[peterlk]

This story reminds me of a book that I read a few months ago called "Never Split the Difference". It's a negotiation book by a former FBI hostage negotiator. I think the context of that book offers some color to this story, and I'd highly recommend it.

EDIT: I think the contextual question that arises from that book is: How does the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" play out in multi-sided negotiations with such high stakes?

[Cthulhu_]

Could you provide a short summary? I've never heard of it.

[peterlk]

It lays out many of the basic principles by which the FBI negotiates with kidnappers. The author writes that the book is meant to first lay out the foundations, and then build on them to give the reader a toolbox (arsenal?) of negotiation strategies. An argument in the book is that these strategies work in business as well - I find this argument compelling. The title of the book is in reference to the fact that you can't split humans. The job of a hostage negotiator isn't to get half a human back by compromising. The negotiator has to get 100% of what they want, or the mission is failed.

[gricardo99]

But I'm vaguely remembering several occasions where hostage negotiators do take less than 100% of their goal. Examples are where they initially secure the release of "weaker" hostages, such as those in need of medical attention, elderly, etc... In those cases, I'm guessing that's an easy win for the negotiators, since I doubt a hostage-taker necessarily wants a hostage that can't readily move, or dies on them unexpectedly, without having gained anything from a release/bargain. (grim topic...)

[zck]

I assume the hostage negotiators aren't saying "ok, release the elderly and go ahead and kill everyone else", but "ok, let's start by releasing two hostages and then I'll get you a pizza" or something like that.

[dalore]

That's more to start the release and get the idea of releasing hostages into the kidnappers heads. Once they have released one it sets the stage they can release them.

[gricardo99]

yes, good points (along with user zck). My point is that it's a bit misleading to say these types of negotiations are all or nothing. There are incremental steps that work towards the ultimate 100% goal, which are valuable on their own, without reaching 100% goal. Clearly achieving 100% of their goal is always the objective, but I don't see "splitting the difference" as being contrary to that.

Example:

FBI: release all the injured hostages, and as a good faith measure we'll turn the water back on.

HOSTAGE TAKER: I'll only release 3 critically injured if you turn the water on now.

(some back and forth, where the hostage taker offers the 3 critically injured + 1 child, and doesn't seem willing to move their position any further, and precious time is being lost for the critically injured)

FBI: Ok, the water is back-on, we're waiting to receive the 3 critically injured + 1 child.

I'm no expert, so possibly that's not how it would go. Would the negotiator only take their initial offer while risking the lives of injured hostages? But the "all or nothing" label belies that there surely must be some back-and-forth with compromises along the way.

Of course you're never splitting humans, but you are splitting groups of humans, and perhaps plenty of other differences.

[johnchristopher]

The winner takes it all strategy has short-comings though.

[peterlk]

Much of the time "winner takes all" is a fallacy. What people say they want and what they actually want are different things. People taking hostages claim they want money; what they actually want is the stuff that money will get them. If you keep digging, often there may be even deeper motivations. Don't split the difference; find out what people actually want