dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator, Autor w serwisie Jakubiec i Wspólnicy

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

The Decision to End a Business Partnership is a Process

I know people who stay for years in relationships that drain them, limit them, and take away their joy in life. By “relationships” I mean family relationships, intimate relationships, and business cooperation (regardless of its legal form). In this article, I will focus on the decision to end cooperation with a business partner.

I know something about this. I have made such decisions myself when I wanted to end cooperation with my partners. Someone once made such a decision about me. I also decided to leave the University of Łódź, which was very difficult, but something pushed me to do it. And finally, I have advised on such matters hundreds of times as a lawyer. Initially, I focused on legal aspects, but the psychological knowledge I gained over time allowed me to look at these issues much more broadly. Today I know that the law is only a tool — it sets certain boundaries that must be taken into account, like trees when we run through a forest. But they do not determine our decision to run, the route, the pace, or whether it will be a single run or become our routine. Most partners don’t leave because they can’t for legal reasons — they stay because they don’t understand the decision mechanism.

Is Ending a Partnership Something Bad?

No. You have the right to end any cooperation. If you feel that this time is coming to an end, you have the moral right to use the legal tools that serve to end that cooperation. You do not need to feel any guilt because of it. Companies and contracts define people’s behavior for a certain period of time. People agree to this because they assume that during that time, cooperation will benefit them more than the lack of cooperation. If for any reason that assessment has changed, you can end the cooperation.

The Law Does Not Recognize Contracts That Bind Us Forever

Every legal relationship can be terminated — from an employment contract, through a commercial company, to marriage. It does not always mean ending it without cost or immediately, but in most cases it is possible. The law confirms the rule of the “temporariness” of cooperation by allowing contracts to be terminated so that we can use this possibility. Without guilt. Without shame.

If you remain in a relationship against yourself, feeling that you are losing in it, then someone is probably parasitizing on you and wants it to last forever. After all, they gain a lot with very little effort — at your expense.

What Drives Us to Make the Decision to End Cooperation?

Professional reports state that the most common cause of conflicts between partners is financial issues. I agree — but only partially. I believe that the financial area is where deeper causes of conflict most easily concentrate, and it is also the easiest to explain to everyone around. But if those deeper causes did not exist, there would usually be no financial dispute at all. Today, let’s look at how to make the decision to part ways without analyzing the cause or the level at which the conflict has grown.

Three Elements of the Decision to End Cooperation with a (Business) Partner

In modern psychology there is a lot of decision making models. Here I’ll present you one of them: simple and elegant Fogg’s Decision Making Model. The matter turns out to be quite simple with this model. To make a decision, three elements must occur:

motivation
ability (perceived ease)
a trigger — an impulse to act

Importantly, all three elements must occur together. If even one is missing, the decision will not be made.

Motivation to Exit the Company and End Cooperation

What is motivation? Motivation is a state resulting from our emotions that make us strive for something or avoid something. Motivation has an affective, biological basis. Its social and psychological aspects are secondary. And that’s good — because it makes the matter much simpler. If we function well, we are motivated to achieve what is good for us and avoid what is bad for us. Yes, we can make mistakes in judgment, but that is another issue.

Assessing the Difficulty of the Decision to End Cooperation

Ability — or our assessment of how difficult the action is — is a key factor. We must remember that we tend to rationalize and justify passivity because it is convenient for us. Change requires effort, so our mind subconsciously suggests that we should like the situation we are in. It does this in two ways: it tells us that “here” is good and that “there” is bad, dangerous, uncertain. This means that we deceive ourselves into believing that change is harder than it really is. We do this out of laziness and we are brilliantly creative at it.

The Impulse to Act

The trigger is the impulse to behave in a certain way, to make a decision. We say that “the last drop spilled the cup.” A trigger can be almost anything, but most often they appear regularly — we just silence them when we lack motivation or when the change seems associated with real or imagined difficulties. When motivation appears and the task becomes realistically possible, we only need to wait for the trigger. But if motivation is lacking or the task seems too difficult, the trigger will not cause action.

The Fogg Curve — When Do We Make the Decision (to Exit the Company)?

What is the Fogg’s decision making model? The factors influencing our decisions can be presented graphically using the Fogg Curve. It looks like this:

Fogg's Decision Making Model used to Making Decision about to End Shareholders Cooperation

We can see that:

we are likely to make a decision if we have high motivation and the task is easy (as long as a trigger appears);
we are unlikely to act if we have low motivation and the task is difficult (even if a trigger appears).

More about the Fogg Model can be found here: Behavior Change = Motivation + Ability + Prompt or B=MAP.

The Decision to End Cooperation. What Should Make You Reflect on Ending Cooperation?

Intuition

Our strongest weapon and unconscious competence. When I listened to it, I succeeded; when I ignored it, I got into trouble. Only deeper studies in psychology and behavioral analysis made me understand how powerful a tool each of us has. And I write this with full responsibility also as a lawyer.

Guilt

Especially if it is being induced in you by your partner — this is a clear red flag. Making you feel guilty is one of the strongest mechanisms of manipulation.

Lack of space to talk about what matters to you

Caring for the relationship between partners is as important as in a marriage. If you do not talk about your fears, plans, ambitions, it means things are already very bad.

Being promised the future

Plans must be:

real,
measurable,
time‑bound,
concrete.

If they are not, and your partner only tells you to “work hard so that someday it will be better,” then change the plan — or the partner.

You get nothing out of it

We work for a purpose. If you feel that you give everything, but in this personal arrangement your energy, time, and abilities are being burned — let it go. You have only one life; you can have many partners.

If some of these points apply to you, it means you are aware that you are stuck somewhere you do not want to be. And that is already the basis for change.

Deadlock

Deadlock is one of the most destructive situations in business relationships. It is not just a red flag — it is a structural breakdown.

When shareholders hold equal power, even simple decisions can become impossible. As a result, the company may stop functioning altogether while the conflict continues to escalate.

Deadlock occurs when the conflict itself becomes more important than the business. At that point, rational decision-making is replaced by control, ego, and escalation.

This is the moment when waiting becomes the most expensive strategy.

Red Flags and Their Meaning When Deciding to End Cooperation

Red flag / warning sign	How it looks in practice	What it means psychologically	Consequences for you and the company
Intuition says “something is wrong”	Unexplained tension, discomfort, the feeling that “something is off”	Intuition is unconscious analysis — a signal that your brain sees danger	Ignoring intuition leads to years of losses and burnout
Guilt induced by the partner	Suggestions like “you won’t manage without me,” “you’ll let the company down”	Classic manipulation and a tool of control	Loss of agency, emotional dependence, bad decisions
No space to talk about important matters	Avoiding difficult topics, gaslighting, belittling your needs	The relationship is one‑sided and communication is toxic	Growing tension, no room for development, escalating conflict
Being promised the future	Promises without deadlines, without specifics, without measurable effects	A mechanism keeping you in place — “carrot on a stick”	Blocked career, no real influence, wasted years
No real benefits from cooperation	You work more than others and gain the least	Exploitation, asymmetry of effort and reward	Burnout, frustration, sense of injustice
Rationalizing passivity (“here is safe”)	Delaying decisions, excusing the partner, justifying pathology	A defense mechanism — avoiding effort and change	Staying in a bad relationship, rising psychological and financial costs
Ignored triggers	Repeated “last drops” that change nothing	Lack of connection between motivation and ability	The trigger never becomes a decision — you stay stuck for years
Distorted perception of difficulty	“It will be too hard,” “I can’t,” “I have no options”	Your brain is deceiving you — avoidance mechanism	Decision postponed indefinitely, rising risks
Lack of trust in the partner	Hidden information, unclear actions, lack of transparency	The relationship is already dead — it’s only a matter of time	Conflict escalates, costs rise every month

The Fogg Curve in the Context of Exiting a Company

Element of the Fogg Model	What it means in the context of a partner	How it looks in practice	What happens when one of the three elements is missing
Motivation	The emotional and psychological reason to end cooperation	Exhaustion, frustration, sense of injustice, intuition saying “this is not it,” lack of trust	The partner stays in the relationship despite harm; rationalizes the situation; “maybe it will get better”
Perceived ability	Assessment of whether exiting is realistically possible — legally, financially, organizationally	Consulting a lawyer, analyzing the contract, assessing risks, understanding procedures	The partner believes “it can’t be done,” “it’s too hard,” “I have no options”; decision paralysis; or they haven’t been hurt enough yet (no trigger)
Trigger	The impulse that initiates action	Another manipulation, lack of payment, broken promise, humiliation, value conflict	If motivation or ability are low — the trigger changes nothing; passivity returns
High motivation + high ability + trigger	Optimal point for making a decision	The partner sees the sense of change and knows how to execute it	The decision is made quickly and consciously; determination is high; change will happen
High motivation + high difficulty	You want to leave but “don’t know how”	Fear, delaying the decision, excuses	Triggers do not lead to action; frustration grows; your future depends on whether you seek solutions or wither where you are
Low motivation + high ability	You can leave but feel no need	“It’s fine,” “It’s not ideal but it’s okay,” “I don’t want to waste energy”	You may be in the right place and not need to change anything
Low motivation + low ability	You don’t want to leave	Passivity, comfort, but you couldn’t leave even if you wanted to	The decision will never happen without a change in motivation; only then will you consider ability

Legal audit is the foundation and it’s role in Decision to End a Business Partnership

In this situation, you must know where you stand. It is not enough to simply read the contract you signed years ago. The contract is not everything. You are also bound by what is not in the agreement:

thousands of applicable regulations that were not “repeated” in the written contract;
the principles of interpretation of those regulations;
customs and principles of social coexistence;
judicial case law.

