Attorney John DeGroote has hit the ground running with the launch of his blog, Settlement Perspectives. Although his blog is just five posts old as of today’s date, John has already demonstrated the exemplary writing and skillful storytelling that are the mark of the successful blogger.

John tells readers the value he brings to the table:

I created this site to help clients and their counsel navigate the challenges that inevitably result from disputes, settlement efforts, impasse, and negotiation in general. The perspectives I bring are based on my experience, including more than 8 years as the Chief Litigation Counsel of a global company and the sometimes difficult lessons I learned before I got here.

In his first post, “Why Are We Here?“, John extends an invitation to readers to share their perspectives:

…it seems that a place where lawyers and clients can find new, and sometimes different, perspectives on how to settle disputes can save everyone time, money and risk exposure. With your contributions and comments, I think settlementperspectives.com can serve that purpose.

By the way, John has created a resources page for visitors to his site and was kind enough to include links to the World Directory of ADR Blogs and to Mediation Channel.

John, congratulations on the launch of what is already an impressive blog and one that I shall look forward to reading. It’s a pleasure to welcome you.

Anita Campbell, editor of Small Business Trends, an online publication covering trends and new directions that affect the small business owner, describes herself as “an entrepreneur at heart almost her entire life”.

Anita really understands that small business owners have big ambitions and wants to help them succeed.  Her enthusiasm for her subject matter and her depth of knowledge make her the ideal host for the “Back to Business” edition of Blawg Review, the weekly review of the best in blogging on law and legal issues.

Highlights of Blawg Review #177 include a tutorial on Twitter, a popular social networking tool; a new slant on web site bio pages; and a one-stop resource for tax information for small business owners.

MediationChannel.com

I was fascinated last week by the word clouds — graphic depictions — of the convention speeches of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain that appeared on so many web sites and blogs.

Word clouds are visual representations of words. The larger the word in the image, the more frequently it appears on the site.

I was delighted then when the folks at the National Arbitration Forum Blog created an ADR word cloud using Wordle, an online tool.

I generated the images you’re seeing by feeding the content of Mediation Channel and my other site, ADRblogs.com, to Wordl. You can create one for yourself using a blog’s feed or by submitting words of your own.

It’s the chance to see right before your eyes the weight words are given as Wordle captures in a snapshot what is important at a particular moment in time.

ADRblogs.com

In a recently published paper, experts in decision making Dolly Chugh, Katherine L. Milkman, and Max Bazerman asked an important question, “How Can Decision Making Be Improved?” (PDF):

We propose that the time has come to move the study of biases in judgment and decision making beyond description and toward the development of improvement strategies. While a few important insights about how to improve decision making have already been identified, we argue that many others await discovery. We hope judgment and decision-making scholars will focus their attention on the search for improvement strategies in the coming years, seeking to answer the question: how can we improve decision making?

They explained why the question matters, particularly today:

Errors are costly: We believe the importance of this question is somewhat self evident: decisions shape important outcomes for individuals, families, businesses, governments, and societies, and if we knew more about how to improve those outcomes, individuals, families, businesses, governments, and societies would benefit. After all, errors induced by biases in judgment lead decision makers to undersave for retirement, engage in needless conflict, marry the wrong partners, accept the wrong jobs, and wrongly invade countries.

(And, dare I say, make poor choices in the voting booth.)

Although the development of strategies to combat poor decision making won’t come in time for this election (or to undo the subprime mortgage crisis), this is an encouraging step forward. I can only hope that experts in behavioral decision making answer the challenge — and that the public actually pays attention when they do.

Related articles from Mediation Channel:

• What voters can learn from the field of negotiation
• In an election year, falsehoods not so easily banished by facts

My son graduated in June from the University of Massachusetts Amherst with a double major in legal studies and philosophy.  As you might imagine, he’s an avid reader who enjoys the lively exchange of ideas, particularly around our family’s kitchen table during visits home. Over Labor Day weekend, while we were grilling steaks together, he asked me a question: why isn’t there a constitutional right to education in the U.S.?

I thought it a good question. Why not indeed? Given how important education is to human growth and potential, to political and social stability, to vanquishing poverty, and to participation in democracy itself, there should be.

Although education is not enumerated (yet) in the U.S. constitution, it has been honored in other ways.  The United Nations, recognizing the critical role education plays in transforming individuals and society, established International Literacy Day, observed on September 8. Hanna Hasl-Kelchner, author of the blog Legal Literacy, salutes International Literacy Day in the latest edition of Blawg Review, the weekly review of the best in legal blogging.

