Dan Shapiro
  • Home
  • Books!
    • Negotiating the Nonnegotiable
    • Beyond Reason
  • IN THE NEWS
    • Dan in the News
    • The Dan Blog
  • Empower Yourself
    • Tools of Empowerment
    • The Tribes Exercise®
  • Consulting
  • About Dan
    • Bio
    • Contact

Thoughts of a Traveling Mind
(Dan's Blog)

How to Avoid War with North Korea: A Psychological Perspective

12/8/2017

0 Comments

 
White House national security advisor H.R. McMaster recently noted that the potential for war with North Korea increases “every day.” While many commentators blame mounting tensions on Pyongyang’s increasingly sophisticated military hardware, the ultimate problem is a human one. It is people who make decisions about military and political strategy, and human psychology is the ultimate arbiter of such decisions. Only by addressing the psychology of conflict can we stop the current march to battle.

Amongst the most powerful emotional forces at play in this conflict is what I term the tribes effect, a divisive mindset that pits each side against the other (Shapiro, 2017). Within this frame of mind, disputants view each other as the “enemy,” believe that the only legitimate perspective is their own, and refuse to better understand the other’s interests. In short, this mindset is adversarial, self-righteous, and insular. 

Some negotiators feign this affliction of mind for strategic advantage. They play the role of the irrational madman, attempting to frighten the other side from engaging in aggressive behavior: “I’m crazier than you and more willing to go to war – so don’t you dare provoke me!” But in the present circumstance, Trump and Kim Jun Un's threats are each typically met with a counter-threat in words or military action, and tensions predictably heighten.

This heated rhetoric may be nothing more than words right now, but a thin line separates theatrics from war. The more heated the bombast, the more easily military action can be provoked, despite the incalculable consequences on human life. Everyone has a breaking point.

How can we escape this tribalistic mindset?  First, it would be wise to shift from escalatory rhetoric to quiet diplomacy, signaling a conviction to principled dialogue while still readying the military option. This is a sign of strength, not weakness; it demonstrates that the United States is both strong and value-driven. 

Second, to avert near-term military confrontation, the US should empower a small negotiation team to advance backchannel dialogue with North Korean counterparts. The US team should be comprised of skilled mid-level negotiators, who would have more freedom than top-ranking colleagues to problem solve creative approaches to the crisis and who would draw less public attention in the case that impasse results. Specific negotiation goals and timelines should be established to ensure that negotiations are not an excuse for further developing the nuclear program.

Third, senior U.S. officials should lean more heavily on Beijing to facilitate quiet conversation and economic pressure on North Korea, demanding that the state stop its war rhetoric, cease its nuclear program, and commit to diplomatic dialogue for promoting regional stability. China may best frame their message as a “request to stall the nuclear program,” providing Pyongyang with a face-saving way to comply. The U.S. State Department might also engage a younger generation of diplomats to devise diplomatic messaging that resonates with the interests of the 33-year old North Korean leader.

Finally, a diplomatic conference should be launched to create a long-term vision for the Korean Peninsula that takes into account the rise of China, the complex interests of international parties, and the tricky questions of nuclear security. An impartial facilitator—perhaps from Scandinavia—could host this meeting and invite key representatives from such countries as China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, and the United States. The purpose of the conference would not be to negotiate a “final agreement” but to jointly create a shared vision of the future with specific, measurable milestones and consequences for non-commitment. 

Nuclear weapons would be a crucial part of the conversation, but lodged within a broader dialogue about regional peace and prosperity. This type of dialogue would open the door to creative opportunities for resolving present-day crises while better meeting each state’s long-term economic, political, security, and social interests. 

All of this points toward a singular point: The best way to win a war is to prevent it. With the shadow of war looming, we need to use every tool in the diplomatic toolbox to avert mass violence, and defeating the tribes effect is central to this cause.


Reprinted from Psychology Today (Dec 8, 2017).


0 Comments

Can We Overcome Our Tribalistic Nature?

3/7/2017

0 Comments

 
Humanity is facing unprecedented risks to its very survival -- ranging from climate change to nuclear terrorism. Such problems require global cooperation: if everyone works together, these issues can be effectively tackled. Yet there are inherent challenges to global cooperation, and every lost day of joint work results in increased risk of catastrophe.

Why is it so difficult for our world to work together on global problems of mutual concern?   On a rational level, there is a shared interest in collaborating to improve the environment, enhance security, and promote physical and mental well-being. But competition for resources, prestige, power, and information can pit stakeholders against one another, producing a dangerous mindset that I call the tribes effect. The moment a group feels threatened, they enter into this mindset and start to see the conflict in adversarial terms:  it becomes us versus them, and innovative solutions for mutual gain are replaced by myopic policies that satisfy one tribe over another. Each group argues that their perspective is right and legitimate – and closes their ears to the other’s perspective as they rally their own troops for battle.  