I know it sounds daunting, but: 1) that is why you have a lawyer to analyze it, and 2) to tell you exactly where you stand. Do not worry—the other party has the same problem.

However, it is crucial to know exactly what can and cannot be changed in a given situation right now. It is worth knowing how to shape the situation so that new opportunities appear on your side or options available to your partner disappear.

You must identify and assess the risk, including legal risk. Do not expect 100% certainty here—it does not exist in law. Expect a level of certainty and probability significant enough to allow for rational decision-making.

Remember, however, that the law only opens or closes certain doors. It is entirely up to you, though, whether and through which of the open doors you choose to walk. The fact that you have a certain right does not mean it will be purposeful, right, or beneficial to exercise it at this moment. That is a matter of strategy, which I will help you develop.

Decision to End a Business Partnership. Invitation to cooperation

Often, the first step to ending an unfavorable cooperation with a business partner is starting a good cooperation with a lawyer who understands not only the regulations but also the mechanics of such conflicts.

This is exactly what I offer you:

a detailed legal analysis of your situation;
defining realistic goals and alternatives (including the preparation of a BATNA);
developing a strategy for action;
support in negotiations, mediations, or litigation;
conducting the entire process—from the decision to its implementation.

I will not influence your motivation—that is not my role. To push you toward a decision I will not either. I can, however, do something much more important: show you the real level of difficulty of this decision, limit the risk, and guide you through the entire process in a thoughtful and safe manner.

If you are at a point where:

you are considering ending the cooperation,
you have doubts about what you can do,
or you feel that “something is wrong” but you don’t know how to organize it,

…then do not act in the dark. One ill-considered decision can cost years of dispute and very significant money. I know you may not know where to start. That is normal.

Contact me: 📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl 📞 536 270 935

Take the first step—it is the only thing you have to do alone. We will plan and execute the rest together.

FAQ – Questions about Decision to End a Business Partnership

Can I end cooperation with a partner in any situation?

As a rule—yes. Almost every legal relationship is resolvable. What differs, however, are:

the procedure,
the time,
the costs,
the risks.

The key question is not “if you can,” but “how to do it so you don’t pay more than necessary.” There are, however, exceptions: the law recognizes the concept of a “prisoner in a limited liability company.” which concerns a minority shareholders. In such cases, other measures must be considered to persuade the partners to “let you go.”

Do I need a “valid reason” to exit the company?

This depends on the legal structure of the company. In some companies, a valid reason is significantly taken into account and allows, for example, for the company to be dissolved earlier. In other cases, it may be the basis for excluding a partner from a limited liability company. However, the lawyer’s role is to persuade the other party to make a concession even when they are not legally obliged to do so.

What if my partner does not agree to end the cooperation?

This is a standard situation. A lack of consent from the other party:

does not block all scenarios,
but it does change the strategy.

In such cases, it is crucial to:

build a negotiating advantage,
prepare alternatives (BATNA),
use legal tools appropriately.

In any case, remember that the field of play is fluid and we can shape it. If the partner’s consent is required today, we can attempt to change the circumstances so that it is no longer required—or so that they want to grant it. A partner will always make the best decision for themselves. Therefore, one must influence the environment so that it is more profitable for them to agree to part ways than to keep you in the company against your will.

Is it better to negotiate or go to court?

This is not an “either-or” choice. In practice:

a well-prepared path to court often strengthens negotiations,
and negotiations without a real alternative in the form of a lawsuit are usually ineffective.

First, you build your position, then you choose the tool. I view negotiations very broadly; litigation is like the use of kinetic force in politics. There, war is a way of conducting policy. Similarly in business—litigation is a clash intended to serve a purpose. It is a form of forceful negotiation. And during a trial, you can always negotiate in parallel: directly and verbally, through intermediaries, or via the method of faits accomplis. Yes, people don’t talk about it, but… non-verbal negotiations exist!

How long does it take to end cooperation?

From a few weeks to several years. It depends mainly on:

the level of conflict,
the legal structure,
the preparation of the parties,
the determination of the parties,
external and random factors.

The most common mistake: starting actions without preparation, which extends the entire process manifold.

Can I exit “without losses”?

There are no completely cost-free solutions. But let’s distinguish costs from losses. There will always be costs: notary fees, taxes, costs of consultants and lawyers. But these are calculated costs. Will you exit without losses? It happens that partners exit companies with a great profit; other times, they accept certain losses just to end it or protect the rest of their capital.

The question is: is the cost of exiting lower than the cost of staying? And that is a strategic decision, not just a legal one.

How do I know if it’s the right moment for a decision?

If:

you are losing trust,
your communication is not functioning,
your work does not translate into real benefits,
your intuition tells you it’s time to leave,

…then leave.

Business companies, commercial law, disputes resolutionsSeptember 18, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

The Decision to End a Business Partnership is a Process

Is Ending a Partnership Something Bad?

The Law Does Not Recognize Contracts That Bind Us Forever

What Drives Us to Make the Decision to End Cooperation?

Three Elements of the Decision to End Cooperation with a (Business) Partner

motivation
ability (perceived ease)
a trigger — an impulse to act

Importantly, all three elements must occur together. If even one is missing, the decision will not be made.

Motivation to Exit the Company and End Cooperation

Assessing the Difficulty of the Decision to End Cooperation

The Impulse to Act

The Fogg Curve — When Do We Make the Decision (to Exit the Company)?

What is the Fogg’s decision making model? The factors influencing our decisions can be presented graphically using the Fogg Curve. It looks like this:

We can see that:

we are likely to make a decision if we have high motivation and the task is easy (as long as a trigger appears);
we are unlikely to act if we have low motivation and the task is difficult (even if a trigger appears).

More about the Fogg Model can be found here: Behavior Change = Motivation + Ability + Prompt or B=MAP.

The Decision to End Cooperation. What Should Make You Reflect on Ending Cooperation?

Intuition

Guilt

Especially if it is being induced in you by your partner — this is a clear red flag. Making you feel guilty is one of the strongest mechanisms of manipulation.

Lack of space to talk about what matters to you

Caring for the relationship between partners is as important as in a marriage. If you do not talk about your fears, plans, ambitions, it means things are already very bad.

Being promised the future

Plans must be:

real,
measurable,
time‑bound,
concrete.

If they are not, and your partner only tells you to “work hard so that someday it will be better,” then change the plan — or the partner.

You get nothing out of it

If some of these points apply to you, it means you are aware that you are stuck somewhere you do not want to be. And that is already the basis for change.

Deadlock

Deadlock is one of the most destructive situations in business relationships. It is not just a red flag — it is a structural breakdown.

When shareholders hold equal power, even simple decisions can become impossible. As a result, the company may stop functioning altogether while the conflict continues to escalate.

Deadlock occurs when the conflict itself becomes more important than the business. At that point, rational decision-making is replaced by control, ego, and escalation.

This is the moment when waiting becomes the most expensive strategy.