Hasl-Kelchner writes,

Literacy can’t function in a vacuum.  It must be nurtured before it can flourish, and thrive, and enrich us.  Celebrate literacy.  Ignorance of anykind is dangerous.  It can turn our daily playing field into a mine field.  Literacy, on the other hand, lets us successfully navigate the dangers and gives us the freedom to succeed.  It feeds the mind, the heart, and the soul.

I think my son would agree.

If you seek proof of civilization’s decline, look no further than Sidetaker, a site that lets the public be the judge in spats between quarreling lovers.

Don’t bother to seek nuance or middle ground here; there’s plenty of blame and fingerpointing for couples bickering over everything from toilet flushing habits to illicit affairs.

Sidetaker (slogan: “let the world decide who’s at fault”) of course is in this for the greater good:

…far too many divorces, break ups, and separations happen over non-critical disputes. Over 50% of American marriages end in divorce. In a fight, each person has their side and are usually backed by their friends (on either side). When you can create a jury of anonymous peers to decide who is right or wrong in an argument, then the bias is gone and the person at fault will just have to suck it up.

A noble sentiment indeed. This site is of the same ilk as People’s Court Raw, which brings the added dimension of video to lovers’ quarrels.

(Thanks to Tammy Lenski for the link.)

The International Mediation Institute (IMI), a public policy initiative creating international competency standards for certifying mediators, has conferred a great honor upon a select group of bloggers.

IMI has created a special section on its web site to recognize the work of mediation bloggers from countries around the world. IMI’s list of bloggers, with links and brief descriptions, is prefaced by these words from Herman Melville that capture beautifully the spirit of both mediation and blogging:

We cannot live only for ourselves.
A thousand fibres connect us with our fellow men;
and among those fibres, as sympathetic threads,
our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects.

I feel privileged that Mediation Channel was among those included. I’m in the company of the likes of Geoff Sharp (New Zealand), Tammy Lenski (U.S.), Marcus Brinkmann (Germany), Sanjana Hattotuwa (Sri Lanka), and others who have contributed in significant ways to the quality of the conversation about ADR on the web. You can explore the complete list of mediation blogs at the IMI web site.

Thank you, IMI, for your generous support of our community of bloggers.

(Hat tip to Samil Demir who publishes the Turkish language Arabulucu Blog.)

Now available online is the latest edition of The Complete Lawyer, a web-based magazine focusing on quality of life and career satisfaction for attorneys, along with its special ADR column, “The Human Factor“. This issue of The Complete Lawyer discusses “The Brave New World of Associates.”  Articles include “Jettison the Myth of Individualism“, reflecting on the importance of building social capital.

“The Human Factor” focuses on ADR from the perspective of four attorneys who mediate - me and three colleagues, Stephanie West Allen of Idealawg and Brains on Purpose, Gini Nelson of Engaging Conflicts, and Victoria Pynchon of Settle It Now Negotiation Blog.

After writing the first three columns together, each of us will now solo, starting with Gini Nelson, who takes this issue of “The Human Factor” to discuss how “Joining A New Firm Is Like Traveling To A Foreign Country“. Then it’ll be my turn for the following issue.

The Complete Lawyer is published by Don Hutcheson, who has been an enthusiastic supporter of “The Human Factor” from the beginning. Thanks, Don, for being such a good friend to the four of us.

To meme or not to meme, that is the question.

Memes are single units of culture — ideas, behavior, customs, or trends — transmitted virally from one individual to the next.  On the internet, memes often spread and propagate through blogs, whose very nature makes them ideal for the viral transmission that memes depend upon to survive.

Between you and me, I am no fan of blog-memes.  They function like chain letters: when a blogger is “tagged” with a meme, he or she must respond in a designated way and pass the meme along, “tagging” other bloggers who in turn must contaminate still others with the meme.

I do acknowledge some positive things about blog-memes.  They don’t arrive with the predictions of doom commonly associated with chain letters, which promise misfortune or even death to those who break the chain.  And memes at bottom are impromptu games — a burst of spontaneity and playfulness — a welcome relief after the tedium of blogging about weightier topics. In short, they’re fun.

