So as a relative newcomer I normally post over on askmrp, however this post is more about sharing information than it is a question. I have mentioned a number of times my wife's skill at some things we consider RP, specifically STFU, Frame and to a lesser degree negotiation. (She specifically refers to her Frame at times, and she is trained for negotiations at work).

In parallel to my own issues, there have been a number of posts on STFU, and I figured some research on the topic would be of value to the community. In addition, I find having to explain something is a good way to understand it well oneself. Please note, I am an expert in this field, just sharing my own research.

So I am going to launch into negotiation theory, Its probably best to start of with a look at the "Dual Concerns Model" (Originally proposed by Dean Pruitt, Jeffrey Rubin and S.H. Kim, the model postulates that when we find ourselves tasked with resolving a contentious issue very often our approach is defined by the level of concern we have for its participants). Scroll down to first graph in this link here.

The first thing to see is the two axes, one showing level of concern for others and one showing level of concern for self. This is obviously the primary representation of the two parties in a negotiation (FWIW - i see arguments as an emotionally charged negotiation - sometimes irrational).

Of course them we see the options available for conflict management to each part, described here:

Avoidance - This is where we see the STFU option in use. One or both parties couldn't give a shit about the others interests and shuts down the negotiation with STFU. For anyone with a strong frame and DHV, STFU is likely to be effective, as you would be the dominant party in the relationship. Often STFU (from either side) leads to insane frustration as nothing has been resolved. Although this is the number one communication strategy proposed by RP, it is clearly in the position of minimal benefit to either party (subject to dominance as suggested), although its usually slightly more benefit to one party than the other (he who gives the least fucks).

Competition - As we increase concern for our own interests, we ditch STFU / avoidance in favour of making our own position / opinions prominant. I would suggest this is the base position of someone with a strong frame and dominant position, effectively, "my way or the highway". Although this position is quite possibly effective in achieving our own goals, it is of course likely to lead to dissatisfaction in the other party, the relevance of which you can decide yourself.

Accomodation - This represents a beta position with lowered concern for our own goals and an increased concern for others (as what we would eventually expect from the other side). In other literature it is also described as "yielding" which is basically letting the other person win (beta). Although such a beta approach is usually not good it is worth considering "yielding" on smaller issues in order to win the bigger ones. Useful as per your own situation, (e.g. yes we will redo the bathroom as long as I can buy my boat…)

Collaboration - Fairly self explanatory, and the only strategy that results in win-win – a mutually beneficial outcome is found. Working together listening, yada yada. Some might say this is beta but it can easily be alpha by maximising the outcome - everyone is happy

I am going to ignore ‘compromise’ - the other category in the graph as this is also self explanatory but interestingly is the only example of lose – lose, the classic example being where two people choose different paint colours for the walls and then settle on a colour neither actually wanted.

Finally a bit of my own input, I often find wife (skilled in this shit) at times will try to direct the discussion away from the 'issue' and towards what i call the 'process' - e.g. the style of arguing, the frequency of interuption etc. Its hard to pick this when it happens but i an getting used to it now. Classic example is "i'm not going to keep discussing this if you are going to raise your voice"

Now I understand some of this goes against the main elements of RP theory (e.g. maintain dominance), however if you, like me are not ‘there’ yet with regards to frame and keeping your shit together or STFUing in a negotiation or argument, this knowledge might be useful, either to achieve your own goals, or to try to find the win – win outcomes. Even the strongest leader will always require discussions where STFU is not possible as the objective of the discussion might be to get a response from the other person. I personally believe the goal should be an ‘optimised’ version of win – win, where both walk away happy but with one dominant party directing that outcome.

Also found: https://www.reddit.com/r/negotiations/

https://www.reddit.com/r/negotiation_advice/

Both links more business negotiation focused fyi