Red Flags and Their Meaning When Deciding to End Cooperation

Red flag / warning sign	How it looks in practice	What it means psychologically	Consequences for you and the company
Intuition says “something is wrong”	Unexplained tension, discomfort, the feeling that “something is off”	Intuition is unconscious analysis — a signal that your brain sees danger	Ignoring intuition leads to years of losses and burnout
Guilt induced by the partner	Suggestions like “you won’t manage without me,” “you’ll let the company down”	Classic manipulation and a tool of control	Loss of agency, emotional dependence, bad decisions
No space to talk about important matters	Avoiding difficult topics, gaslighting, belittling your needs	The relationship is one‑sided and communication is toxic	Growing tension, no room for development, escalating conflict
Being promised the future	Promises without deadlines, without specifics, without measurable effects	A mechanism keeping you in place — “carrot on a stick”	Blocked career, no real influence, wasted years
No real benefits from cooperation	You work more than others and gain the least	Exploitation, asymmetry of effort and reward	Burnout, frustration, sense of injustice
Rationalizing passivity (“here is safe”)	Delaying decisions, excusing the partner, justifying pathology	A defense mechanism — avoiding effort and change	Staying in a bad relationship, rising psychological and financial costs
Ignored triggers	Repeated “last drops” that change nothing	Lack of connection between motivation and ability	The trigger never becomes a decision — you stay stuck for years
Distorted perception of difficulty	“It will be too hard,” “I can’t,” “I have no options”	Your brain is deceiving you — avoidance mechanism	Decision postponed indefinitely, rising risks
Lack of trust in the partner	Hidden information, unclear actions, lack of transparency	The relationship is already dead — it’s only a matter of time	Conflict escalates, costs rise every month

The Fogg Curve in the Context of Exiting a Company

Element of the Fogg Model	What it means in the context of a partner	How it looks in practice	What happens when one of the three elements is missing
Motivation	The emotional and psychological reason to end cooperation	Exhaustion, frustration, sense of injustice, intuition saying “this is not it,” lack of trust	The partner stays in the relationship despite harm; rationalizes the situation; “maybe it will get better”
Perceived ability	Assessment of whether exiting is realistically possible — legally, financially, organizationally	Consulting a lawyer, analyzing the contract, assessing risks, understanding procedures	The partner believes “it can’t be done,” “it’s too hard,” “I have no options”; decision paralysis; or they haven’t been hurt enough yet (no trigger)
Trigger	The impulse that initiates action	Another manipulation, lack of payment, broken promise, humiliation, value conflict	If motivation or ability are low — the trigger changes nothing; passivity returns
High motivation + high ability + trigger	Optimal point for making a decision	The partner sees the sense of change and knows how to execute it	The decision is made quickly and consciously; determination is high; change will happen
High motivation + high difficulty	You want to leave but “don’t know how”	Fear, delaying the decision, excuses	Triggers do not lead to action; frustration grows; your future depends on whether you seek solutions or wither where you are
Low motivation + high ability	You can leave but feel no need	“It’s fine,” “It’s not ideal but it’s okay,” “I don’t want to waste energy”	You may be in the right place and not need to change anything
Low motivation + low ability	You don’t want to leave	Passivity, comfort, but you couldn’t leave even if you wanted to	The decision will never happen without a change in motivation; only then will you consider ability

Legal audit is the foundation and it’s role in Decision to End a Business Partnership

thousands of applicable regulations that were not “repeated” in the written contract;
the principles of interpretation of those regulations;
customs and principles of social coexistence;
judicial case law.

I know it sounds daunting, but: 1) that is why you have a lawyer to analyze it, and 2) to tell you exactly where you stand. Do not worry—the other party has the same problem.

Decision to End a Business Partnership. Invitation to cooperation

This is exactly what I offer you:

a detailed legal analysis of your situation;
defining realistic goals and alternatives (including the preparation of a BATNA);
developing a strategy for action;
support in negotiations, mediations, or litigation;
conducting the entire process—from the decision to its implementation.

If you are at a point where:

you are considering ending the cooperation,
you have doubts about what you can do,
or you feel that “something is wrong” but you don’t know how to organize it,

…then do not act in the dark. One ill-considered decision can cost years of dispute and very significant money. I know you may not know where to start. That is normal.

Contact me: 📩 kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl 📞 536 270 935

Take the first step—it is the only thing you have to do alone. We will plan and execute the rest together.

FAQ – Questions about Decision to End a Business Partnership

Can I end cooperation with a partner in any situation?

As a rule—yes. Almost every legal relationship is resolvable. What differs, however, are:

the procedure,
the time,
the costs,
the risks.

Do I need a “valid reason” to exit the company?

What if my partner does not agree to end the cooperation?

This is a standard situation. A lack of consent from the other party:

does not block all scenarios,
but it does change the strategy.

In such cases, it is crucial to:

build a negotiating advantage,
prepare alternatives (BATNA),
use legal tools appropriately.

Is it better to negotiate or go to court?

This is not an “either-or” choice. In practice:

a well-prepared path to court often strengthens negotiations,
and negotiations without a real alternative in the form of a lawsuit are usually ineffective.

How long does it take to end cooperation?

From a few weeks to several years. It depends mainly on:

the level of conflict,
the legal structure,
the preparation of the parties,
the determination of the parties,
external and random factors.

The most common mistake: starting actions without preparation, which extends the entire process manifold.

Can I exit “without losses”?

The question is: is the cost of exiting lower than the cost of staying? And that is a strategic decision, not just a legal one.

How do I know if it’s the right moment for a decision?

If:

you are losing trust,
your communication is not functioning,
your work does not translate into real benefits,
your intuition tells you it’s time to leave,

…then leave.

Business companies, commercial law, disputes resolutionsSeptember 18, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

English Speaking Criminal Lawyers: Criminal Defense in Lodz

If you or someone close to you has been detained, questioned, or accused of a crime in Poland, pressure and anxiety build up instantly. A foreign language, unfamiliar procedures, and strict time limits can feel overwhelming. English speaking criminal lawyer can be very useful.

Stop for a moment. You are not alone. Our law firm defends foreigners in the most challenging legal crises — fast, effectively, and entirely in your language. We specialise in defending foreigners, where language barriers and procedural traps can quickly turn a simple situation into a serious criminal case. We act immediately — the first hours matter most. To guarantee seamless communication and full strategic control, our lawyers provide defense and legal support in English, French, and Russian.

Infographic for expats explaining what to do after an arrest in Poland, including an emergency checklist, rights of foreigners, common criminal cases, and immediate legal assistance from an English speaking criminal lawyer in Poland.

Key steps and legal rights for foreigners arrested or questioned in Poland.

Emergency Checklist: What to Do If You Are Arrested in Poland

These steps protect you immediately:

Right to Remain Silent — Clearly state: “I want to speak to my lawyer before answering any questions.”
Do Not Sign Anything — Especially if the document is in Polish and you do not fully understand it.
Demand an Interpreter and Your Own English Speaking Criminal Lawyer — You have a strict legal right to both.

Your Rights as a Foreigner in Poland. First of all: call for an English Speaking Criminal Lawyer

Interpreter: Must be provided by the authorities for every interaction and hearing.

Consular Contact: You have the right to request that your embassy or consulate be informed.

Independent Defense Attorney: You do not have to accept a state-appointed lawyer. You can choose your own private counsel, especially an english speaking criminal lawyer.

Refusal to Testify: You can refuse to give statements with zero negative consequences.

Information About Charges: The authorities must clearly explain exactly what you are accused of.

Most Common Cases We Handle

These are the situations in which foreigners most often need urgent legal help in Poland. Even minor incidents can lead to serious consequences if not handled correctly from the start:

DUI / Drunk Driving
Drug Possession or Smuggling
Assault, Fights & Battery
Theft and Financial Fraud Accusations
Domestic Incidents
Border & Immigration Law Issues

Criminal Cases in Poland. How We Can Help You Right Now?

Immediate Phone Assistance: Quick, strategic advice when every minute counts.
Detention & Arrest Support: Critical defense during the first, crucial 48 hours of detention.
Police Questioning: We attend every interrogation to ensure your rights aren’t violated.
Temporary Arrest (Tymczasowe Aresztowanie): We fight for your immediate release from pretrial detention.
Strategic Defense: Rapid analysis of evidence, procedural errors, and tactical options.
Family & Employer Communication: Keeping your loved ones informed and managed through the crisis.

Our Defense Team

Lawyer	Languages	Specialisation
Maria Ignaszak	English	Financial fraud, white‑collar offenses, tax criminal cases, drug offenses
Andrzej Jakubiec	English / Français	Economic crimes, financial fraud, white‑collar offenses, tax criminal cases
Adrianna Rybarska	Русский	Violence cases, drug offenses, robberies

English speaking criminal lawyers in Poland

Contact Us

Do not wait. We respond immediately — every hour matters.

