Model UN Psychology
by J. John Lee
As you train for any given Model UN conference, you will receive exhaustive instruction on the rules of procedure, the basic format of your committee and perhaps some background on the nation or position you will be playing at the conference. All of these elements are important and helpful to success in committee. However, none of them are sufficient to guarantee it. What IS necessary for success is an understanding of the psychology behind Model UN committees.
Before this subject can be tackled in the context of helping you improve your delegate skills, it must first be defined. What I refer to as the “psychology” of Model UN is essentially the intangible social elements of Model UN committees that must be mastered in order to win. Great delegates understand that the key to winning any committee is to project an image that confers authority and credibility upon them. The goal is to become the most influential member of the committee, the delegate that all others reflexively consult on all important aspects of the committee’s business. The most influential members (provided that they stay on policy) are generally whom you will see shaking the chair’s hand at closing ceremonies, paraded around the room on a litter borne by the conference Secretariat. Yes, that can be you.
All good delegates should keep the following in mind at all times:
- Everyone is there to win. No one is there to be nice or to cooperate or to be helpful. If someone is aiding you, there is a reason. NEVER depend on any other delegate for your success.
- Perception is EVERYTHING. Your D+ in your international security class is completely irrelevant as long as everyone THINKS you are an expert. And if you nailed an A+, that is similarly irrelevant unless you can translate that into perception in committee.
- Visibility is ALSO EVERYTHING. This is particularly true in larger committees. When a chair and his staff is deliberating on awards, he/she almost always has nothing but memory to rely on. The more you are seen and heard, the likelier it is that you will be remembered.
I have encountered many delegates of varying ability during my eight year tenure in the world of Model UN. The best of the best are very dissimilar in many ways at first glance. Each uses a different style, and each have certain strengths and weaknesses. Understanding your strengths and weaknesses is the first step to mastering Model UN psychology. Understanding your opponents’ strengths and weaknesses is the next. The final step is figuring out what to do with everyone else, the vanilla, the “silent majority,” the unimportant people that don’t talk much but can still vote (thus help you).
Binder Nerds:
A certain University of Chicago delegate I once faced in committee was what I would call a “Binder Nerd” type of delegate. I walked into the committee room and saw three enormous black binders brimming with useless information on the table in front of this delegate. The operative word there is “useless.” I managed to win the committee without any of it. However, he was able to successfully utilize those binders to win an award despite the fact that his experience at the delegate party was about as exciting as a tennis match with Strom Thurmond.
“Binder Nerd” delegates (whether they use actual binders or not) have a difficult time with bullshit. They are uncomfortable talking out of their respective asses. This is not a problem and can ostensibly be an advantage. Unfortunately, if you are a Binder Nerd delegate (don’t worry; all of my categories will have derogatory labels for fun), you must invest a significant amount of time on research prior to conference. The University of Chicago delegate I mentioned succeeded by convincing everyone in the room – myself included – that he was the authority on any facts relevant to the situation at hand. Thus he was consulted often for information and was therefore a critical member of the committee. He was able to incorporate voluminous amounts of useless information (i.e. information unnecessary to solve the problems before the committee) into the committee proceedings, elevating mundane trivia to the level of crucial data that many decisions hinged on. No one dared challenge any of his information because of his binders. It may all have been printed out from for all we knew, but we dared not challenge his authoritative knowledge as he flipped through his binders for fear of being humiliated by those very binders.
Binder Nerds can be defeated in a number of ways. The key is to undercut the importance of their knowledge. Their expertise cannot be challenged directly (unless you are yourself a Binder Nerd) and so you must wean the committee away from it. The committee must be convinced either that the highly specific information available from the Binder Nerd is unnecessary to the task at hand or that the Binder Nerd is a good resource but should be treated as nothing more – turn the Binder Nerd into just a walking encyclopedia. Can encyclopedias debate with you and sway people? Obviously not.
The former method is a bit easier. When preparing for conference, your committee staff put in a great deal of effort to assemble the information they feel is the most necessary or relevant to their committee. This is encapsulated in the background guides and (for crisis committees) the crisis information presented during committee. Refer to this information when you speak, instead of the Binder Nerd’s information. You are helped by the fact that the no one enjoys the Binder Nerd’s superiority in information and thus many of the other delegates will likely catch your cue to concentrate on the information that they are more familiar with. While the Binder Nerd may attempt to break in with additional information, simply acknowledge it but return to the information provided to everyone by the committee staff. Even if the Binder Nerd’s information assists your position, focus on the background guide or crisis updates as the backbone of your factual arguments. The more nerdy and marginal your Binder Nerd seems to be the better.