Why the reflection on memes? It seems I’ve been tagged by Ed., the anonymous Editor of Blawg Review to participate in a meme of his own making, inspired by the recent celebration of Blog Day on August 31:

The idea is to post links to five great blogs (other than law blogs) on your blawg and tag five of your favorite blawgers to do the same under the post title ‘5 Blogs & 5 Blawgers’.

Since there is little I wouldn’t do for Ed., this is one meme I am only too happy to take part in.

Here then are 5 great blogs:

• The Map Room.  I have always loved maps, which not only describe and measure the terrain to be traversed but are also culturally constructed, reflecting the wondrous geography of human minds and hearts. Maps depict places that exist in the world as well as those that exist in our imaginations only. This blog covers all those territories.
• Neuromarketing.  Motto: “Where Brain Science and Marketing Meet”.  I’ll let author Roger Dooley do the talking: “We cover both breaking news about relevant brain research as well as ‘big picture’ topics like ethical dilemmas posed by cutting-edge technology.” Fascinating, well-written, and fun.
• Ethics Newsline. This thoughtful and engaging blog serves as a “weekly digest of worldwide ethics news”. “Jane Austen’s Globalism: Three Lenses for the Future” is but one example of the kind of exemplary writing this blog is known for.
• Sociological Images. By showing visitors the images that media relentlessly bombard us with, this blog holds up a mirror to stereotypes, judgments, and cultural constructions and depictions of gender, race, religion, sexuality, and more. Not always workplace safe so browse with care.
• Small Business Trends.  A wonderful blog that generously offers smart advice for small business owners like you and me — like this recent article on using Google’s free tools to spot trends on the web.

And now to tag 5 unsuspecting blawgers:

First, my fellow Blawg Review virgins, Victoria Pynchon, Stephanie West Allen, and Gini Nelson. Next, my neighbor, Bob Ambrogi. And last but by no means least, Dan Hull.

Friends, may your blogs prosper whether you choose to meme or not.

…proper daydreaming - the kind of thinking that occurs when the mind is thinking to itself - is a crucial feature of the healthy human brain. It might seem as though our mind is empty, but the mind is never empty: it’s always bubbling over with ideas and connections.

So writes Jonah Lehrer in “Daydream achiever: A wandering mind can do important work, scientists are learning - and may even be essential“, an article in today’s Boston Globe “Ideas” section.  Lehrer is the author of Proust Was a Neuroscientist, a book that explores the workings of the human brain by examining the ways in which creative minds — poets, artists, and others –  anticipated scientific breakthroughs through their work.

Lehrer describes the discoveries about the role daydreaming can play in creative problem solving.

Many scientists argue that daydreaming is a crucial tool for creativity, a thought process that allows the brain to make new associations and connections.

This holds implications for negotiators and mediators alike. It leaves me wondering how we can encourage our clients or ourselves to utilize this underappreciated tool. Daydreaming may be just what we need when we face impasse or consider our future.

As Lehrer writes,

One of the simplest ways to foster creativity, then, may be to take daydreams more seriously. Even the mundane daydreams that occur hundreds of times a day are helping us plan for the future, interact with others, and solidify our own sense of self. And when we are stuck on a particularly difficult problem, a good daydream isn’t just an escape - it may be the most productive thing we can do.

(Photo credit: Chris Hortsch.)

Earlier this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s affiliate, the Institute for Legal Reform, cranked out a press release about a recent poll it commissioned that purported to prove that a majority of likely voters would overwhelmingly support mandatory arbitration.

This press release was but one weapon  in the arsenal the U.S. Chamber has deployed in its campaign to defeat the Arbitration Fairness Act, draft legislation which would ban mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, consumer, and franchise contracts.

The poll delivered exciting news for the Chamber, since it “proved” that likely voters overwhelmingly clamor for arbitration over litigation:

The recent poll found that 71 percent of likely voters oppose efforts by Congress to remove arbitration agreements from consumer contracts, and 82 percent prefer arbitration to litigation as a means to settle a serious dispute with a company.

Then, this summer, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal trumpeted the benefits of mandatory arbitration for consumer agreements, insisting that “Arbitration Works Better Than Lawsuits“, since it “can help consumers resolve disputes with companies without the high costs and legal fees of a full-blown lawsuit” and do so with greater flexibility and speed.

(I guess that the author of this op-ed overlooked “Arbitration’s Fall From Grace“, a 2006 article appearing in Law.com’s In House Counsel, which described the basis for the growing disenchantment with arbitration in the corporate world — including, among other things, its lack of flexibility, substantial cost, and the quality of decision-making. Mediation, however, gets high marks: “most lawyers will tell you today that mediation is one of the most fantastic things to come along”.)