Call us now: Phone: +48 536 270 935

Email: kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl

Languages: English / Français / Русский

Office Locations: Łódź & Białystok

Read more about our Law Firm and very hight standards.

business lawyer in Poland, Criminal Defense in PolandSeptember 18, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

Behavior Parameters Model: A Framework for Analyzing Behavior

I focus on decisions. In my job, I help clients make good decisions. And I protect them from the consequences of bad ones.

For a long time, however, I was interested in more than the legal aspects of decisions. I decided to examine the decision-making process from a much broader perspective.

Then, I studied the basic literature on the neurological and psychological aspects of decision-making. I also examined the role of decisions in game theory and conflict strategy.

Finally, I explored the behavioral approach, which focuses on external manifestations of behavior rather than internal beliefs and conscious motivation.

This approach convinced me the most. Therefore, I decided to make an important change compared with the previously described Decision Parameters Model.

I had even compared that model functionally with, among other things, A. Damasio’s somatic marker theory.

The model I present here does not describe the decision-making process. It describes behavior.

The Behavior Parameters Model (BPM) does not describe what a person thinks. It describes what they do.

This makes it possible to analyze strategy in conflicts based on facts rather than declarations. I believe it is worth using alongside the Fogg Behavior Model.

The Heuristic Behavior Parameters Model

The Behavior Parameters Model is a binary, three-parameter heuristic model. It classifies observable behavior in a specific strategic context.

It also helps formulate and test competing hypotheses about an unknown parameter of that behavior.

What do I mean by its binary nature? Each parameter has two possible values.

How does this relate to the need to formulate at least two hypotheses when identifying an unknown parameter?

The point is that each possible value of every parameter contains many possibilities. Sometimes, these possibilities may even contradict each other.

Consider the example of marriage. Filing for divorce indicates a desire for change. But what kind of change? Does it mean ending the marriage, or trying to repair it?

Purpose of the Behavior Parameters Model

My model aims to describe as many types of behavior as possible in a simple way. I wanted it to be intuitive, although this is highly subjective, and useful.

Its usefulness lies in its simplicity. The model automatically assumes an alternative and encourages intellectual effort to consider another option.

If we see someone’s right hand, we should assume that a left hand exists. Likewise, each behavioral parameter adopted by the model contains two possibilities.

Awareness of this fact has value in itself. It helps us better understand the other party’s behavior and consider alternatives to our own actions.

I believe I achieved the model’s intuitive nature by basing it on fundamental concepts. These concepts should be obvious to everyone, or at least to most people.

Of course, the readers will ultimately decide whether this assumption is correct.

I therefore propose a heuristic model for describing behavior in strategy. Its usefulness includes:

forcing consideration of alternative hypotheses about an unknown element of behavior;
facilitating the search for an unknown parameter by identifying a field for developing working hypotheses.

Description of the Behavior Parameters Model

I provisionally named my model the Behavior Parameters Model. The model uses three parameters. Let us examine them.

3 Behavioral Parameters

I propose assigning 3 parameters to behavior.

The 3 behavioral parameters are: vector, dynamics, and momentum.

Vector

The first parameter is the vector. Its reference point is (usually) the current state, or status quo.

The vector determines the direction in which behavior affects the current state. Its value is 0 or 1.

Let 0 indicate a tendency to remain in the current arrangement, while 1 leads to change.

Challenges of the Vector

I realize that the current state may be highly complex. Some elements may be desirable, while others may not.

I also recognize that this state may be dynamic and change in a particular direction, or several directions.

In such a situation, someone may accept the direction of change, but not its speed, scope, or method.

Another obvious problem concerns defining the reference point itself. What constitutes the status quo?

Is it the revolution, or the regime that the revolution overthrew? Is the reference point the state being changed, the process of change, or the resulting state?

At an abstract level, there are no answers to these questions.

At a concrete level, I believe we should choose the simplest reference point directly affected by the behavior.

The simplest reference point is probably the current state, insofar as the behavior relates to it. I think we should start there.

This does not change the fact that searching for the broadest possible context remains justified.

The example at the end of this article will show the practical benefits of considering the reference point itself.

It significantly expands the space for formulating testable hypotheses.

Dynamics

The second behavioral parameter is dynamics. Let us distinguish 2 values of dynamics: (+) and (-).

Here, (+) means action, while (-) means passivity.

Challenges of Dynamics

For clarity, I use the term “behavior” to include both traditional action and passivity.

The first type is deliberate and conscious passivity. In legal terminology, we could compare it to an “omission.”

However, passivity does not necessarily have a negative meaning in this model.

The second type is unconscious and unintended passivity. It may result from powerlessness, regardless of its cause, attitude toward it, or consequences. This is also one of the model’s strengths, because such passivity can still have a significant effect on reality.

The third problem I see here concerns the number of possible paths toward a given goal.

There may be many such paths, and they do not always exclude one another. Some may even operate simultaneously and independently.

In this version, my model describes the dynamics of a single behavior. There is no obstacle, however, to describing several behaviors within a particular state. Each behavior can then receive its own value, expressed as D(n)(-/+).

Momentum

The third behavioral parameter is Momentum, which I previously called Determination.

I decided to change the name for three reasons. First, using physical terms for all three parameters makes the model more internally consistent. Second, using the first letter avoids repetition between Determination and Dynamics. Finally, Momentum refers less to conscious volition and more directly to behavior. Determination answers the question of what the subject wants. Momentum describes what happens to the subject. This better captures the external, behavioral aspects of this parameter.

Momentum describes the degree to which someone maintains or increases engagement in a given behavior despite incurred or anticipated costs, losses, and risks.

Momentum therefore has two possible values: (L) means low, while (H) means high.

Challenges of Momentum

I am fully aware that Momentum may be a complex factor. Describing it through two values necessarily simplifies it. Its value may change over time. It may also differ depending on the type of cost, such as financial or reputational costs. Also, it may differ depending on a particular strategy. It may also depend on multiple sequences of moves and their scope.

Thus, this represents an extreme simplification. Yet this is precisely where its advantage lies.

The model allows us to simplify something that may otherwise appear complex and chaotic.

If we understand what these terms may encompass, they can prove useful. They work much like the terms “cheap” and “expensive.”

Behavioral Parameters as an Element of Strategy

The vector defines the relationship between behavior and the reference point.

Behavior that protects the status quo or results in its change may take the form of action or passivity.

This corresponds to dynamics (+ or -).

Momentum describes maintaining or increasing engagement in a given behavior despite costs, losses, and risks.

Vector, dynamics, and momentum form a simplified heuristic model that I developed.

At least, I am not aware of any publications that use these parameters in this way.

I developed the model to describe behavior. Its usefulness certainly requires testing.

At present, it remains purely a hypothetical model.

Table 1: 3 Behavioral Parameters

Behavioral parameter	Parameter value	Description and significance
Vector	0	Tendency to maintain the current state
	1	Tendency to change the current state
Dynamics	+	Active behavior
	–	Passive behavior
Momentum	L	Low maintenance or increase of engagement despite costs, losses, and risks
	H	High maintenance or increase of engagement despite costs, losses, and risks

Determining the Missing Parameter

Importantly, identifying and correctly interpreting the factors underlying two behavioral parameters gives us data that suggest a direction for searching for the third.

Knowing two parameters does not determine the third. However, it allows us to construct focused hypotheses about its value, grounded in the actual context.

Testing these hypotheses requires analyzing additional observable behaviors and the surrounding context.

Importantly, we should test these hypotheses not only against each other, but above all against the facts.

Each pair of parameters creates a hypothesis space for the third

I emphasize that knowing two parameters does not allow us to infer the value of the third. It does, however, allow us to construct focused hypotheses about its possible value. Moreover, we should assume that this approach may only work within a specific context. By this, I mean that we need to understand the environment and relationships in which the strategy operates.

If we know how person X’s behavior relates to the status quo (V), and we have identified their behavior (D), we can more easily construct two context-grounded hypotheses about their Momentum (P).

If we observe behavior (D) and a particular Momentum (P), we can formulate competing hypotheses about its effect on the status quo (V).

We can then test these hypotheses against known facts and further observations.

If we know a person’s relationship to the status quo (V) and their Momentum (P), we can more easily construct two opposing hypotheses about how they pursue their goal (D).

We can then test these hypotheses against known facts and against each other.

