Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

will be of value to the other person — and thus be able to share more value Give
up the pie Split the pie 50:50) Negotiations are sometimes inappropriately seen
as a “game” or as “war,” therefore about winning and losing — and about winning
or losing things.
Intangibles
In fact many negotiations are about respect, information, the wish to be
“heard,” expertise, access to friends or colleagues, the long-term reputation of a
person or country, etc. The interaction between the negotiators itself often becomes
— for good or ill — an intangible “part of” a negotiation. For example, a person
may feel respected or disrespected in a way that influences the outcome in a first
encounter and over the long term. In an EI case, the educer could possibly prompt
more cooperation by invoking intangibles, and can certainly make matters worse
by arousing more hatred. (The educer could make the situation worse in the short
term, with one source, or in the long term, with everyone who identifies with the
source.)
It follows that in planning an EI strategy negotiators might also wish to plan
their style. Because negotiators may exhibit a style that is interpreted differently
than they intend, this topic requires planning as well as training, self-discipline,
and practice as a negotiations professional.
One might sometimes plan a style that is not the same as the strategy. For
example, the negotiator might feel very unfriendly toward a given source but
decide to treat the person with “strategic” or “purposeful” respect. In fact, much
training in negotiations emphasizes the importance of preparing to behave
strategically in a way that conveys respect (or behaving in a way that is perceived
as respectful), which is seen as an “intangible” interest of likely value to the
recipient and one that the negotiator can offer at little or no cost.
It is in fact hard to imagine circumstances where it is theoretically sound to
plan to humiliate a source, at least if there is ever to be more than one meeting with
that person. Negotiation theory and practice suggest that deliberate humiliation
is a potent cause of destructive and vengeful motivations and behavior — for an
individual source and for all those who identify with him. Thus, even where the
strategy is that of “forcing” a source, or putting him in fear, it does not follow
that it is wise to do so disrespectfully or in a manner calculated to humiliate
him. Humiliation is not the same as forcing someone to do something. Experience
suggests that humiliation causes many people to develop deeper rage and hatred
than physical pain does. Before considering authorization of humiliation as a
tactic in EI, it would be worthwhile to fi nd out if any convincing research evidence
attests to the effectiveness of this tactic.
Interests vs. Positions
The story of the orange illustrates the reality that the “interests” of different
people, as opposed to their “positions,” may differ in ways that permit collaborative
solutions that benefit both A and B more than the results of pure competition. As
another example, A and B might each present the same initial “position” about a
289