The biggest problem with the arguments made by opponents of the Arbitration Fairness Act is that so many of them appear to rest on half-truths and omissions. (You know you’re in trouble when the best testimonial you can produce comes from a 63-year-old widow awarded $281 in her arbitration against Sears.)  Some arguments are little more than hyperbolic nonsense; a senior partner at a prominent law firm warned Congress that the Arbitration Fairness Act “would effectively end arbitration in America,” a dire warning echoed in the U.S. Chamber’s press release:

“For more than 80 years, arbitration has helped Americans settle disputes fairly, quickly and inexpensively, without having to file a lawsuit or navigate the court system,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). “The sweeping legislation pending in Congress would effectively eliminate arbitration, leaving many employees and consumers with little recourse.”

Little recourse? What do they call the court system?

The U.S. Chamber’s poll results (PDF) themselves are suspect.  Although the polling instrument itself is not reproduced on either the Chamber or the Institute for Legal Reform web site, the survey findings discuss briefly the methodology used: “Voters were read a brief, neutral description about arbitration, provided some information about arbitration agreements, and then told of the intention of some in Congress to remove these agreements from consumer contracts with companies”:

Just so everyone we talk to this evening has the same information, please listen as I read you a statement that describes what arbitration is and how it works. Arbitration is a non-court procedure for resolving disputes using one or more neutral third parties — called the arbitrator or arbitration panel. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure that are less formal than those followed in trial courts. Now, there are lots of products and services you buy where you are required to sign a contract with the company providing the good or service. In some of these contracts there is an arbitration agreement, so when you sign the contract you agree to resolve any disputes with the company through the process of arbitration. Now, some officials in Congress would like to remove these arbitration agreements from the contracts consumers sign with companies providing goods and services. How about you, do you think Congress should or should not remove arbitration agreements from contracts consumers sign with companies providing goods and services?”

There is of course plenty of information missing from this “brief, neutral description”, including an explanation of the significant differences between public and private adjudication — information which I suspect (and I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suspects, too) would have produced an entirely different result.

It leaves me wondering whether we can ever have a meaningful debate about an issue so politically charged as this one — a debate that should rest on full disclosure and discussion of all the facts — and not simply the most convenient ones.

For a discussion and rebuttal of arguments mounted against the Arbitration Fairness Act, read “Arbitration Works Better than Lawsuits . . . But for Whom?” at California Labor and Employment Law. Meanwhile, another poll shows a very different outcome, courtesy of the Public Citizen Consumer Law and Policy Blog. I’ve also criticized the use of mandatory arbitration in “Why mandatory arbitration clauses are bad for business“, where I argue that the most cost effective dispute resolution any company can invest in is addressing the causes of consumer dissatisfaction and improving customer service.

One question remains that opponents of the Arbitration Fairness Act have yet to answer: if arbitration is so great, why not trust consumers to choose it?

In the days after the towers fell on September 11, 2001, Americans everywhere came together to honor the dead and demand justice. The world stood beside us, sharing our shock and grief.

That unity proved short-lived. “You’re either with us or against us” became U.S. foreign policy, alienating long-time allies. Pursuit of war against Iraq tore Americans apart as the U.S. divided into two opposing camps, red state from blue. Earlier this year, conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh mocked Republican presidential hopeful John McCain for his efforts to reach across the political aisle, asking, “”When did the measure of conservatism, when did the measure of success, when did the measure of progress, when did it become reaching out to Democrats?”

Last night, in an electrifying speech, Barack Obama accepted the Democratic party’s nomination for president.

What struck my ear, as a mediator, were his words on the importance of setting aside our differences to address the tough issues America faces — economy, jobs, health care, social issues, civil liberties, national security:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.

He invited Americans to focus on the future and our shared interests rather than on the positions that have riven us, acknowledging the hard work ahead:

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

It’s about time.

Read the full transcript of Obama’s acceptance speech.

A quick round-up of stories for your reading pleasure:

They say that it’s better to give than to receive. In part that’s because of the pleasure we experience in giving to others. Science Daily reports that monkeys derive the same pleasure from giving that humans do.

Bob Sutton at Work Matters reports on a study that shows how much a manager’s implicit assumptions about personnel limits his or her ability to notice changes in employees’ performance. He explains that hope remains: it is possible to shift from a “fixed” mindset to a “growth” mindset.

