Disagree. I don't want to see a title like "Don't Negotiate Piecemeal Most of the Time". Using a little bit of hyperbole is a valid writing technique.
Remember that language is not the same as formal logic. "Never" can easily mean "just about all the time except for these odd circumstances". And that's fine. It makes language more compact and conveys enough useful information. In the case of a headline, its job is to hook you and make you want to read it. The less wordy and the less your brain has to parse, the easier it is for that to happen.
A good plan is not one that magically pops up in your head, but one that you refined many thousand times through sweat and experience.
Certainly true. And articles like these take the result of all that refinement and try to distill it down to some best practices and tips so others don't have to expend the same amount of sweat.
If people want to negotiate piecemeal, they SHOULD! If they do that often and work out how to act in different occuring situations (good and bad ones will come with EVERY strategy), then their plan will gradually improve.
Unlikely. Negotiating piecemeal is sub-optimal. I think the article did an excellent job explaining why. It would be better to focus on the reverse: apply the best strategy in all cases, and try to figure out the (likely few) situations where it may not work out best, and learn from that.
I claim that the worst strategy, but with very well worked out details and executed by a practitioner with a lot of experience and who is well shaped for that strategy, will beat most people applying the best strategy.
This doesn't really make sense to me. A bad idea with great execution is still a bad idea. Wouldn't you rather focus your energy on developing good strategies instead of wasting time and effort on a flawed model? You're also assuming that most people will apply a good strategy poorly, or at least below average. I don't buy that. At this point it feels like you're disagreeing with the article just for the sake of disagreeing...
Remember that language is not the same as formal logic. "Never" can easily mean "just about all the time except for these odd circumstances". And that's fine. It makes language more compact and conveys enough useful information. In the case of a headline, its job is to hook you and make you want to read it. The less wordy and the less your brain has to parse, the easier it is for that to happen.
A good plan is not one that magically pops up in your head, but one that you refined many thousand times through sweat and experience.
Certainly true. And articles like these take the result of all that refinement and try to distill it down to some best practices and tips so others don't have to expend the same amount of sweat.
If people want to negotiate piecemeal, they SHOULD! If they do that often and work out how to act in different occuring situations (good and bad ones will come with EVERY strategy), then their plan will gradually improve.
Unlikely. Negotiating piecemeal is sub-optimal. I think the article did an excellent job explaining why. It would be better to focus on the reverse: apply the best strategy in all cases, and try to figure out the (likely few) situations where it may not work out best, and learn from that.
I claim that the worst strategy, but with very well worked out details and executed by a practitioner with a lot of experience and who is well shaped for that strategy, will beat most people applying the best strategy.
This doesn't really make sense to me. A bad idea with great execution is still a bad idea. Wouldn't you rather focus your energy on developing good strategies instead of wasting time and effort on a flawed model? You're also assuming that most people will apply a good strategy poorly, or at least below average. I don't buy that. At this point it feels like you're disagreeing with the article just for the sake of disagreeing...