#m. floyd

[bluepurpleviolatte]

''When I was growing up in England, I spent a lot of time visiting my father’s office. He was a lawyer, and later a judge. I once asked him why lawyers wore wigs and robes in court. He said there were many reasons, some historical, but that one that resonated with him was that they were playing a role, and this was their “costume.” When they put on the costume and stepped into court, they put aside their personal beliefs, biases, and emotional attachments, and they took on the role of advocate for their client. This is how they managed to effectively represent clients they personally found to be repugnant. In their costume, they were not personally attached to, or associated with, the arguments they made.

...

...in a negotiation setting, the best negotiators find ways to put the other party at ease, to take personality conflicts out of the mix, and to arrive at a favorable resolution. In a business transaction, dealing with a slimy salesperson, or an unethical corporate executive, requires us to don our metaphorical wigs and robes, and to play our role.''

-P. Houston, M. Floyd, S. Carnicero, Get The Truth

[bluepurpleviolatte]

''...if you find yourself in a negotiation or sales situation, and you’re on the receiving end of unexpected kindness, “free” gifts, or generous hospitality. Take a step back and recognize it for what it might be. Ensure that any concession or offer you make is one you would have made anyway.''

-P. Houston, M. Floyd, S. Carnicero, Get The Truth

[bluepurpleviolatte]

''A popular illustration of cognitive dissonance, taught in business negotiation courses the world over, is given to us in Aesop’s fable, “The Fox and the Grapes.” In that story, a fox desperately wanted a deliciously tempting bunch of grapes that were hanging from a vine, just beyond his reach. Try as he might, the fox couldn’t figure out a way to reach them. When the fox realized there was no way he would be able to get to the grapes, he had to reconcile the conflict that presented itself: He was a smart fox whose cunning ways had always gotten him what he wanted, yet he was outwitted by the mere location of the delicious grapes. So, rather than conclude that he was not as cunning as he thought he was, he decided that he didn’t really want the grapes after all. He dealt with the dissonance by telling himself that the grapes were likely bitter, or sour—hence the phrase “sour grapes.”

Anyone who commits a crime, misrepresents the facts, or tells a lie may put himself in a situation that forces him to deal with cognitive dissonance.''

-P. Houston, M. Floyd, S. Carnicero, Get The Truth

[bluepurpleviolatte]

''In order to avoid doing harm, it’s helpful to understand the psychological dynamics at play in the interrogator’s quest to get the truth. Think of the interrogation as a stage with two actors whose roles have opposing agendas. The first actor did the bad thing, and his role in the production is to convince the second actor, the interrogator, that he didn’t do the bad thing. To accomplish his goal, the first actor must lie and deny, because he fears the consequences that could ensue from his bad behavior. He perceives the interrogator as the enemy — someone who is out to get him, someone who could cost him his job or his family, someone who could cause him embarrassment and shame, or even send him to jail. In essence, the interrogator is someone who could ruin his life.

This scenario describes the traditional view of an interrogation. It is, by its very nature, confrontational and adversarial. But this “me against you” approach is clearly counterproductive, and a nonstarter for a successful interrogation.

The far better approach is for the interrogator to distance himself from the decision makers who will determine the consequences of the confession. For that to happen, it’s essential for the interrogator to be perceived as a mediator or a negotiator—a middleman between the subject and a higher authority, whether that authority is the criminal justice system, the board of directors, the administration, upper management, the union, the teacher, or even a parent. On the interrogation stage, in other words, the actor playing the interrogator projects the image that his purpose is to accompany the actor playing the bad guy to help him navigate his way to a solution of his problem. The interrogator will begin to be seen as a confidant —someone who can be relied upon to help achieve an equitable outcome. Consequently, any hostile feelings that initially may have been projected onto the interrogator will likely subside.''

-P. Houston, M. Floyd, S. Carnicero, Get The Truth