The specific reasoning is key: if you negotiate point by point, each issue becomes a compromise, regardless of importance. It's better to be able to hold fast on important issues, give in on issues the other side thinks are far more important than you do, and compromise on the rest.

>give in on issues the other side thinks are far more important than you do

One problem is that sometimes you may not actually know which issues are their highest. But this does not invalidate the advice.

Kudos for saying better in 3 sentences what the whole article meant to teach. I totally misunderstood the blog post. Understanding the article as you explain it, I have to agree with it.

Curious if you could explain how you did understand the blog post? This is recently quite an interesting topic for me, why when one person feels like they've communicated as simply as they can, still can get misunderstood by someone else who is probably also actually quite intelligent.