The latter method is a bit more difficult. This is best accomplished during informal discussions such as during caucus. Lead a discussion with the Binder Nerd present. Occasionally, when appropriate, ask a very specific and narrow question to the Binder Nerd like, “what percentage of the population is ethnically Arab?” There isn’t much room for advocacy on the part of the Binder Nerd and the information requested only serves as support for your own opinion. Don’t ask the Binder Nerd’s opinion or interpretation, and never seem to construct a new argument from the provided information. Use him as a walking encyclopedia to back you up. The others will catch on. This is the method I used against my Binder Nerd. If he’s your second banana, he obviously can’t beat you to an award.
If you are a Binder Nerd, your job is to couch your information in an opinion EVERY TIME you provide information. Therefore, “Venezuela is the largest exporter of petroleum in South America” is not enough. Instead say, “We believe that Venezuela has a responsibility to shoulder more of the costs of this project since, after all, they are the largest exporter of petroleum on the continent.” Never just offer data. Always advocate a position and back it up with your knowledge. This way, your position will always seem the best supported and no one else will be able to use your information to support any argument other than yours or some variant of yours.
Playground Bullies:
I have encountered a certain Harvard delegate a few times in competition that I would label a “Playground Bully” or “Bully.” His modus operandi basically consisted of bullying and intimidating other delegates in order to achieve dominance and thus authority. This can be done through badgering, sarcasm, repetitive disagreement, disparaging humour, etc. My Bully’s favoured weapon was sarcasm. Anytime an argument or proposal was presented that ran counter to his interests or his views, my Bully mocked it through extreme examples and sarcasm and then restated his own opinion, indiscreetly reasserting the superiority of his position. He was a very effective delegate; I lost to him one of the two times we competed. Unfortunately though for my sexually frustrated Bully, women don’t find obnoxious Model UN nerds very alluring.
In any event, Bullies are a challenge on two fronts. First, you must not become intimidated by the Bully. Second, you must prevent the Bully from dominating everyone else. Believe it or not, the first of these tasks is more difficult. It is very difficult to continue to oppose and disagree with someone who seeks to mock you every time; it may seem as if you clash repeatedly and the Bully wins every clash. However, you have some very important allies. If your Bully is bullying you, he/she is likely bullying the rest of the committee. Neither the delegates nor the dais will enjoy such a situation, and it’s your job to translate that distaste into action. If no one does, the dais will be forced to acknowledge that despite his/her offensive style, the Bully was the most effective delegate. If you are a Bully, the danger lies in overdoing it. You must find the balance between dominating and annoying the dais. You push to be effective, but you must not push too far lest it come back to bite you.
The key to avoiding intimidation by the Bully is the rallying of support from other delegates and/or the chair. In any exchange with the Bully, always be sure to remain the clear opposite. Be respectful of other delegates. Acknowledge the contributions of others. Stress that you are open-minded and everyone else should be as well. Solicit the contributions and opinions of others (selectively, of course – you don’t want speeches that oppose your ideas). In addition, highlight the negative aspects of the Bully’s style to the rest of the committee. If the Bully mocks the proposal you have just made, don’t come back with more fire and brimstone. Portray the Bully as an obstacle to progress. The Bully is close-minded. The Bully doesn’t care about anyone else’s ideas. The Bully is the only thing holding up the compromise that can get everyone off this really boring topic we’ve been debating for hours. So if the Bully comes with, “That proposal is clearly naïve. It is about as practical as a screen door on a submarine. WE have been saying all along that [his/her idea] is the only responsible course of action,” then come back with, “If any nation has concerns with this proposal, I encourage you to work with the many nations collaborating on this already so that your concerns are addressed. We would be more than happy to accommodate you. But incendiary rhetoric only serves as an obstacle to progress.” Remember to always address the committee as a whole. Never address the Bully or make an argument directly at the Bully. The Bully is not interested in being convinced or in compromising. However, the Bully is only one vote so concentrate instead on the rest of the committee (of course this is complicated if Bully has veto power).
