worked out on both sides…

Despite its length, this little film speaks volumes, serving as an eloquent reminder to lawyers and judges of mediation’s power to give a voice to those whom the legal system all too often silences.

“An Aboriginal Woman’s Experience with Mediation” was produced by the Vancouver Coastal Region, Ministry of Children and Family Development, for the Mediation Cafe, a mediation forum held in April 2006 in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Thanks to the Peacemakers Trust for the link, which reports on news and events on dispute resolution.

Mediators may need mediator to settle football rivalry

Football rivalry needs mediationIf you don’t like American football or live outside the United States, you’re probably not aware (or even care) that the undefeated New England Patriots are squaring off against the San Diego Chargers this Sunday in the battle for the AFC Championship and the right to play in the Super Bowl, that most sacred of American sports events. The top-seeded Pats, 17-0, are considered the odds-on favorites.

Some folks, however, are rooting for the San Diego underdogs. Kristina Haymes, an attorney and mediator who blogs about mediation marketing, and also an avowed Chargers fan, has thrown down the gauntlet. Knowing that my heart belongs to the Patriots, she asks me,

What do you say Diane are the Pats going to trounce the Chargers? Do the underdogs have a chance?

I confess that I’m torn. How to respond? The superstitious sports fan in me never makes public predictions about my team’s likelihood of victory (a superstition borne of a lifetime as a Red Sox supporter). Yet the pulse-pounding excitement of the 2007 football season has gone to my head.

Should I simply say, “Let the best team win?”

Nah. There’s only one answer for Kristina:

Go, Pats!

Our Compliments to Blawg Review's Editor 'n' Chef

Blawg Review is No. 1Blawg Review, the carnival of legal blogging co-founded by its anonymous editor, highlights the best legal blogging each week.

Issue after issue, hosts from across the legal blogosphere (and occasionally beyond it) are selected by the anonymous editor of Blawg Review to present the carnival in their own voices, sharing their personal and professional experiences and interests with the ever-growing Blawg Review audience. In developing each issue, the anonymous editor of Blawg Review guides each host, offering invaluable advice and links to worthy posts. Working tirelessly behind the scenes, the anonymous editor of Blawg Review brings attention to this cooperative effort and to the bloggers who produce each edition of the carnival.

Yes, there is a theme here.

While he takes time each week to recognize the hosts of Blawg Review, and annually singles out an outstanding Blawg Review of the Year, it has been the Anonymous Editor’s practice since the beginning of the Blawg Review endeavor to shun publicity for himself. Notwithstanding, Diane Levin and Colin Samuels, the “Sherpas” who assist the hosts and the anonymous editor to source posts for each issue of Blawg Review, would like to take this opportunity to recognize, and to invite others to recognize, Ed.’s efforts.

Over nearly three years, Blawg Review has grown to become a widely-respected brand in the legal end of the blogosphere. Presented each week by a different host, Blawg Review shows readers the many faces of the law, both in the U.S. and across the globe. In the best tradition of law and justice, as an institution it is open for all to participate, bringing well-deserved attention, appreciation, and traffic to the many lawyers, legal academics, law students, legal professionals, and others who blog about legal topics and issues.

Blawg Review has prospered where other carnivals have failed; it has grown in reputation where others have dissolved into infighting. Blawg Review stands tall as a positive and enduring example of what can be accomplished by and among bloggers; its success results in large part from the efforts of the anonymous editor of Blawg Review.

Thank you, Ed.

(Cross-posted by Colin Samuels at Infamy or Praise. Congratulations to my fellow sherpa Colin for so deservedly earning the support of his peers to win the coveted title of Blawg Review of the Year 2007.)

Geoff Sharp is back!

Welcome back, Geoff!You must have noticed it.

That odd silence that fell over this corner of the blogosphere, where the mediators hang out.

Yes, some of us were still posting. But something was different. The rhythm was off somehow. You could sense it.

But now, following a month-long hiatus from blogging, he’s back, and with him all the energy and spark and light that filled this end of cyberspace.

And I’ll stop right there, because I know I’m probably embarrassing hell out of him.

Geoff Sharp has returned with this lovely tribute to Edmund Hillary and the achingly beautiful place Geoff calls home.

Road trip to New Zealand, anyone?

World's most aggressive first offer: Katrina victim demands $3 quadrillion

Aggressive first offersOne of the trickiest stages of any negotiation is when to make the first offer.

No one ever wants to go first. But that first number possesses almost talismanic properties — it can profoundly influence how the other side perceives the value of what you demand. Studies have in fact shown that negotiators who make the first offer often do better than those who wait. Why? According to an article by Kellogg School of Management Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management Adam Galinsky,

The answer lies in the fact that every item under negotiation (whether it’s a company or a car) has both positive and negative qualities — qualities that suggest a higher price and qualities that suggest a lower price. High anchors selectively direct our attention toward an item’s positive attributes; low anchors direct our attention to its flaws…

Anchoring research helps clarify the question of whether to make the first offer in a negotiation: by making the first offer, you will anchor the negotiation in your favor…

While this may be true, Galinsky has also found that one of the most common negotiation mistakes is to make a first offer that isn’t aggressive enough.

An aggressive first offer can work in your favor for several reasons. Take the perspective of the seller: more extreme first offers lead to higher final settlements. For example, higher listing prices lead to higher final sale prices in real estate transactions because, as we’ve seen, high-anchor offers lead buyers to focus on a negotiated item’s positive attributes. In addition, an aggressive first offer allows you to offer concessions and still reach an agreement that’s much better than your alternatives…

One of the best predictors of negotiator satisfaction with an outcome is the number and size of the concessions extracted from an opponent. By making an aggressive first offer and giving your opponent the opportunity to “extract” concessions from you, you’ll not only get a better outcome, but you’ll also increase the other side’s satisfaction.

While starting with an aggressive first offer can give a negotiator the edge at the table, there is a caveat:

Of course, it’s important that your opening offer isn’t absurdly aggressive. The first offer provides preliminary insight into the bargaining zone and range of possible agreements. An absurd offer can lead the receiver to believe that no agreement exists that will be acceptable to you both and therefore can cause her to walk away from the negotiation.

Unfortunately an unidentified Katrina victim didn’t have the benefit of Galinsky’s wisdom: this individual filed a claim with the United States Army Corps of Engineers seeking more than $3 quadrillion in compensation.

(Hat tip to Lowering the Bar.)