 You talk about an extremist negotiation and the five strategies involved with it. Can you break those down for us? We wrote in 2010, based off my, that was my second deployment, doing some research over there, things that we saw officers doing, and we wrote an article that was published in Harvard Business Review in November of 2010 called Extreme Negotiations. And probably the most critical piece that comes out of that entire article was that in those contexts when we are most tempted and even have the best excuses to revert to a natural approach of negotiation, that's when we have the greatest need to take a step back, consider what our choices are, shape the process and act purposeively, which I really, I like that word. I'm not even sure it's a word, but the act, you know, act with purpose. And so the five strategies that we share in there are, first of all, you know, get the big picture, don't assume you have all the facts, be open minded, be curious, be humble, be willing to learn from the other party. Piece of advice, number two, uncover and collaborate. So dig into interest instead of asking, what do you want? Ask, why do you want something? How does that help you? Dig into what the underlying motivation is, share your own concerns and then really try to find creative possibilities and what we might do together. I love that. The third because the what do you want seems to be the obvious question that everyone rolls in a negotiation with, but asking the why gives you more to work with. So again, we're thinking about how do we grow this pie so that we can find the win-win, we've been talking about this all month. Well, understanding their why is going to help you a lot more than understanding what they want, because in the why you're going to find there might be some other factors that they hadn't even thought of that could sweeten the deal, that could help the negotiation move forward. So I love that mindset. Well, with only one point of view, you're getting that low resolution view of the problem. So by putting more eyeballs on it with the why, we can get a better picture. I mean, it's certainly going to help us figure out why does it work for everybody? Exactly. I'm thinking about times in my life where I've been in a negotiation and if someone had asked me why, I would have to think about it. And I would have offered more opportunities and options and put them on the table. That's right. Yeah, Johnny, going to your point, when you understand the why, it helps you solve for the right problem. And too often we get what we want and not what we really needed. And so that's why we sometimes make agreements that are really poor agreements because we were solving for the wrong problem because we didn't understand the why. Wow. There's a great story. And if we're just kind of off off the questions for a moment, great story in getting to us. It's a simple little illustration and it's about these two girls arguing over an orange in the kitchen and their father comes in and says, you know, stop the scrubs. The orange is it and then each half the orange. And it's kind of the wisdom of Solomon, right? Assuming that they each they each wanted the orange for the same reason. The father then watches the two girls. One of them peels the orange very carefully, throws away the peel, eats the fruit, but she's unhappy because she was really hungry and she's still hungry because she only got half an orange and she was hungry enough to eat the whole orange. The other girl peels the fruit very carefully, throws away the fruit and then carefully grates the zest, zest the orange to make, you know, chocolate orange brownies for school. But she's upset because she can only bake half a recipe and she had made a promise that she was going to bring in a whole batch of brownies and so now she's upset because neither one of them got their interest satisfied. The why. If you understand the why, then you can get creative, right? Maybe one of them buys the orange from the other. Maybe there's the obvious solution is, you know, one takes the peel and the other takes the fruit. I mean, there's just so many more possibilities if you understand underlying motivations. And when we're trying to become good negotiators, we need more information and sticking to what and trying to get to very basic information is not going to help us see from different angles and create opportunity that we may not have even come to the negotiating table thinking was there. So I love that question why and we can go on in the five strategies. Sure. So strategy number three is eliciting genuine buy-in from the other party. So avoiding making threats or arbitrary demands but bringing to the table these objective criteria that either one of us can go back and defend what we might do to critics, constituents, colleagues that we're both going to have. We often say it's the other person's problem to defend a solution to those people. That's my that's my problem. That's a shared problem. The their ability to go back and say, this agreement is fair, we should do it. That is a that's a shared problem. And that's going back to understanding what my assumptions are in negotiation. So master negotiators understand that whatever the deal is, the other party is going to have to sell it to their team, is going to have to leave the table thinking it was a good deal. And if all you're doing is arguing your side and you've come up with all of your rationalizations to defend yourself, you're leaving the other side unarmed in those situations and there's going to be regret. And we talked about this on episode two or toolbox of adding a threat, adding an exploding offer, putting a timetable on things. We hear this all the time, like that's what you need to do. It's a power move, but actually works the opposite way. It creates this tension that the other person now doesn't like. And oftentimes will blow up the deal. That's right. Right. And and we so the we shouldn't be surprised that when we do that, that these agreements don't last, right, that they don't stand the test of time. And yet somehow we were still shocked that because we didn't equip them to defend a solution that all of a sudden, you know, the agreement's falling through. When you put that person in that position, well, you know, I don't want to work with this person moving forward if this is how we're going to play this game, right? And because every time we come to this point, we have to play this this the charade again of exploding offers and demanding letters. And it's correct. Yeah. And that that really gets to the last kind of the last two from the five, which is we say build trust first, focus on things that are good for the relationship. So be trustworthy, demonstrate respect, be honest. Those are things that are going to build the sort of relationship that that is going to allow you to create more value, to understand and share what motivations are. And then the other piece is focus on the last piece of advice is focus on process, really own and consider my actions, the impact of my actions on the other person and and then, you know, own what's happening and be able to say, this is leading us down a path that is not going to be most value maximizing for us. Is there something else we could do and offer a different process? So I do like to say if I lead a negotiation with a collaborative process, one in which I'm trying to do things that are good for a relationship, I'm trying to understand their perspectives through good communication. I'm trying to dig into interest and so forth. Won't go through it all again. I have a very good chance of getting to the follow. But what do you do when they don't, right? What do you do when they're incredibly hard bargaining at the table?