Preparing to Negotiate in a Globally Diverse Environment: An Examination of Chinese and Jewish Perspectives on Truth and Lies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are a negotiator’s ethical and moral obligations during a negotiation? Should a negotiator be dedicated to achieving the greatest value possible for his or her client even though that goal may appear to require some degree of deception? Does it make a difference whether a culture has a strong religious foundation and identity? Different ethnicities and cultures obviously do not always agree as to what is right or wrong, true or false, or the degree to which one’s behavior must conform to those norms. This article will identify differing cultural perspectives towards negotiation in the course of a general discussion about negotiation but, in particular, the article will focus on how truthfulness and lying during negotiations is perceived in Chinese and Jewish culture. The following comparison between a culture that continues to develop and evolve under Communist rule and a culture that embraces long established religious values admittedly does not exhaust this complex and fascinating topic. The authors hope that readers not only find the comparison interesting and revealing, but also are inspired to further explore this cultural comparison as well as others. There always is a danger when one attempts sweeping generalizations and some of the following descriptions may be controversial. Consequently, additional dialogue is strongly encouraged. The article concludes with a “Suggestions for Instructors” section that explores additional cultural differences that can have a significant impact on both negotiations and negotiation teaching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".