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

    griffin tucker 10+

    • 0
    Jan 15 2013: does anyone have any real-life examples that they can show here of an argument changing into a settlement or even a beneficial outcome for one or both parties involved?

    i'd like to see if there is some kind of formula or event (controlled or uncontrolled) that changes a potentially aggressive argument into an agreement.

    • Rob Freda

      • 0
      Jan 20 2013: START, Canadian and Australian independence, MPEG consortium.... there are hundreds of examples. Both parties have to either need the solution or be exposed in such a way that not accepting the solution would lead to very sub-optimal result. All of this assumes that both sides can actually have a marginally rational discussion or that there are no external motivators wherein one party does not really desire a solution.

      START may be a notable exception to this as the US had no reason from a strategic perspective to slow the nuclear arms race which was a massive drain on the Soviet economy and part of the NSC directive to effectively destroy that economy. US knew that to compete USSR would have to spend a much higher portion of their GDP than the US (i think something like 20% vs 3%) and that eventually that diversion of resources would destroy the basic structure of the Soviet state. So there was an agreement that had no ostensible benefit (given that the likelihood at that point of nuclear war was pretty low) to one party but that the party agreed to anyway. Of course the NSC might have decided the Soviets were already done and they better draw down the number of nukes in case the USSR collapsed catastrophically so I may be wrong here.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.