In my new book Negotiating the Nonnegotiable, I describe a powerful set of emotional dynamics that lure us deeper and deeper into this tribal mindset.  First, we get consumed in the vertigo-like frenzy of the conflict and lose sight of our broader purpose: is our goal to win the debate or improve human welfare? 

Then, as the lines of division solidify, we reenact longstanding, counterproductive patterns of behavior to deal with the situation. This compulsion to repeat the past takes a familiar form: we dredge up historical grievances, interpret the other’s intentions as devious, and commit to the belief that their position will never change. Consequently, we execute an adversarial strategy and create the very enemy we feared. 

To make matters worse, once this dynamics is at play, it becomes taboo for us to engage in constructive problem solving with the other side. Any such act is viewed as a betrayal of our tribe – and the punishment for such a breach can be severe. 

The deepest forces of tribalism arise as we view the other’s rhetoric as an assault on what we hold as sacred. Nothing more intensely roils the fury of passion than a threat to our deepest beliefs and values. In fact, the savvy leader may intentionally invoke longstanding grievances into the contemporary political narrative to turn loose followers into tribal loyalists.

What would a potential way out look like?  Whereas the tribes effect turns the nuances of conflict into a binary divide, a communal mindset opens up space for mutual understanding and creative problem solving. In this mindset, we aim to appreciate each other’s perspectives through an intense process of listening, mutual learning, and interaction. There is no need to come to agreement on the “right” viewpoint. The goal is to find merit in each other’s perspective and thus establish a foundation for moving forward together.

This process is easier said than done, however. Consider the challenges inherent in creating an expanded system of global cooperation.  While a federal government may cede some control to local units, what psychological factor would ever entice a nation-state to cede power to a system of global governance? The federal and local governments are likely to see each other as part of the same tribe – a sense of mutual loyalty pervades their relationship. But the nation-state may distrust the political intentions of non-citizens on a global governing body.

Social psychology offers a crucial insight to address this problem. We can emotionally attach to a global identity with as much fervor as to a national one. The core principle of identity formation remains the same: we imbue emotional significance to our membership in the group and commit loyalty to that entity.  In fact, there is no inherent tension in having every person on our planet identify as a citizen of the world, because the category of inclusion is so broad. 

Problems tend to emerge as more localized identities clash, whether between nations or neighborhoods.  Mitigating such tension requires that our systems of global cooperation build a strong institutional sense of camaraderie while simultaneously ensuring that members feel sufficiently free to determine fundamental aspects of their provincial identity.

To enhance international cooperation around global challenges, we must remember that nothing holds greater meaning than human connection. A threat to our tribe can lure us toward adversarial behavior that may not serve our long-term, rational interests. The development of a strong global identity – one that does not threaten the local one – can stack the cards in favor of increased cooperation around the most perilous threats of our time. 


For more in-depth methods on how to deal with conflict in our own lives and in the world around us, see Dr. Shapiro's newest book, "Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts" (Penguin, 2017).  The present article was published in Psychology Today and is adapted from Dr. Shapiro's contribution to the Global Challenges Quarterly Report, 2017.
0 Comments

You Voted for Whom???  Talking Politics at the Dinner Table

11/23/2016

0 Comments

 
Click hear to listen to this engaging WBUR radio segment with host Deborah Becker and guests Dan Shapiro and Lisa Feldman Barrett, distinguished professor of psychology at Northeastern University, who discuss what to do if you're feeling anxious about politics coming up at the dinner table.  
0 Comments

Talking Politics at the Thanksgiving Table -- Essential Advice

11/22/2016

0 Comments

 


As you sit down for Thanksgiving dinner this year, discussion is bound to move toward politics.  Why did you vote for that candidate?  How could you support those policies?  Before you know it, half the family is yelling, the other half is sulking, and the turkey is cold.  The forces of tribalism are so powerful in our country that they risk polarizing the family.


But they can be overcome.  Over the past two decades, my research has shed light on key emotional forces that draw us into conflict, whether at the national level or at the dinner table.  Only through awareness of these dynamics can we combat their pernicious appeal.


The single most powerful force pulling us toward polarization is what I call the tribes effect, a divisive mindset that affects nations as much as families.  The moment our beliefs feel attacked, tribal impulses slice our humanity into categories:  it’s us vs. them, red vs. blue, hawk vs. dove.  This state of mind propels us to defend our own views and demonize the other, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of negative relations.


Pre-existing rivalries exacerbate this tension.  As siblings feud over politics, they may refuse to acknowledge each other’s perspective for fear that it will confirm personal insecurities that the other is smarter or more successful.  Winning overshadows understanding.


When politics gets personal, we risk becoming so consumed in the vertigo-like swirl of strong emotions that we resort to ad hominem attacks– the family’s version of negative campaigning—and end up saying things that are hard to forgive, sabotaging long-term relations.


