These statements are drawn directly from the principles of principled negotiation, motivational interviewing, and reflective listening. Each is designed to lower defensiveness, surface underlying interests, and keep the conversation moving forward rather than collapsing into argument. Each statement is followed by an explanation of why it works.
1. “I’m not here to tell you what to do. I’m here because I care about what happens to you.”
Why it works: This immediately dismantles the most common assumption the defensive person brings into the room — that this is an intervention of control, not of care. It removes the adversarial frame before it can solidify. Fisher and Ury would recognize this as separating the people from the problem: you are establishing yourself as an ally, not an opponent. The defensive person’s primary fear is losing autonomy. This statement signals that autonomy is not under attack, and the guard drops at least one degree.
2. “Help me understand what drinking — or using — does for you. What does it give you that you need?”
Why it works: This is the purest expression of the “focus on interests, not positions” principle. You are not asking the person to defend their behavior — you are genuinely asking them to explain their experience. That is a radically different invitation. It communicates respect for their inner life and creates the psychological safety needed for honest disclosure. Almost no one has ever asked a substance user this question with genuine curiosity rather than sarcasm. The answer — relief from anxiety, escape from pain, belonging with friends, numbness from grief — is where the real negotiation begins, because it surfaces the actual need that must be addressed for change to become possible.
3. “I hear you saying this isn’t as bad as I think it is. I’m willing to consider that I might have some details wrong. Can you tell me what you think is actually going on?”
Why it works: This is rolling with resistance rather than pushing against it. It is not a concession of reality — it is a strategic release of pressure that invites the other person to step into the conversation rather than barricade against it. When a negotiator acknowledges the possibility of their own error, it disarms the defensive reflex because there is suddenly nothing to fight. The question at the end moves the person from defending their position to articulating their own perspective — which frequently contains more honesty than either party expects.
4. “You’ve handled incredibly hard things in your life before. I’ve watched you do it. This doesn’t change what I know about who you are.”
Why it works: This separates the person from the problem in the most direct possible way. It affirms character and history while implicitly distinguishing those from the current behavior. It also creates productive cognitive dissonance — a gap between the person’s self-image as capable and resilient and the reality of what the substance use is doing to their life. That gap is not comfortable, but discomfort in this direction — “I am more than this” — is the emotional engine of motivation to change. It is also nearly impossible to be defensive toward someone who has just expressed genuine belief in you.
5. “I’m not asking you to decide anything right now. I’m just asking you to hear me out completely before you respond.”
Why it works: Defensiveness accelerates when a person feels cornered into an immediate decision. This statement removes that pressure entirely. It signals that you are not here to force an outcome in this moment, which lowers the threat level significantly. It also buys the time and space needed for your actual message to land rather than be deflected by a reflexive counterattack. In negotiation terms, it establishes the ground rules of the conversation before the substantive content begins — a critical step Fisher and Ury recommend for any high-stakes discussion.
6. “What would have to be true for you to consider that this might be a problem worth looking at?”
Why it works: This is one of the most sophisticated motivational interviewing techniques available, and it works because it hands the person the keys to their own change. Rather than presenting your evidence and demanding they accept your conclusion, you are asking them to define the conditions under which they would reach that conclusion themselves. This respects autonomy completely. It also frequently produces a surprising answer — something specific and personal that reveals exactly where the opening is. A person who says “If I lost my job, maybe” has just told you exactly where their threshold lives. That is enormously valuable information for the negotiation that follows.
7. “I’m not going anywhere. I’m not done with you and I’m not done with this relationship. But I also can’t keep pretending everything is fine when it isn’t.”
Why it works: This statement addresses both the fear of abandonment and the fear of being forced to change simultaneously. It reaffirms commitment — which is often what the person most needs to hear underneath all the defensiveness — while making clear that the status quo of silence and enabling is no longer available. In “Getting to Yes” terms, it clarifies your interests: you want the relationship to survive and to be honest. It also functions as a gentle statement of your BATNA — you are not threatening to leave, but you are signaling that continuing to look the other way is not an option you are willing to live with. That is a boundary, not an ultimatum.
8. “What’s the best thing that happens in your life right now when you’re not drinking or using? What does that feel like?”
Why it works: This question does something counterintuitive — it moves the conversation away from the substance and toward the person’s own vision of their better self. It invites them to access their own ambivalence, because anyone who has struggled with substance use has moments of clarity and preference for a different life. Naming those moments gives them weight and reality. It also begins building a picture of what life on the other side of the problem looks like — from the inside of their experience, not from your prescription. Solutions generated from a person’s own words and values are infinitely more compelling to them than solutions handed down by someone else.
9. “If we could find a way through this that didn’t feel like you were losing everything that matters to you, would you be willing to explore what that might look like?”
Why it works: This is the classic “invent options for mutual gain” move from Fisher and Ury translated into the language of personal negotiation. It frames the conversation as a collaborative search for a solution rather than a demand for capitulation. The phrase “didn’t feel like you were losing everything” directly addresses the core fear driving most defensiveness — the terror that sobriety or change means losing identity, community, pleasure, and coping capacity all at once. By naming that fear explicitly and offering to work around it rather than through it, you demonstrate that you understand what is actually at stake for them. That understanding is the foundation of trust, and trust is the precondition for change.
10. “I want to be honest with you about where I am. I love you and I’m frightened. Those two things are both completely true at the same time.”
Why it works: This is the most human statement on the list and often the most powerful. It abandons strategy entirely in favor of radical honesty delivered from a place of emotional vulnerability. It does not accuse, demand, or diagnose. It simply tells the truth about what is happening inside the person speaking. Defensiveness is extraordinarily difficult to sustain against genuine vulnerability — the psychological systems that generate it are designed to fight threats, not to absorb love expressed as fear. The construction “both completely true at the same time” is also important: it models the kind of emotional complexity that the defensive person themselves needs permission to access. They too hold contradictory truths — they love their family and they cannot stop. Hearing you hold contradiction openly gives them implicit permission to do the same, and that permission is often what finally begins to crack the wall.
The Thread Running Through All Ten
Every one of these statements shares a common architecture: they validate before they challenge, they ask before they tell, they affirm the person while naming the problem, and they keep the relationship at the center of the conversation rather than sacrificing it for the sake of making a point.
The defensive person is not an obstacle to the negotiation. They are the negotiation. Everything you say should be calibrated to the question: does this open a door or close one? These ten statements are designed, each in their own way, to keep the door open — because an open door, however narrow, is where all real change eventually walks through.