Not Exactly Rocket Science discusses the development of cooperation and sensitivity to others in humans, reporting that children learn to share by age 7-8.

As college students around the country head off to campus for the start of the academic year, many will find themselves living with roommates, an experience that can be positive or characterized by conflict. The Situationist shares research on college freshmen living with a roommate:

An essential element in reducing loneliness and building a good roommate relationship involves moving away from … ‘ego-system’ approach, in which people focus on their own needs and try to shore up their self-image, toward an ‘eco-system’ approach, in which people are motivated by genuine caring and compassion for another person.

For those of you who enjoy visual games that play with perception and cognition, I invited you to have a go at The Color Test, a flash animation that demonstrates how challenging it can be to control your attention.

It is one of many versions available online of the Stroop Test, a task in which participants are presented with words for colors and must state the color the word is printed in but not the color the word names. Overriding one’s initial response — to read the word — proves difficult indeed.

For more visual tests and games, you may enjoy the following previous episodes of Mediation Channel:

“How skilled are you at spotting the fake smile?”

“Testing your understanding of facial expressions”

“Optical illusion purports to show whether your right or left brain is dominant”

“A video game tests racial bias - and the willingness to pull the trigger”

“Brain research shows differences in perception between East and West”

(Thanks to Chuck Doran for the link.)

Sometimes I wonder how I lived without the internet, that seemingly endless flow of news and ideas, which, loaves-and-fishes style, miraculously replenishes itself with every visit.

While the quality of content can be uneven and its reliability sometimes suspect, the web is nonetheless a lush hunting ground for discerning information seekers. The best part of course is that so much of it is free.

Michelle Golden, who blogs at Golden Practices, has uncovered one of those gems that internet hunts can yield: a free guide to “Basic Facilitation Skills” (in PDF) available for downloading from the web site of the International Association of Facilitators.

This free 32-page booklet provides step-by-step guidelines for organizing and running productive meetings. There are sample forms to adapt for your own meeting, as well as tips for keeping meetings on track with suggested interventions for dealing with everything from personal attacks to sidebar discussions.

…or, alternatively, one million reasons to be a divorce lawyer in British Columbia…

The Globe and Mail reports today that the B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld a $1 million legal bill for a complex divorce, the result of a rancorous legal battle between a couple married for 42 years over the division of some $12 million in assets.

(If you’re interested in the exchange rate, in U.S. dollars, that’s about 952,742 reasons.)

(Photo credit: Arjun Kartha.)

Money.

It has been said to make the world go around. It has been maligned as the root of all evil. It breeds litigation. It spurs negotiations onward. It serves as commercial and political lubricant. Alexander Hamilton once called it the “darling [object] of human avarice and enterprise”.

We fill our wallets and our bank accounts with it, we spend it or save it, we go to work each day to earn it. But do we really understand it, this thing we call money? What is its fundamental nature? What is money anyway?

Legal scholar John J. Chung, Associate Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law, has some surprising and provocative answers in a recently published paper, “Money as Simulacrum”. From the abstract:

This paper explores the meaning and nature of money, and the form in which money exists today. It begins by asking such basic questions as what is money and explores the history and development of money. We live in a world of increasing and stunning wealth, a world where billionaires are as common as millionaires once were, and a world of increasing wealth inequality. This paper contends that such a world exists because money is a pure simulacrum that has taken on a reality of its own, a reality that is now untethered to the fact that money’s significance used to be limited by its role as a symbol of an underlying thing of value. But money is now a pure thing in and of itself, with value, existence and purpose that is independent of any signified thing. When money became released from its role as symbol, the foundation was laid for the world we live in today…The purpose of this paper is to discuss money in its original conception, money as it exists now, and where the meaning and nature of money may be headed.

Chung writes,

Money is now a pure abstraction with its own self-referential value and reality, whose creation is no longer constrained by a reference to anything else. It is no longer a symbol; it is its own reality.

To understand the history of the dollar or the euro in your pocket as well as its deeper meaning in the early 21st century, read “Money as Simulacrum“. Your time will be well spent.

(Thanks to Steve Hicks for the link.)

Blawg Review, a weekly roaming blog carnival focusing on law and justice, spotlights the best in legal blogging. Each week a different blogger plays host. It is a truly Olympian feat, demanding preparation, commitment, and hard work, yielding rewards for both host and reader, while behind each host stands Blawg Review’s anonymous editor.

