TED Conversations

griffin tucker

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How is it possible to turn an argument into a mutually beneficial outcome?

when two involved parties are arguing, it seems to be over a disagreement where both sides of the argument want an outcome that conflicts with the opposition.

however, often both sides of the argument want the same outcome (ie. peace) and it is not a matter of getting there, it is a matter of how to get there.

how can ordinary people step in to offer advice, where needed, to create a mutually beneficial outcome for both sides of an argument?

does anyone have examples of a resolution where two sides of an argument were dealt with according to the desired goal for everyone involved? please share your experience.

Related Talks:
Topics: Conflict Resolution
+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    R H 20+

    • +1
    Jan 11 2013: A very interesting question, and I believe impossible without trust - something sorely lacking in our times, and rightfully so - and collaberative evaluation. With what I have seen, we cannot have a 'mutually beneficial outcome' if the arguing parties do not trust each other's fulfillment of the outcome. Then the parties need to collaberatively evaluate the results of the outcome to assess the outcome's success - which reinforces the 'trust' between the parties for the next time. Nearly every solution in an arguement is a compromise, which means all parties lose something they originally wanted. To have mbo, I believe they each need to trust each other's adherence to the solution, and then get back together to assess the solution's effectiveness. This breeds more trust and supports the 'march of progress' for all concerned. Anything less, in my opinion, and mbo is impossible, and we eventually have the 'retreat to barbarity' we have now.
    • thumb

      griffin tucker 10+

      • 0
      Jan 11 2013: say, for instance, two parties involved do not trust each other.

      would it then be possible for both parties to trust an independent party to solve the argument?
      • thumb

        R H 20+

        • 0
        Jan 12 2013: I would think no. Mbo is not merely 'solving the argument'. That's a 'settlement', and not necessarily mutually beneficial. Mbo implies a level of implication, of gravity, of concern for agreement and welfare. If they don't trust each other, they cannot be truly confident about anyone's intention in the exchange. Mbo would not be the goal of the outcome. Look at the world, democracy, marriages. What gets lost for mbo - trust. Settlements are commonplace, a true mbo is rare. In my opinion.

      • Rob Freda

        • 0
        Jan 20 2013: they do not have to trust each other. in fact in most agreements have as their basis that neither party trusts the other. trusting anyone in geopolitics or business would be very ineffective approach to negotiations.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.