Limitations of the Behavior Parameters Model

A defining feature of my model is that it says nothing about the value of the missing parameter. We cannot infer its value in any way from the values of the two known parameters. This limitation, however, is also the model’s greatest strength. It allows us to use the two known parameters as a starting point for developing and testing hypotheses about the third. Moreover, it forces us to construct at least two opposing hypotheses about the value of the missing parameter.

Hypotheses and Truth

We must always assume that none of the hypotheses created in this way will prove true. In particular, falsifying one hypothesis does not automatically establish the truth of the other. Surviving successive attempts to falsify a hypothesis increases the justification for treating it as a working hypothesis. It does not prove that the hypothesis is true (Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Since each parameter is at least binary, not knowing its value allows us to formulate at least two competing hypotheses. We should then confront these hypotheses with each other and with known facts through logical analysis.

Behavior Instead of Declarations

The model therefore assumes that we should give greater weight to observable behavior and its consequences when identifying parameters.

We should give less weight to declarations about one’s own intentions. We can try to identify the missing information by analyzing behavior through abductive reasoning.

The model does not predict the missing parameter. It helps us search for it. Any conclusion about the third parameter depends on correctly identifying the two initial parameters. However, an error in identifying them does not necessarily make our hypothesis about the third parameter immediately false. Likewise, confirming the correctness of earlier assumptions does not determine the truth of the second hypothesis. Nor does falsifying one hypothesis establish the truth of the other.

I emphasize that not every hypothesis logically consistent with two known parameters is equally justified.

We should evaluate a hypothesis primarily by its consistency with observable facts, context, and subsequent behavior.

Boundaries of the Model

My model does not address the decision-making process itself. It has nothing to do with neurological or psychological processes.

The model describes behavior that may form part of a strategy identified through observable behavior in a specific context.

The model also does not address declared or concealed motivation, values, or ideology. It does not describe awareness of the situation’s importance, its causes, or its consequences.

It says nothing about what a person thinks. Instead, it organizes what they do, helping us understand it.

The Problem of Passivity

My previous Decision Parameters Model did not include passivity understood as ambivalence, indifference, or lack of engagement. It clearly distinguished such passivity from “conscious persistence” or “holding one’s position.”

The Behavior Parameters Model, however, includes both activity and passivity, regardless of their causes or the subject’s attitude toward them. In other words, when describing behavioral consequences and their effects on the current state, the cause of passivity does not matter. The current state represents the first working reference point selected for the analysis. It does not matter whether passivity results from an adopted strategy or from an inability to recognize one’s role and its consequences. It also does not matter whether inaction results from acceptance, procrastination, waiting, ambivalence, continuous deliberation, intimidation, or unawareness of the choice itself.

Internal motivational and decision-making processes are irrelevant here. The same applies to the causes behind adopting a particular position, whether conscious or unconscious. These causes may be genuine, verbalized, concealed, subconscious, internal, or external. We do not describe or analyze the goals, motivations, or value systems underlying them.

The Benefits

This produces several benefits:

We avoid psychologizing and trying to get inside another person’s head.
We describe what is expressed and observable: behavior.
We describe actual rather than intended consequences of behavior.
Miscalculations and possible cognitive errors become irrelevant.

I want to make one point clear. These limitations apply only to the description of behavior. When we use the model to construct hypotheses about an unknown parameter, however, we must consider these factors. We should nevertheless follow the principle of maximizing the use of facts and minimizing psychologizing without factual support.

The Problem of Activity

We should therefore ask an analogous question about activity. Can we assume that conscious rationality underlies activity and places the behavior within the context we are analyzing?

That would be equally wrong. It is more appropriate to describe individual behaviors and their consequences. We can then use induction to construct hypotheses about the strategy adopted by the other party.

From our perspective, it again does not matter whether the behaviors are deliberate, conscious, or planned. Nor does it matter whether an ideology or value system underlies them, or what that ideology might be. It also does not matter whether the subject recognizes all their consequences within the field that interests us.

Can We Speak of Strategy?

It is reasonable to ask whether we can speak of strategy at all in light of the previous observations. I believe we can, provided that we adopt a broad, functional understanding of strategy. If we strip strategies of motivation, consciousness, ideology, values, and conscience, we reduce them to behavior. When considered collectively, such behavior may lead with sufficient consistency to a particular outcome. In this sense, I consider it possible to reconstruct the existence of a given strategy from observed behavior. Under certain conditions, this may also allow for limited predictions.

Example of Applying the Behavior Parameters Model

Recently, a client came to me regarding a divorce case. He had received a divorce petition and was completely surprised. What is important, he still lived with his wife, they did not argue, and there was no violence, alcohol abuse, or infidelity in their relationship. He could not understand the situation in which he found himself. We tried to analyze it through the lens of behavior.

Determining the Parameters

The wife took specific, visible actions. She went to a lawyer and paid for the divorce petition. We therefore have positive dynamics (D+).

What else can we assume? The mere fact that she took action involving real financial and organizational costs also involved reputational risk and family consequences. This provides a strong basis for a working hypothesis of high Momentum in her behavior (MH). We do not treat this as certain, however. A final assessment would require observing her subsequent behavior. We would need to see whether she consistently maintains her engagement despite the costs, risks, and possibility of withdrawal.

Without the Behavior Parameters Model, a natural and unreflective assumption would be that filing for divorce itself means seeking to end the marriage permanently. The model, however, encourages us to ask further questions.

What Is the Reference Point?

We can therefore begin by identifying the status quo and asking whether it is:

Status quo 1 – the parties’ marriage as such, or

Status quo 2 – the parties’ marriage in its current form?

Recognizing this alternative is a breakthrough in our example. We must consider exactly what the divorce petition negated.

This dramatically expands the field for formulating hypotheses. We move from asking, “Why does the wife want a divorce?” to asking, “What state did her behavior negate?”

Constructing Hypotheses

We can try to answer this question by formulating two hypotheses:

Hypothesis H1: Filing the petition is an action aimed at permanently ending the marriage.

Hypothesis H2: Filing the petition is an action aimed at ending the marriage in its existing form.

H2 contains two further hypotheses:

H2a – filing the petition aims to end the marriage in its current form through divorce;

H2b – filing the petition aims to end the marriage in its current form by changing that form and saving the marriage.

H2b may initially seem absurd. That is precisely why it is worth formulating: under what circumstances could filing for divorce be an attempt to save the marriage rather than end it?

Hypothesis	Description	Strategic consequences
H1	Petition = seeking to end the marriage	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H
H2a	Petition = ending the current form of the marriage through divorce	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H
H2b	Petition = attempting to change the form of the marriage and save it	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H

Table 2: Hypotheses in the selected example

The Problem of the Vector in Table 2

It is important to note that the vector is described as 1 in every case, meaning a tendency toward change. However, the nature of that change differs completely between H1 and H2a, on the one hand, and H2b, on the other.

H1 and H2a involve divorce, while H2b involves repairing the marriage. Both tendencies negate the existing state, but they do so in completely opposite ways.

We can avoid this apparent contradiction by adopting a different reference point. If we treat marriage as such as the reference point, rather than marriage in its current form, the wife’s behavior would have a Vector of 1 in H1 and H2a.

Under H2b, it would have a Vector of 0. In every case, the Dynamics would be positive and Momentum high, as we may reasonably hypothesize.

In the circumstances of a particular dispute, it may turn out that the petition was a kind of “cry of despair.” It may have been a final attempt to provoke a reaction from the husband, a drastic test of his commitment, or an attempt to force him to take real action to save the relationship.

Conclusions from the Example

The model does not determine which of these hypotheses is true or which is more likely. Its role is to show that the same observable behavior may require consideration of more than one strategic interpretation.

Further analysis should therefore focus on facts that allow us to distinguish between these hypotheses.

This is where the model’s practical value becomes clear: it does not provide answers where we lack sufficient data. Instead, it forces us to formulate competing hypotheses and search for facts that can allow us to reject one of them.

The Behavior Parameters Model: observable behavior → three parameters → two known parameters → hypothesis space for the third → observable facts → testing/falsification.

AI in my work, cognitive bias, disputes resolutions, family businessAugust 19, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

AI and the Dynamics of a Dispute Between 3 Partners

Let us examine AI and the escalation of a dispute between three partners. In several previous articles, I described, among other things, two groups of issues. The first: the causes of instability in a three-partner system. The second: the potential impact of AI on the escalation of disputes and the concept of coupled confirmation bias. Today, I will draw attention to the area where these issues intersect—namely, the dynamics of relations among three partners, each of whom uses AI to analyze and predict the moves of the remaining partners.

