The line I keep going back to from this: most disagreement is downstream of unstated differences in what the people involved think the conversation is actually about.
That’s the post for me. It reframes maybe 80% of the meetings I’ve been in. Two people are not arguing about the proposed thing; they’re arguing about which decision the proposed thing implicitly closes. Usually one of them knows and the other doesn’t.
Tactical implication: at the start of any high-stakes 30-minute call, name the meta-question being decided. Sometimes the meta-question is the only question worth answering, and the explicit agenda is just the vehicle.
I don’t think this scales beyond about three people in the room. Once you’re at four, the unstated frame splits and you stop being able to negotiate it. Worth the experiment.