Hacker News Reader

> I have never read a single book on negotiations. I can always tell when someone else has.

My dad used to talk about negotiations from later in his career and I think he would have more or less agreed with the sentiment. I remember him talking about being tickled when someone would come in taking a particular tack, and you could more or less tell them "yeah, sure book x chapter y, how about we just talk?" and then everybody had a chuckle and got down to business. I'm sure it was more of a vibe he picked up than any particular incident. The idea reminds me of the Gervais Principle's[1] idea that different subgroups within an organization speak different languages to each other.

In support of reading books, I think there's a difference between being familiar with what everybody else has probably read vs working directly out of a playbook.

Edit:

The first link is the start of the blog series. The one about languages groups speak is [2].

[1]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

[2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-...

> and you could more or less tell them "yeah, sure book x chapter y, how about we just talk?" and then everybody had a chuckle and got down to business

Well my particular tack is never never never tell someone you know what their game is let them play their game. And never back them into a corner. People (I have found) go against their own interests if only for pride reasons. (I am sure that is in some book somewhere buried ..)

It would be hard for him to "have never read a single book on negotiations" and still be able to tell them "yeah, sure book x chapter y, how about we just talk?"

I’m not against reading at all — but, I think the reader needs to be aware of what they are reading, and the biases or potential lack of credibility involved.

One of the problems with human driven interactions and instructions is those sorts of guidelines can cause people to toss out their common sense. The very nature of some things mean step by step instructions, if followed by enough people, cease to work. This is especially true in marketplaces.

Yes. A strategy that works because it sets you apart is pretty much by definition not one that can adopted successfully en masse.

> if you are a narrow type thinker

This is a completely personal opinion but I think this is key. Most people _are_ narrow type thinkers. They have certain perspectives of the world that they're convinced about and unwilling to see things differently.

If you're the kind of person who genuinely listens and tries to understand the situation of the other party, ironically, its much easier to get what you want. Most people seem to desire intensely a feeling of being understood, if your actions demonstrate to them that you do, they're willing to meet you halfway.

^ Also something that's probably in a book somewhere. The problem with book-based learning at its core is that if you're trying to do the "techniques" in the book, you're already not listening as much as you should be and missing out on a whole lot of cues which might be very very useful.

This is exactly what "Never Split the Difference" is advocating.

For the inexperienced, what are a few key principles that we can take away from your experiences?

Well in brief 'stop reading and start doing'. Now think about all the ways you can 'practice' at negotiation. You can start by trying to buy things that you don't even want to buy. Go in and play games with a car dealer when you don't need a car. As impractical as it sounds try to negotiate for a job that you don't want. Do it over and over and over again. Don't want to put in that effort? Well it's like anything else you have to. You would expect to be good at tennis or playing piano without practice. Now you have to enjoy doing this. Most people don't. I guess because they don't have good results or positive feedback. And learn to read people's facial emotions and also how they reply to emails or how their voice sounds over the phone. That is a large part of the game. Reading people whatever way you can. Also importantly recognize the situations where the game is not one you will win because your adversary is a gambler and will not fall for the typical games or doesn't care if they lose.

No, don't go in and negotiate with sales people when you have no intention of buying anything. They are people, trying to make a living, and by wasting their time you are literally costing them money. It's a selfish move, and if there wasn't a stigma attached to car salesmen you probably would realize that. I doubt you would suggest people similarly hone their negotiating skills by stringing along a series of freelancers on Upwork with phantom projects that don't exist.

Oh stop already. There are plenty of situations where people knowingly waste others time. What happens when you walk into a retail shop with ZERO intention of buying something? (And in some cases you actually do?). What happens if you waste the salesman time and then later refer that salesman to someone else who buys a car? Stop making as if you (or anyone) is so pure and honest and always does the right thing. (Or is even aware of all of the circumstances and why something is done).

That said the question is do you want to get good at negotiation not 'are you a saint who thinks they would never waste someone's time' (which I dispute per my other thoughts in this comment to begin with).

Guess what? I get a ton of tire kickers for my services that are referred to me. In some cases I know right off the bat that these people can't afford what I do and are 'wasting my time'. I still handle them with courtesy and take my time (knowing that I am wasting it) to help them. In some cases I enjoy doing so and in other cases I know they will then refer others to me. Many times these are people that have been referred to me (actually most times). I don't discourage it either. I know overall it's a good thing not a bad thing.

