Topic: ISE Framework > Conflict Resolution > Interest Analysis Pipeline
Conflict Resolution: Understanding Interests, Not Just Positions
Purpose: This page shows how interest analysis fits into the ISE's full conflict resolution pipeline. For the conceptual argument, see Focusing on Interests, Not Positions. For scoring details, see Interest Scoring Methodology.
The Pipeline: From Belief to Resolution
| Step | What Happens | ISE Page | Output |
|---|
| 1. Identify the belief |
State the testable claim that people disagree about |
One Page Per Topic |
A single belief statement |
| 2. Map the arguments |
Collect reasons to agree and disagree, scored by ReasonRank |
Reasons |
Pro/con argument trees |
| 3. Gather evidence |
Link empirical data to each argument |
Evidence |
Typed, scored evidence items |
| 4. Map interests |
For each side, ask: why do they hold this position? What need drives it? |
Interests |
Supporter + opponent interest profiles |
| 5. Score interests |
Rate each interest for Linkage Accuracy (is it real?) and Interest Validity (is it legitimate?) |
Interest Scoring |
Two scores per interest (0-100 each) |
| 6. Map values |
Identify the values each side uses to prioritize their interests. Both sides share values but rank them differently. |
Values |
Value rankings for each side |
| 7. Find shared interests |
Highlight where opposing groups share underlying motivations |
Options for Mutual Gain |
Shared interest list, ranked by validity |
| 8. Cost-benefit analysis |
Evaluate proposed solutions against all identified interests |
Cost-Benefit Analysis |
Weighted impact scores |
| 9. Build compromise |
Design solutions that satisfy the highest-validity shared interests first |
Compromise |
Proposed resolution options |
Steps 4-6 (highlighted) are the interest analysis core. The key insight: you cannot build real compromise without understanding why people disagree, not just that they disagree.
How Values and Interests Connect
Both sides of most debates share the same values. The disagreement is about how to rank them, and that ranking shifts based on perceived costs, benefits, and likelihood of success.
| Value | Side A Ranking | Side B Ranking | Why They Differ |
|---|
| Liberty |
#1 |
#3 |
Side B sees liberty as less urgent when safety is threatened |
| Equality |
#3 |
#1 |
Side B prioritizes equality because they see larger disparities |
| Security |
#2 |
#2 |
Shared priority, but they disagree on what threatens security |
The ISE makes this ranking explicit and debatable. Each side's value ranking gets linked to their interests and scored for consistency with their actual behavior (via Linkage Scores).
What Changes When Costs and Benefits Shift
Value rankings are not fixed. They shift when people learn new information about costs, benefits, and likelihood of success:
| If you learn... | Your value ranking might shift because... | Example |
|---|
| A policy's costs are higher than you thought |
The value it serves may drop relative to competing values |
Learning that universal pre-K costs 3x estimates may shift your equality-vs-fiscal-responsibility ranking |
| A policy's benefits are larger than you thought |
The value it serves rises relative to others |
Evidence that immigration increases GDP may shift your security-vs-prosperity ranking |
| The likelihood of success is lower than you thought |
Even a highly-ranked value loses practical priority if the policy won't work |
If the War on Drugs doesn't reduce drug use, "safety" as a justification weakens |
This is why the ISE connects cost-benefit analysis to interest and value mapping. They are not separate analyses; they feed each other.
Getting to Yes: The Foundation
The ISE's conflict resolution pipeline is built on Fisher and Ury's four principles:
Related Pages
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.