The Art of Spin: How to Win Every Negotiation Until Reality Catches Up

An effective negotiator knows that success relies on facts, a well-thought-out strategy, and the ability to adapt to the situation. However, some individuals, particularly those with narcissistic traits, adopt a different approach: they don’t aim to negotiate, but to impose a narrative in which they always appear as winners, even in spite of the facts. Their effectiveness lies not in their ability to secure advantageous agreements, but in their capacity to influence collective perception. Through cognitive biases, social pressure, and mastery of conversation, they often manage to convince not only those around them but also themselves that they have won every negotiation.

This approach is viable as long as conditions remain favorable. However, like any strategy based on distorting facts, it eventually fails. What seemed like an effective negotiation method turns into an unsustainable progression, inevitably leading to a confrontation with reality. We will examine the underlying mechanisms of this negotiation style and find that it is more predictable than one might think.

The Constant Redefinition of Victory: The Self-Justification Bias

The first principle of a narcissistic individual is as follows: if the outcome of the negotiation does not meet their expectations, they immediately change its meaning. The goal is not so much to gain a tangible advantage as to manipulate the interpretation of the results. This behavior can be attributed to the self-justification bias, which prompts individuals to reinterpret their actions to protect their ego. A narcissist never acknowledges a setback as such. For example, an electoral defeat can be defined as proof of widespread fraud, a failed project can be presented as a pilot experiment, and a lost trial can be interpreted as a demonstration of judicial system corruption. The objective is to preserve an image of invincibility, not only in the eyes of others but especially for oneself. The more a lie is repeated, the more it becomes a subjective truth, reinforced by the consistency bias, which pushes a person to maintain a position even when it is clearly false.

Controlling the Discursive Space: Domination through Noise

The second method used by a narcissistic person is controlling the conversation. If they cannot impose the facts, they impose the pace of the debate. They know that when a person is exposed to contradictory information, provocative statements, and controversies, they lose their ability to analyze facts rationally. Several techniques are applied to overwhelm the interlocutor: systematic interruption to prevent any structured counter-argumentation, categorical assertions without evidence based on the perceived authority of the confident speaker, and abrupt subject changes in case of difficulty, using emotional diversion to divert attention. This control of the discursive framework pushes interlocutors to adopt a defensive posture, forcing them to react instead of structuring their own argument.

The Mass Effect: The Power of Social Conformity

To give a credible appearance to their narrative, an individual may choose to have it repeated and amplified by a favorable group. This phenomenon relies on the conformity bias: the more an opinion seems to be in the majority, the more individuals are inclined to accept it as truth. To reinforce this impression, they mobilize vocal supporters who repeat their arguments, create a “us versus them” effect that pushes others to take sides, and systematically discredit their opponents rather than responding to their arguments. When an individual exploits these mechanisms, even a questionable assertion can be accepted as truth, as individuals often prefer to adhere to a group rather than question established beliefs.

The Scapegoat Strategy: Resorting to External Attribution

A narcissistic individual tends to never acknowledge their mistakes and uses the external attribution bias to shift the blame onto others. When they fail, they often designate a culprit: an adversary, an ally who has become inconvenient, or even an entire group. For example, after an electoral defeat, instead of accepting the result, they may claim that the election was stolen from them, accusing various parties or individuals of betrayal. This tactic allows them to preserve their image and mobilize their supporters around a common enemy. In general, the narcissist is very convincing because they firmly believe in their own explanations. The more an accusation is repeated, the more credible it seems, and those who contest it risk being criticized in turn. However, this strategy has its limits: as scapegoats multiply, contradictions accumulate and eventually weaken their discourse.

Surviving Contradictions: Selective Memory and Cognitive Dissonance

Over time, a problem arises: narcissistic individuals always end up contradicting themselves. The statements they made yesterday are often incompatible with those of today. However, their supporters frequently continue to believe them due to two important cognitive biases: selective memory, which prompts people to retain only what reinforces their beliefs and forget contradictions, and cognitive dissonance, which pushes a person confronted with evidence contrary to their convictions to either change their mind or ignore the contradiction to avoid psychological discomfort. The narcissist exploits these phenomena by adapting their discourse to the context, confident that their audience will follow this evolution without noticing the inconsistencies.

The Collapse: When Reality Reasserts Its Rights

Despite the effectiveness of these techniques, every illusion has its limits. Three factors can often lead to the downfall of a narcissist. First, the accumulation of contradictions: the multiplication of reinterpretations eventually makes it difficult to conceal the incoherence. Second, the loss of support: allies, who previously considered them an asset, realize that they no longer benefit from their influence and distance themselves, thus weakening their authority. Third, the confrontation with an unalterable reality: a judgment, a bankruptcy, an election lost without contest… At some point, the facts become too evident to be ignored.

The Art of Negotiation or the Art of Illusion?

Narcissists do not dominate because they negotiate better, but because they impose a narrative in which they are always right. As long as their discourse is accepted and their supporters adhere to it, they seem invulnerable. Their strength lies less in facts than in their ability to divert attention, speak louder, and flood reality with statements. However, their greatest weakness remains: reality always ends up asserting itself. Unlike their words, it cannot be manipulated indefinitely. When a failure becomes evident, an unfounded promise, or a manifest contradiction, their position begins to weaken.

To counter an influence, it is enough not to follow its rules. Removing control of the discourse, focusing on facts, refusing diversions, and letting reality assert itself can be more effective than a debate. When the group effect disappears and allies begin to disassociate themselves, the power dissolves. In reality, the perceived strength exists as long as no one questions the staging. And the most ironic thing? They will still try to convince you that it was planned.