Auto dealers spend a ton of time to get people into the showroom. Advertising to sell cars. But did it ever occur to you that just like a restaurant [1] that is busy they might actually want the foot traffic because it makes things look popular and encourages others to buy (who are there)? Ever occur to you that it's good training for the sales person (who runs deals by the sales manager)?

[1] Restaurants will often trade at less than menu rates to have the restaurant be busy (even lose on diners) so that others (that are paying full price) will feel better about eating in a non empty place.

Plenty of situations where people knowingly waster others time Yeah, I agree. And it seems like a crappy thing to do. Ubiquity doesn't change that. And someone that knocks on your door before they know it's not a good fit is not an apt comparison for what you're advocating.

There's a difference between tire kickers who are curious and maybe have some low level of interest, like cars, etc. They don't even take much time, because they aren't going to the negotiation stage that would be so time consuming and yet be required for what you are advocating. You're advocating for a callous desire to opportunistically waste someone's limited time for their own potential gain. You conflate legitimate albeit casual shoppers with people who are only there in a cynical ploy for self advancement.

The theoretical potential for referrals is a red herring. That same potential exists in the customer they missed talking to, who might actually buy a car, that they lost because someone thought it would be educational to waste their time. Do you know anyone who has sold cars for a living? I do. I grew up with one I call "Dad". I know a lot about how the industry works, dealership marketing and promotions, all of it. So you reference foot traffic as a side benefit to your plan for negotiation experience? Hardly. 5 or 6 of your students in negotiation a day would be enough to cost salesmen money without adding to that "we're busy" look the dealership may want.

Otherwise, selling cars tends to be a soul crushing grind. At times it pays little more than minimum wage for work hours that would rival a dedicated startup team. The national average places their salary between $22,000 and $45,000. That's with commissions counted in and with a work week of 60-70 hours. That's not even counting the off-hours work like delivering a car on a trade between dealerships that is a dead loss for them. Working in the industry means making your target one month only to have the dealership owner change the compensation plan because people were making too much money, and actually tells the staff that's why. At least that owner was honest, most don't bother.

Yeah, some salesmen are wildly successful and make lots of money, some sell high end cars in affluent neighborhoods. But it's like the startup world: for every success like that, even a mediocre success, there are countless others that aren't.

So if you want to brush off this type of behavior as no big deal, at least understand what your really advocating people do. I on the other hand see your advocacy for this kind of behavior as emblematic of the worst impulses of "all about me" culture, and the thin end of the wedge towards condoning sociopathic behavior that looks at other people as merely transactional units there to provide you with something you want.

listen, ask questions, mirror back what they say until you can explain back what they want and then they confirm this by saying “that’s right”. then later get them to think from your shoes by asking questions that start with “how” e.g. “how am i supposed to do that”. the book is deep, just read it.

Good negotiating shoots for a win-win scenario, not a cut-throat taking-advantage outcome. One of the values of reading books is making sure people are generally on the same page as to how to do this dance.

You can learn negotiating by working on people skills generally. The biggest takeaway from my college class on Negotiating and Conflict Management was that both parties will decide the other is "being difficult" when they are having trouble coming to terms, but the actual root cause of the problem is usually that there is a narrow range in which you can both benefit from the transaction.

So, learn to talk to people around you and ask why rather than accuse.

Also look up the term BATNA -- Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement. If you understand what your options are if you can't get cooperation, that helps define "how low should you go?" The answer: No lower than your BATNA. If they can't improve on that scenario, they can't add any value. It's not a deal you should make.

Also, information is power. Research the problem space so you know what your options are.

Last: Value is found in your differences, not your similarities.

Ideally, you want someone saying "Man, I hate oranges. I would happily trade my oranges for your apples!" where you hate "apples." Win-win. You both feel like it cost "nothing" and was all upside.

I also suggested some good negotiating books in a different comment.

I can say from experience, just reading this book is not enough. You actually have to practice. I went into a car dealership trying to negotiate. I was somewhat successful, but not as much as I thought I could be.