If you are a Bully, you must avoid being ostracized by strategies like the one described above. If your opponent makes an appeal to the rest of the committee, you must do so as well. State your opinion not as the objective truth nor as the ”best” idea but rather as the idea that everyone else clearly sees as the correct course of action. You are not imposing your will but instead merely articulating the opinion of everyone else whether they’ve said so or not. Don’t be arrogant, but be assertive. Attack the views of your opponent as you always would, but prevent him from rallying the committee by making it seem unintelligent or foolish to think in a way other than your way. “Clearly most nations here recognize that [opponent’s idea] is naïve. It does not address [your concern #1] nor does it respect [your concern #2], both of which are crucial to all of the nations here. While compromise is important, common sense is just as important and this proposal, while admirably a product of collaboration, lacks coherence. We are fully open to collaboration, but let us begin with a sensible foundation, namely [your proposal].” Clearly only uninformed people without common sense would go for your opponent’s proposal, right? Right.
Bill Clintons:
Former president Bill Clinton, despite my utter lack of respect for the man’s integrity, had a lot of talent in one key area for delegates that I call “Clintons.” A Clinton is an unparalleled bullshitter. Crap flows from a Clinton’s mouth and yet sounds absolutely plausible. Clintons typically do minimal preparatory research, relying on their capacity to bullshit to fill in the gaps of their knowledge. Clintons are often the most difficult delegates to face in competition because of their flexibility. However, their success depends wholly on the credibility they build in the committee. If their credibility is ever damaged, they cannot be successful without first repairing that damage, often an impossible task given the short time frame of Model UN conferences.
As much as I find the label distasteful, I am a Clinton. For example, I once faced a delegate from the Air Force Academy in a simulation of the National Security Council. I played the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs while he played the Attorney General. The issue was North Korea’s ballistic missile capability. I was asked by the chair/President to give the committee a rundown on this topic. I listed three missile types that I had found in ten minutes on a website, one of them the Taepodong-3. I stated that it was a long-range missile (because I wanted the committee afraid of North Korea and thus keen for military protection, my bailiwick). The Air Force cadet jumped all over himself to raise his placard and eagerly informed the committee of what he had undoubtedly learned the previous week in some class at the Academy. Taepodong-3 missiles are actually intermediate-range, he told us.
Confronted with this blunder, I had to react and save myself. I came out with, “Although I appreciate the effort on the part of the Attorney General to help this body, unfortunately she (he was playing Janet Reno) lacks the expertise required in this area. Military intelligence is clear on this. The Taepodong-3 missile is what military experts term a long-range missile, namely one that has the capability to strike at targets as far as 5000 miles away. It is not what we would call an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which has a much longer range, but in the INTRA-continental missile category, this missile is long-range. The Taepodong-2 missile is an intermediate-range missile in that it can strike up to 3000 miles away. But the Taepodong-3 is long-range and thus a threat to our forces in theatre.”
The only piece of information in that tirade that turned out to be accurate in real life is that North Korea possesses missiles called the Taepodong-2 and -3. Everything else was bullshit. However, what I kept in mind was what the cadet failed to acknowledge: Model UN is NOT real life. It truly does not matter if the Taepodong-3 missile is CALLED long-range or short-range or home-on-the-range. Clintons invent information as needed for their purposes, and good Clintons can pit their bullshit information against actual knowledge and often win (unless of course a Binder Nerd on the other side of the dispute has physical proof, which the cadet in my case unfortunately did not). My briefing was followed by a speech by the chair/President that NSC members should stick to their areas of expertise to avoid confusion, a rebuke for the Attorney General no matter what education he had in real life.
Defeating a Clinton entirely rests on challenging his/her credibility. This can be done several ways. Clintons will often display inconsistencies in their claims over time. If these can be pointed out, they must think quickly to compensate. Factual information can often be used, as the cadet in my committee attempted to do. However, always remember the Model UN situation. What the cadet could have said to avoid what happened might be, “General Shelton (my character), I remember from an earlier report you gave last month (in the mists of history prior to the conference) that the Taepodong-3 missile was in fact an intermediate-range missile, not long-range. Obviously this is an important point so, with the President’s permission, could we ask the Secretary of Defense (not me but still a military source) to request some specs on these missiles so we can be sure?” This would have done a few things. First, the Secretary of Defense is brought in to usurp me as the authority in military matters. Second, my report was disputed but I have no opportunity to rebut since clarifying information (probably from the crisis staff) is on the way. Finally, if the clarifying information does dispute what I said (which it would have), I am forced to somehow explain my misstatement or face damaged credibility. This is a great strategy; force the Clinton to go further and further into bullshit either in depth or in scope or both. The chances of inconsistency or misstatement rises exponentially as the string of bullshit is lengthened.