This month, in honor of the Olympic games in Beijing, the presentations of Blawg Review have possessed Olympic themes (or, in one case, an Olympic length). They are:

• Blawg Review #173, hosted by Chicago IP Litigation Blog, relies upon the elements of a world-record swim to frame the presentation. Highlights include advice on avoiding people traps at networking events, a report of one public library that allows kids to rent R-rated movies, and analysis of the Russia-Georgia conflict.
• Blawg Review #172, hosted by Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, is an Olympic-themed Blawg Review, and includes a brief but fascinating history of the origin of the Olympic games. In addition to finding links to more serious content, you’ll also learn of the ACLU’s avowed commitment to protect your right to wear a mullet.
• Blawg Review #171, presented by IP ADR Blog, celebrates virgins, as mediator Victoria Pynchon serves as host of Blawg Review for the first time. This Olympic-sized edition of Blawg Review was so lengthy, it needed its own executive summary.

This coming Monday, Texas Appellate Law Blog hosts Blawg Review #174.

[Update: Blawg Review #174 is now available at Texas Appellate Law Blog. It's a refreshingly theme-free edition of Blawg Review.]

One of the very best of the ADR blogs is International Dispute Negotiation, a high-quality podcast series hosted by Michael McIlwrath, Senior Counsel, Litigation for GE Infrastructure - Oil & Gas, whose home base is Florence, Italy.

Masterfully produced, these podcasts offer conversations with leading thinkers and distinguished practitioners who bring a global perspective on mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. Although international in focus, these interviews have relevance to ADR practice or negotiation wherever in the world you may be.

The most recent podcasts are:

• Mediating with Hard Negotiators, the second part of a two-part interview with Australian mediator John Wade
• Detecting Lies and Concealing Emotions: The Eckman Group’s Clark Freshman on Negotiating, discussing common mistakes people make with emotions in cross-cultural situations and how to take a universal approach in connecting with others at the negotiating table.

Trust, as any negotiator knows, is critical. Its presence gets commitment; its destruction sours deals. But trusting and being trusted is a delicate balance: effective negotiators know to “be trustworthy, not trusting.” No one wants to be fooled at the negotiating table.

In “Confidence game,” journalist Drake Bennett, writing for the Boston Globe, provides a fascinating look into the related issues of trust and trustworthiness. Trust is essential to much more than negotiation:

…human society would not function without trust. We loan things to friends, we take to the road assuming our fellow drivers are not suicidal, we get on airplanes piloted by people we’ve never seen before, and, when asked to sign something, we rarely read the fine print. If people stopped to double-check the background and references of everyone they had an interaction with, social life would slow to a standstill.

Although one would naturally assume that doubt would be our first reaction, trust is in fact our default response. And all too often, we decide to trust based on the flimsiest of evidence:

When deciding who to trust, the research suggests, people use shortcuts. For example, they look at faces. According to recent work by Nikolaas Oosterhof and Alexander Todorov of Princeton’s psychology department, we form our first opinions of someone’s trustworthiness through a quick physiognomic snapshot. By studying people’s reactions to a range of artificially-generated faces, Oosterhof and Todorov were able to identify a set of features that seemed to engender trust. Working from those findings, they were able to create a continuum: faces with high inner eyebrows and pronounced cheekbones struck people as trustworthy, faces with low inner eyebrows and shallow cheekbones untrustworthy…

Just as in other cognitive shorthands, we make these judgments quickly and unconsciously - and as a result, Oosterhof and Todorov point out, we can severely and immediately misjudge people. In reality, of course, cheekbone shape and eyebrow arc have no relationship with honesty.

But we are led astray in other ways, and it’s not just a trustworthy face that can persuade us:

Another set of cues, and a particularly powerful one, is body language. Mimicry, in particular, seems to put us at our ease. Recent work by Tanya Chartrand, a psychology professor at Duke, and work by Jeremy Bailenson and Nick Yee, media scholars at Stanford, have shown that if a person, or even a computer-animated figure, mimics our movements while talking to us, we will find our interlocutor significantly more persuasive and honest.

These studies remind me strongly of the work of Robert Cialdini, who has revealed how susceptible we are to the weapons of influence and how easily trust can be gained by those who understand how to manipulate human behavior.

As skilled negotiators know, be trustworthy, not trusting.