Infographic titled "The Dynamics of Conflict in a Three-Partner Company: Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB)". The central diagram illustrates three partners (Partner A, B, and C) in a triangular setup, each paired with an AI model subject to Default Attribution Error. Arrows show a complex network of perceived threats, searches for alliances, and offensive actions, surrounded by feedback loops reinforcing beliefs. The central note highlights that each partner perceives the others' coalitions as being against them. A bottom banner explains that AI reinforces users' pre-existing beliefs. The right panel lists the effects of CCB: narrowing space for negotiation, reinforcing positions, tunnel vision, loss of dialogue, escalation to a conflict of values, and partner elimination. The footer states: "In a three-partner company, every defensive move by one partner is often perceived as an offensive move by the others."

Fig. 1. Anatomy of Coupled Confirmation Bias. How cognitive biases reinforced by AI lead to the escalation of conflict in light of the security dilemma.

What does J. Mearsheimer teach us about partner conflicts?

I asked this question in an article in which I presented the thesis that in companies with 3 partners, there is a higher risk of conflict than in two- and four-person companies. This is a claim based solely on my intuition and observations made in practice. The arguments of this prominent political scientist, which he presented in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” regarding systems of 3 balancing states, seemed to me to perfectly explain conflicts in three-person companies. I am fully aware of the methodological doubts. They are associated with attempts to transfer conclusions from the realm of international relations to the micro scale. Nevertheless, I point out that in game theory (J. Nash) and the strategy of conflict, the “size” of the players is not of primary importance (T. Schelling).

Why do disputes occur more frequently in a three-person company?

While a balance is easily established between 2 or 4 players (1:1, 2:2). In the case of 3 players (partners), the threat of a coalition against them hangs over each one. Each of them will fear that the other two will form an alliance, leaving them marginalized. We are thus dealing with the so-called security dilemma, only on a micro scale.

So what does (each of them) do? They do not want to be that “third wheel” and build two parallel coalitions against each of the others. And every single one of them does this. Not out of malice, but out of fear of what they consider “inevitable.”

In such a setup, the bulk of each partner’s energy and attention is devoted to what they consider most important. It is to ensure their own survival in the company. How to achieve it? Precisely by building a coalition.

Fundamental Attribution Error in partners’ reasoning

As a reminder, the fundamental attribution error (FAE) is a psychological mechanism explaining that we are quicker and find it easier to attribute the causes of someone else’s actions to their character traits rather than external circumstances. I refer anyone interested to D. Kahneman’s book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” You can also look here, at the article by B. Gawronski, “Fundamental Attribution Error.“

Consider a driver cutting us off in traffic. It is easier and faster to attribute this to low intelligence, laziness, or rudeness. We rarely guess they are rushing to a shareholders’ meeting. They might even be driving a wife in labor to the hospital. Or, God forbid, we were simply driving too fast ourselves.

This is a mechanism to which we are all subject. I see it (and try to consciously neutralize it) in my own thinking and legal practice. I encounter it in family cases and in disputes between partners.

When FAE meets AI

Each participant begins to look for arguments confirming their own assessment of the situation. Increasingly, they do so with the help of AI.

A partner feeds their LLM with a description of their competitor’s behaviors. However, this description is tainted by their FAE. For example: “X was late again because he is lazy or up to something.” AI, optimized for confirmation and user satisfaction, is unlikely to answer: “Or maybe he got stuck in traffic?”. More often, it will generate a defense strategy against the “lazy and disloyal partner.” In this way, AI receives “tainted” input data as a prompt, which it then multiplies.

Crucially, the fundamental attribution error operates more strongly when we evaluate behavior that we perceive as immoral. In such cases, we easily assign immoral traits to the other party. However, it does not work as strongly in the opposite direction. If someone does something good, we act differently. We are much more cautious in attributing positive traits to them.

What is the role of AI in the escalation of a dispute between three partners?

LLMs are designed in a way that reinforces our initial beliefs. They do not need to lie or manipulate us. They amplify what is already within us. This also applies to our beliefs about the other party’s motivations. This phenomenon has been thoroughly studied and described by prominent AI researchers. Of course, susceptibility to this “amplification” is an individual trait—each of us has a different level of “resilience” and self-reflection.

We thus observe a phenomenon known as the feedback loop (M. Glickman, T. Sharot), where multiple interactions occur between the user and the LLM, as a result of which (B. Wang, J. Liu) an initially weak belief becomes significantly reinforced. It makes little difference whether it is true or false. This, in turn, can lead to tunnel vision for each of the partners.

Its defining characteristic is the rejection of information that contradicts the adopted assumption. At the same time, any information that might confirm it is heavily exaggerated. A person in such a state is looking solely for confirmation of their thesis, not for verification. They are ready to react with aggression to any attempts at falsification.

What is coupled confirmation bias?

Coupled confirmation bias is my original concept. Once again, it is purely a hypothesis based on observations and requires further conceptual and empirical research that could refute it.

Coupled Confirmation Bias describes the dynamics of escalation in a system where each participant uses their own LLM. Each user is subject to the fundamental attribution error, thereby explaining the behaviors of others through their (negative) character traits, bad intentions, etc. Most commonly, these will be: stupidity, dishonesty, greed, and laziness.

As a result of the human-AI interaction, these beliefs will be significantly reinforced, leading to the planning of one’s own actions.

Crucially, every subsequent action taken by one user will serve as the starting point—fuel—for another analysis by the remaining ones. In this way, the negotiation space will narrow, parties will identify with their own position (and not necessarily their interest), there will be a gradual loss of the sense—and even the admissibility—of conversation, and the dispute will swiftly shift to the level of a conflict of values.

We will quickly reach a point where the problem is no longer the partner’s interest, but the partner himself. And the solution to this problem will be the elimination of that partner.

How does coupled confirmation bias work in three-person setups?

In my practice, I have only two documented cases about which I can state with absolute certainty that each of the partners heavily used AI to analyze attitudes and predict the behaviors of the remaining partners. A very rapid escalation occurred, leading to the actual paralysis of the company and a declared readiness to file for bankruptcy, which each of the partners perceived as a lesser evil than the further development of a lucrative business.

I propose the thesis that the severity of the escalation was the result of the intersection of:

structural mechanisms—typical of three-player setups;
the synergy of individual cognitive biases resulting in the creation of a systemic bias typical of human-AI interactions, characterized by reinforced recursiveness.

Material for further research

I am convinced that in the near future, doctoral dissertations and outstanding academic papers will emerge, which—precisely, while maintaining methodological rigor and relying on empirical research—will provide an answer to the question of whether the thesis described above holds true.

In my view, a three-player setup—even on a micro scale, not just among superpowers—is inherently vulnerable to conflict. However, when we layer onto it cognitive biases reinforced and amplified through the use of AI by each of these players, the risk of dynamic escalation increases significantly.

For now, this is purely a concept existing in my head, a proposal for more serious research, and an attempt to understand a reality that I not only observe, but as an attorney—partially shape myself.

I have recently written about how LLMs can reinforce our cognitive biases and thereby influence the decisions we make. Now, I simply refer you to that article.

How does AI affect conflict between partners? Conclusions

Integrated framework infographic titled 'The Dynamics of Conflict in a Three-Partner Company' by Jakubiec & Partners. A 5-column table mapping how Structural Dynamics, International Relations (Security Dilemma), Cognitive Psychology (Fundamental Attribution Error), AI Technology (Coupled Confirmation Bias), Negotiation Mechanics, and Strategic Resolution interact in multi-partner corporate disputes.

Fig. 2. Jakubiec, A. (2026). AI and the Dynamics of a Dispute Between 3 Partners: Integrated Framework & Coupled Confirmation Bias (CCB). Jakubiec & Partners Dispute Resolution Series. Available at: jakubieciwspolnicy.pl

In a three-person company, each partner fights not for dominance, but for survival. A security dilemma arises.
A threatened partner seeks a ally so as not to become the “third wheel” himself.
Every partner may do this.
AI tends to reinforce the user’s cognitive biases and confirm them in their initial beliefs.
This increases the risk that each partner will take actions they view as preventative and defensive.
In the eyes of the others, however, these actions will appear offensive.
The risk of escalation is significantly higher in three-person companies, particularly when the partners use AI to analyze their situation.
AI does not escalate partner disputes by being hostile — it escalates them by amplifying what is already inside each partner.

