There are three general philosophical conceptions of how worldviews might impact negotiations—we can call them “meta” worldviews. At one extreme, actors negotiate, and are fully in charge; they can bypass any specific or “micro” worldviews they originally hold; they remain free agents in the final analysis. At the other extreme, “micro” worldviews shape protagonists' words and acts to such an extent that, even unbeknownst to them, they are themselves, in effect, being negotiated upon by the worldviews. In between these two poles, both agency and worldviews impact negotiations and influence protagonists on a continuum with various degrees of freedom. If we acknowledge the impact of “micro” worldviews on negotiators, we can study them as a set of interactive components—sociological, psychological, and biological—that mold the identity of an actor or group. This recognition of the impact of “micro” worldviews does not prevent us from offering proactive platforms to reinforce agency. When two people negotiate with each other they can acknowledge, unilaterally and hopefully jointly, how worldviews inhabit and influence each of them, and still dynamically deploy a series of moves to get things done responsibly across their respective worldviews.

中文翻译：

---

谈判还是跨世界观谈判？了解身份并培养负责任的机构

关于世界观如何影响谈判，有三种一般的哲学概念——我们可以称它们为“元”世界观。在一种极端情况下，演员谈判并完全掌控；他们可以绕过他们最初持有的任何特定或“微观”世界观；归根结底，他们仍然是自由球员。在另一个极端，“微观”世界观塑造了主人公的言行，以至于即使他们不知道，他们自己实际上也在被世界观所协商。在这两个极端之间，代理和世界观都影响谈判，并以不同程度的自由影响主角。如果我们承认“微观”世界观对谈判者的影响，我们可以将它们作为一组互动成分来研究——社会学的、心理的、和生物学——塑造演员或群体的身份。这种对“微观”世界观影响的认识并不妨碍我们提供积极的平台来加强代理。当两个人相互谈判时，他们可以单方面地、希望共同地承认世界观是如何影响和影响他们每个人的，并且仍然动态地部署一系列动作，以在各自的世界观中负责任地完成工作。