Diplomacy and Conciliation

Usually when we argue, it's about issues but what happens when your opponent becomes emotional (either angry, upset etc)? Firstly it can be a tactical advantage to make you opponent angry but sometimes an angry, hostile or paranoid opponent is dangerous. Diplomacy means reducing or eliminating hostility in negotiations and this may be in your interests to be diplomatic from time to time.

Concilation is different. Conciliation is deciding not to argue a point, even though you may be right, in an effort to emotionally dis-arm your opponent. It is not giving in. It is not giving free ground.

You know when your parents say 'Say you are sorry to your brother!'. You arent sorry but they want you to say it anyway. To me, that's like a "dumbed down" conciliation that doesnt really work. According to a friend of mine who has a PHD in psychology, girls dont develop empathy until the age of 13-14 and boys more like 17-20, so how can you be taught how to conciliate with empathy unless that part of the brain is developed? 

Even if you don't feel empathy for the opponent, using diplomacy and conciliation can work to your advantage to avoid harm coming your way. How does it work?
1) You decide that you will be diplomatic
2) Don't argue points. Ask questions instead about how the other person feels and what is making them angry, upset or paranoid
3) Avoid language that implies future hostility - dont make any threats. 
4) Don't concede ground on technical points, otherwise your oponent may take advantage of your placidness
5) If you feel the need to apologise then do so, or offer alternatives
6) Don't pass judgement on the other party
7) Depending on how well you trust the other party, tell them a bit about what they have been doing to you makes you feel. If they start arguing about what you said, question them about feelings. No one can argue that you did or didnt feel something, even if the facts were wrong.


Sgtswordfish wrote:

so basicly try to make happy in order to get what you want even if you're giving up your pride.

i always figured diplomacy was a trade among two parties in which you both set the standards on what needs to be taken cared off according to the deal. as for conciliation, i figured it was two unlike people coming together for a purpose?

Yes, it's a tactic to get passed a stalemate. When two parties come together it should be to share or exchange resources of some kind, otherwise there is no purpose.