AI in my work, cognitive bias, disputes resolutions, family businessJuly 20, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

Is AI a conflict escalation factor in 2026?

AI is not merely a tool in a dispute—it is a factor that amplifies our cognitive biases and beliefs faster than we can even notice them. For a long time, I have been writing about the deeply concerning phenomenon of conflict escalation. In my practice, I observe that the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tends to radicalize individual opinions and narrow the scope for negotiation. I have even encountered a situation where both opposing parties outsourced their entire communication to their respective AI models—yet each party believed that they were the only one doing so.

In my view, utilizing AI does not merely alter a user’s opinions; it fundamentally impacts their behavioral functioning, a key manifestation of which is how they make decisions during a dispute. Naturally, the models I have proposed serve as theoretical frameworks to explain these empirical observations and require rigorous empirical verification.

A professional corporate-style graphic by Jakubiec & Partners depicting a man and a woman facing each other across a chessboard in a high-rise office at night. Between them, two glowing digital heads representing AI are linked by a circular loop with the text "Coupled Confirmation Bias." The main headline reads: "When AI reinforces your beliefs, conflict rises. On the feedback loop in human-AI interaction."

Figure 1: The mechanism of Coupled Confirmation Bias in human-AI interaction during disputes.

Theory first. AI as a conflict escalation factor. Reserch on LLM as a decisions making factor in conflicts. What do we know in 2026?

Introduce: why take care about AI researches in legal practice and conflict theory?

First, there is a clear and growing reliance on artificial intelligence in daily life. Second, users increasingly utilize AI as a primary cognitive lens to interpret the world around them. Third, critical decisions are subsequently made under the direct influence of these AI-generated analyses. Consequently, existing research on how AI shapes user perception and decision-making provides a vital foundation for analyzing its role in conflict escalation.

AI as a conflict escalation factor. Where are we in researches on AI in 2026?

This occurs through a feedback loop, which can ultimately lead to the emergence of tunnel thinking (or tunnel vision). It is worth noting that a user can be reinforced even in a correct or justifiable belief. Therefore, the core problem is not about making someone “smarter” or “stupider,” but rather about amplifying what is already there instead of verifying it. True thinking relies on continuous questioning—subjecting our own assumptions to falsification. A mechanism that transforms a slight inclination (say, moving from 51/49 to a strong certainty of 90/10 on a scale of 1 to 100) is highly dangerous, but for reasons that go far beyond mere accuracy.

This specific mechanism has already been identified in human-AI interaction and detailed, among others, in studies by M. Glickman and T. Sharot (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11860214/), Yuxin Liu and Adam Moore (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40448478/), as well as L. Celar and Ruth M. J. Byrne (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36964302/).

Additionally, we must highlight the article by Ben Wang and Jiqun Liu, “Cognitively Biased Users Interacting with Algorithmically Biased Results in Whole-Session Search on Debated Topics”(https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3664190.3672520). These authors point out the crucial role of individual factors in a user’s susceptibility to cognitive biases when interacting with artificial intelligence. In other words—this loop does not affect everyone in the exact same way.

Let’s move to the practice: Can AI Lead to Divorce?

The Fundamental Attribution Error as a Starting Point

Let us examine AI through the lens described above. AI is often (and erroneously!) perceived as an objective, omniscient, and neutral external advisor.

Now, imagine we are operating under the influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error. This cognitive bias causes us to explain the behavior of others by attributing it to their internal character traits rather than external, situational factors—simply because doing so is cognitively easier and faster. We explain domestic messiness by deciding “she is just messy,”or late arrivals home by concluding “he must be cheating on me” or “he is lazy and refuses to help.” This is how the human mind naturally operates—my own included—as I previously discussed in my article on the fundamental attribution error in the practice of law.

Does AI Reinforce the Fundamental Attribution Error?

If we overlay this cognitive bias with the use of AI, the system will actively validate our biased assumptions. This leads to a heightened conviction that our own behavior is entirely justified, while the other party is acting purely out of malice.

Consequently, we take action—perhaps starting a seemingly minor argument. Consider how this argument is received by the other spouse, who in turn asks their AI assistant for advice. The AI will likely interpret our outburst as an unjustified attack, an act of hostility, and a lack of empathy. Any subsequent actions from our side will be interpreted through this exact same lens. Thus, the spouses drift further and further apart.

AI as a conflict escalation factor. Can LLM Take Over Interpersonal Communication?

Before long, direct communication between the spouses breaks down entirely, or retreats exclusively to messaging apps. This presents a massive danger: I have witnessed cases where spouses texted each other over WhatsApp for months, yet vetted and drafted nearly every single reply using their respective LLMs.

At a certain point, the interaction effectively became two language models debating and accusing each other—without either spouse fully realizing it. Each partner was convinced that they were the only one using AI, believing their actions were completely fair and that the AI was merely helping them construct sound arguments and detect the “manipulations, inconsistencies, and errors” of their partner.

What does our 2026 study reveal about AI as a hidden ally in disputes?

Sometimes, disputing parties consciously utilize AI to undermine the other party’s judgment and self-trust—a phenomenon known as digital gaslighting. Interestingly, our research on the role of AI in disputes (conducted in 2026) revealed that the vast majority of users would not inform their opponent that they were using AI to analyze their statements and behavior.

AI as an Escalation Factor in Shareholder and Business Disputes

I must emphasize that these dynamics are not confined to family law. The exact same patterns occur in workplace mobbing (harassment) claims, or between corporate partners embroiled in “civil wars” who have recently acquired a powerful new tool they do not yet know how to manage.

In internal corporate disputes, LLMs can foster tunnel thinking and severely narrow the negotiation space. In a previous piece, I mapped out a scenario of conflict escalation between business partners using AI. However, I have no doubt that AI can also be highly beneficial in resolving business disputes—for instance, by performing objective option analyses and identifying win-win scenarios.

Can AI artificially amplify our perception of workplace harassment (mobbing)?

In one of my recent articles, I noted that AI is becoming a significant factor in how employees formulate and reinforce their perception of being subjected to mobbing. I have personally encountered cases where an individual’s belief that they were a victim of mobbing was radically amplified through repeated, validating interactions with an AI—even though an objective legal analysis later ruled it out.

Even more telling was the user’s reaction: they flatly refused to accept our objective interpretation, accusing us of a lack of professionalism and suggesting we had secret ties to the employer we were allegedly protecting. This user was not seeking legal counsel; they were seeking validation and an executioner for their preconceived narrative.

Table 1: Examples of Conflict Escalation Mechanisms in Human-AI Interaction

Mechanism	Description of Phenomenon	Typical Consequences in Disputes
Feedback Loop	AI reinforces the user’s initial interpretations instead of subjecting them to falsification; each subsequent response aligns more closely with the user’s pre-existing assumptions.	Radicalization of views, tunnel thinking, narrowing of the negotiation space.
Coupled Confirmation Bias	Both parties to a conflict use AI to analyze the opponent’s motives and actions; every subsequent move is a reaction to an interpretation generated by their respective AI model.	Escalation loop, rising hostility, systemic misinterpretation of intent.
Cultural Variance of LLMs	Models trained on different cultural frameworks (e.g., American vs. Chinese) generate divergent interpretations of the conflict’s nature and goals.	Divergent strategies, systemic failure to read the other party’s underlying motives.
AI Influence on Decisions	AI artificially reinforces or redirects user motivation, perceived task difficulty, and susceptibility to triggers (within BJ Fogg’s Behavior Model).	Impulsive actions, escalation, decisions driven by emotional reinforcement rather than objective facts.
Amplification of the Fundamental Attribution Error	The user attributes the adversary’s actions to internal character flaws rather than external circumstances—a narrative that the AI systematically validates.	The focus shifts to attacking the person rather than addressing the circumstances; attribution of malice, growing sense of victimization, escalation.
Displaced Communication via Language Models	Disputants consult an LLM for every message; in extreme cases, the models end up “communicating” directly with one another.	Total breakdown of direct human communication; escalation driven entirely by machine-generated interpretations.
Digital Gaslighting	A user consciously employs AI to systematically undermine the other party’s rationality, memory, or perception of reality.	Erosion of self-trust, loss of confidence in one’s own judgment, severe breakdown of trust.

