Some people argue that we should not allow nonprofits to pay people the same kind of money that “greedy” corporations pay people because more money does not buy you more talent and does not incentivize people to produce more. To this I say, you cannot simultaneously argue that corporations are greedy profit-seekers AND that the profit they forego by paying higher salaries is wasted. Either they do not care about profits, or the profits they forgo by paying people higher salaries buys them more value.


If while you’re making your argument, the only time the other side is silent is because they’re thinking about their own argument, they’ve got a voice in their head that’s talking to them. They’re not listening to you. When they’re making their argument to you, you’re thinking about your argument, that’s the voice in your head that’s talking to you. So it’s very much like dealing with a schizophrenic.

If your first objective in the negotiation, instead of making your argument, is to hear the other side out, that’s the only way you can quiet the voice in the other guy’s mind. But most people don’t do that. They don’t walk into a negotiation wanting to hear what the other side has to say. They walk into a negotiation wanting to make an argument. They don’t pay attention to emotions and they don’t listen.

via | The top FBI hostage negotiator teaches you the 5 secrets to getting what you want

Non conosco persone che riescano ad evitare i compromessi. Soprattutto conosco invece persone che pensano in piccolo e che fanno piccoli compromessi e – più raramente – persone che pensano in grande, costretti a volte a grandi compromessi. Se sia più vero che piccolo è bello, o sia meglio la politica del grande e forte, non lo so. Però sono disposto a compromessi per la causa del grande e bello!

Ho avuto il piacere di incontrare ed intervistare Bill Emott, ex direttore dell’Economist e Annalisa Piras, regista del documentario Girlfriend in a coma. Sullo sfondo l’Università di Trieste, bellissima sede.