First Post.

I found the approach of arbitration as a kind of science quite interesting. I had never viewed communication as being broken down into discrete groups of information processing. While the whole investigation into how arbitrators listen, understand, and make decisions on advocates' cases was useful, it seemed to me that keeping all this information about arbitrators straight would be difficult while in the process of advocating ones case. At the same time, it was useful to recognize that arbitrators seem ultimately human; arbitrators are still the product of their environments and cultures, and knowing what makes them tick and what attitudes they hold seems to be the key to strong advocacy. While this makes sense, I was somewhat discomforted by the feeling that this bordered on manipulation. I got the impression that having the best case or being "right" did not win you any favors; rather, having a good message and selling it well to your arbitrators (by understanding their culture, their biases, their attitudes, etc.) would take you a long way. It seems, then, that teams who can afford the time and money to hold mock arbitrations and investigate the arbitrators tendencies will inevitably have a better impression at the hearing, which does not seem quite fair.