The forces of tribalism are a recipe for a failed Thanksgiving dinner—but they can be countered.  Before sitting down to eat, consciously decide whether it makes sense to talk politics or whether your family deserves a brief escape from the cold realities of the political season.  Envision what a productive conversation would look like – and if it’s even feasible.


If you choose to broach the subject, know your purpose, whether to learn about each other’s perspectives or debate the issues.  In my own experience in facilitating political dialogue, I have found that a useful question is to ask each person to share how the election has personally affected them.  This reframes the focus of conversation away from divisive politics and toward its personal impact, and the question is simple enough for even kids to answer. 


Consider capping the discussion at dessert.  Politics is important, but so is family cohesion.  One way to reinforce that point is to ask everyone to share one thing they are grateful for about the family.  A little appreciation can go a long way in rekindling connection.


But the choice is yours, and ultimately all of ours.  Will we submit to our tribal instinct or nourish the better angels of our souls?  The nation awaits our answer.


-- Daniel L. Shapiro, published in "Psychology Today "
0 Comments

Why Do Trump's Threats Work Better on Some than Others?

11/15/2016

0 Comments

 

​In a Washington Post article, Dan Shapiro explains the importance of analyzing your alternatives to negotiating.  This is a huge source of power in negotiation, and one that has a consequential impact on trade negotiations between the United States and other countries.  
Click here to read the article.
Picture
0 Comments

What Opera Legend Andrea Bocelli Taught Me About Peace

5/23/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture

​Who would have guessed that I would experience profound transcendence at a family business conference in Monaco?  But it's true, and it happened.  I was there to lead a negotiation workshop, but there was an unusual surprise that awaited myself and all the other participants.

During our dinner gala, a very special guest entered the room:  Mr. Andrea Bocelli, the world renowned opera singer.  Blind since the age of 12, he walked into the room with his entourage, who escorted him to the stage.  The room quieted.

​He stood next to the piano, then a smile crossed his face.  Then came the magic.  He took a deep breath and started to sing Schubert's chilling song Ave Maria.   As this prayer song flowed forth, it seemed that Mr. Bocelli now entered a world where he could see.  And he transported all of us to that world with him, where we came to see and feel the deeper resonance of our existence, the transcendent depths of interconnection that binds us all.  As he revisited the chorus, I felt chills.

Mr. Bocelli's voice brought all of us to a place where time and space expanded, to a place of greater peace beyond the everyday concerns of life.  We were spellbound, in the midst of a trance.  He ushered us in and kept us there.  He created harmony, and we felt it.

Later that evening, I talked with Mr. Bocelli about the transcendent power of his music, and how it can bring us to a place of greater peace.  He smiled and seemed to resonate with that message.  In a sense, he is the ultimate peace agent: our conference included people from dozens of different countries and cultures, and the moment he had started to sing, we were all transported to a place that transcended difference.

I gave this renowned singer a gift:  a compact disc version of my book, Negotiating the Nonnegotiable.  He appreciated it, and asked one question:  "Who is the person reading the audio version?"  

"Me," I answered shyly , then joked, "But if you would like to sing a version of it, I'd be open to that!" He smiled.  Then I suddenly realized the motivation for his question:  his world is a place of voices and rhythm and bass and tone.  By my reading my own audio version of the book, it demonstrated to him respect for the essence of his musical universe.  Whereas I focused on this famed singer's face while we talked, he was listening to my voice and tone.  He was feeling through sound.  And it is this same gift that he uses to transform the acoustics of a room into a vehicle for transcendent possibility.

That evening with Mr. Bocelli opened my mind to new curiosities about tools for peace.  Ironically, in talking with him, I felt blind to possibilities for peace that he saw.  He understood how to bring our group to a greater place of peace, and it is worthwhile for all of us to consider what untapped channels for positive transcendence lie right in front of us, even if we can't yet see them.

Click below to LISTEN TO MR. BOCELLI SINGING AVE MARIA in Monaco.  
2 Comments

Welcome!

5/18/2016

 
I'm excited to share that Viking just released my newest book, Negotiating the Nonnegotiable!  In the weeks to come, I'll be sharing insights and experiences I've gleaned through my book tour, as well as broader thoughts on negotiation.

Come back and visit!

Best wishes,

​Dan

    Author

    Daniel L. Shapiro is Founder and Director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program.

    Archives

    December 2017
    March 2017
    November 2016
    May 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Dan Shapiro Global

(c) 2017 by Integrative Dynamics LLC.  Original website design by Joe Kahn.  Updates by Integrative Dynamics LLC.
  • Home
  • Books!
    • Negotiating the Nonnegotiable
    • Beyond Reason
  • IN THE NEWS
    • Dan in the News
    • The Dan Blog
  • Empower Yourself
    • Tools of Empowerment
    • The Tribes Exercise®
  • Consulting
  • About Dan
    • Bio
    • Contact