Topic: ISE Framework > Conflict Resolution > Interest Analysis Pipeline
Conflict Resolution: Understanding Interests, Not Just Positions
Most negotiations stall because both sides argue about positions, the things they are demanding, while the interests that actually drive them sit unexamined underneath. This page is the assembly line that drags those interests into the open and turns them into candidate resolutions.
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.
What Runs Today, and What's Still Being Built
The pipeline above is the method, and you do not need to wait for software to use it. The cost-benefit core (step 8) and the conflict readout it produces (steps 7 and 9) run today through the automated cost-benefit analysis approach. Score both sides' costs and benefits once, and three things fall out of the same trees read sideways: the shared interests, the real value conflicts, and the compromise candidates.
A compromise candidate is the payoff. It is an impact where a small, achievable shift in likelihood would flip a whole category's net from one side to the other. Those are the winnable disagreements, the ones worth the fight, as opposed to the symbolic ones that never move. The cost-benefit trees surface them automatically once both sides are scored.
Feasibility is scored on its own track. Whether a resolution can actually be reached, given who holds power, is a separate question from whose interest is legitimate. Power never feeds back into validity. Validity is decided by evidence and argument, because a system that let the powerful define what counts as valid would just be might-makes-right with extra steps. See Automated Conflict Resolution for the fuller treatment.
What is still being built is the automated public platform that scores every argument live with ReasonRank and updates the whole pipeline as evidence changes. The method works now. The at-scale automation is the roadmap.
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 a drug-enforcement program 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.