One way to see a negotiation is as a war, another way to see a negotiation is as a dance.
Dance, meanwhile, has nothing to do with disagreements or making a decision about how things will be. A dance resolves nothing; it's something people do for fun. It's silly to assert that we can simply "think of X as being like Y" and that will make it so. Sadly that is Lakoff's thesis.
In a negotiation, as long as I know my boundaries and my decision calculus, then approaching it playfully and in a way that brings the other person into the game is a very constructive (and frankly fun) route. This is what is meant by dance rather than fight.
Which explanation would you lean on?
The entire point is that metaphors can emphasize different aspects. This metaphor emphasizes ideas like:
-disagreements are not zero sum
-coming to a consensus is more important than getting your way
-we are ultimately all on the same side
-be graceful - carefully choose your moment to assert yourself