AI as a conflict escalation factor. Conclusion

The mechanisms detailed in the table above demonstrate that an AI does not need to generate overtly radical or toxic content to escalate a conflict. It is more than enough for the model to validate the user’s subjective interpretations, mirror their emotional state, or help them construct a sophisticated narrative of bad faith regarding the other party.

In disputes where both sides rely on AI, these dynamics couple together. They create self-reinforcing loops of escalation where every subsequent tactical decision is merely a reaction to a machine-generated interpretation.

This is precisely why understanding these mechanisms is so critical—both for dispute resolution professionals and for the individuals entangled in these conflicts. AI can be a powerful analytical and supportive tool. However, without conscious boundary-setting, it can easily become an invisible, highly active “participant” and accelerator of the dispute, reinforcing cognitive biases and shutting down the path to a negotiated settlement.

FAQ: Artificial Intelligence and Conflict Escalation

1. How does Artificial Intelligence escalate interpersonal and business conflicts?

AI accelerates and escalates conflicts primarily through a cognitive feedback loop. Because Large Language Models (LLMs) are designed to be highly agreeable and helpful interlocutors, they tend to validate the user’s initial assumptions and pre-filtered data. Instead of challenging or falsifying our claims, the AI reinforces them, leading to tunnel thinking, a radicalization of personal narratives, and a significant narrowing of the negotiation space.

2. What is “Coupled Confirmation Bias” in the context of AI-driven disputes?

Coupled Confirmation Bias is an escalatory dynamic that occurs when both opposing parties in a dispute independently use LLMs to analyze their opponent’s motives and draft their replies. This creates a dangerous closed loop: Party A acts based on an AI-generated analysis of Party B’s behavior. Party B then feeds this reaction into their own AI, which interprets it as hostile and suggests an escalatory response. Ultimately, the conflict escalates as the two AI models end up implicitly “communicating” through the human actors.

3. Can relying on AI tools lead to legal consequences in divorce or corporate disputes?

Yes, indirectly but profoundly. AI often amplifies the Fundamental Attribution Error—the tendency to attribute the other party’s actions to their inherent bad character rather than external circumstances. In divorce proceedings or shareholder disputes, this cognitive distortion leads to highly polarized, aggressive legal strategies, impulsive decision-making, and a breakdown of direct communication. This often turns what could have been a structured, out-of-court mediation into a lengthy, emotionally draining, and expensive court battle.

4. How does AI affect employee perceptions of workplace harassment and mobbing?

AI can act as a powerful confirmation tool that distorts a user’s objective reality. If an employee feeds subjective, emotionally charged descriptions of workplace interactions into an AI, the model—seeking to validate the user—may confirm that they are indeed victims of mobbing. This reinforces their victim narrative to the point where they reject objective legal assessments. In such cases, the user is no longer looking for objective legal counsel, but rather an executor for their preconceived, AI-reinforced conviction.

5. Can Artificial Intelligence be used constructively to resolve disputes?

Absolutely. AI is a double-edged sword. While it can easily accelerate conflicts when used as an Echo Chamber, it remains an incredibly powerful tool for objective option analysis. When prompted correctly—specifically to act as a devil’s advocate, to identify cognitive biases, or to search for creative, win-win mediation pathways—AI can help disputing parties zoom out, evaluate the conflict through different cultural or strategic frameworks, and find objective common ground.

Conflict Resolution in the Age of Intelligent Technology

Modern disputes are no longer just about legal provisions; they are deeply influenced by behavioral psychology, cognitive biases, and—increasingly—the invisible hand of artificial intelligence. Managing these complex dynamics requires more than traditional litigation. It demands strategic foresight, an understanding of decision-making behaviors, and highly skilled mediation.

Are you facing a complex corporate, business, or family dispute? Let us help you navigate the noise, neutralize the escalation loops, and find a rational, strategic way forward.

Contact Jakubiec & Partners

Key Takeaways

AI does not need to persuade either party.
It only needs to stabilize existing interpretations.
Stabilized interpretations change behaviour.
Changed behaviour becomes new evidence.
The loop repeats.
Escalation becomes emergent rather than intentional.

AI in my work, cognitive bias, disputes resolutions, family businessJuly 17, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

English Speaking Criminal Lawyers: Criminal Defense in Lodz

Key steps and legal rights for foreigners arrested or questioned in Poland.

Emergency Checklist: What to Do If You Are Arrested in Poland

These steps protect you immediately:

Right to Remain Silent — Clearly state: “I want to speak to my lawyer before answering any questions.”
Do Not Sign Anything — Especially if the document is in Polish and you do not fully understand it.
Demand an Interpreter and Your Own English Speaking Criminal Lawyer — You have a strict legal right to both.

Your Rights as a Foreigner in Poland. First of all: call for an English Speaking Criminal Lawyer

Interpreter: Must be provided by the authorities for every interaction and hearing.

Consular Contact: You have the right to request that your embassy or consulate be informed.

Independent Defense Attorney: You do not have to accept a state-appointed lawyer. You can choose your own private counsel, especially an english speaking criminal lawyer.

Refusal to Testify: You can refuse to give statements with zero negative consequences.

Information About Charges: The authorities must clearly explain exactly what you are accused of.

Most Common Cases We Handle

These are the situations in which foreigners most often need urgent legal help in Poland. Even minor incidents can lead to serious consequences if not handled correctly from the start:

DUI / Drunk Driving
Drug Possession or Smuggling
Assault, Fights & Battery
Theft and Financial Fraud Accusations
Domestic Incidents
Border & Immigration Law Issues

Criminal Cases in Poland. How We Can Help You Right Now?

Immediate Phone Assistance: Quick, strategic advice when every minute counts.
Detention & Arrest Support: Critical defense during the first, crucial 48 hours of detention.
Police Questioning: We attend every interrogation to ensure your rights aren’t violated.
Temporary Arrest (Tymczasowe Aresztowanie): We fight for your immediate release from pretrial detention.
Strategic Defense: Rapid analysis of evidence, procedural errors, and tactical options.
Family & Employer Communication: Keeping your loved ones informed and managed through the crisis.

Our Defense Team

Lawyer	Languages	Specialisation
Maria Ignaszak	English	Financial fraud, white‑collar offenses, tax criminal cases, drug offenses
Andrzej Jakubiec	English / Français	Economic crimes, financial fraud, white‑collar offenses, tax criminal cases
Adrianna Rybarska	Русский	Violence cases, drug offenses, robberies

English speaking criminal lawyers in Poland

Contact Us

Do not wait. We respond immediately — every hour matters.

Call us now: Phone: +48 536 270 935

Email: kancelaria@jakubieciwspolnicy.pl

Languages: English / Français / Русский

Office Locations: Łódź & Białystok

Read more about our Law Firm and very hight standards.

business lawyer in Poland, Criminal Defense in PolandJune 9, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

Why Intelligent People Lose Disputes?

Litigation as a Subplot: Viewing the Court Case Within a Broader Conflict

A lawsuit is almost always just a single element of a much larger conflict. The real dispute—the one that exists independently of the courtroom—is often far broader than what the court actually addresses. It can involve a wider network of people, stem from historical tensions, or even generate entirely new disputes. Consequently, legal proceedings are usually just one of many battlegrounds—and frequently not the most critical one.

This dynamic is especially clear in corporate warfare. A shareholder often challenges a board resolution not because it is defective, but because blocking it stalls a hostile takeover or strengthens their bargaining power. The court is left analyzing arguments manufactured solely for the trial, which have little to do with the actual core of the dispute.

To bring structure to this chaos, let us recognize three distinct dimensions of conflict:

1. The Substantive – Real Conflict — what the battle is actually about.
2. The Perceptual Conflict — how each party subjectively views the situation.
3. The Legal / Procedural Conflict — what formally makes its way into the courtroom.
Dynamic interaction between the three dimensions of conflict:

The trinity of conflict: real conflict, perceptual conflict, and legal conflict – strategy matrix by Jakubiec i Wspólnicy

A single legal proceeding is often just one clash among many between the same or interconnected parties. The conflict simultaneously rages across other fronts: operational, communicative, reputational, familial, or financial.

Crucially, both sides can view the position of a given lawsuit on the “conflict map” entirely differently. The upper hand goes to the party whose map reflects reality more accurately—yet the perception of each actor is, at the same time, a structural element of that very reality.

Therefore, it is vital to remember: you can win the case and lose the conflict. You can also lose the case and achieve all your strategic goals. Even highly intelligent people routinely blind themselves to this distinction. It is a fatal error committed by corporate strategists, politicians, military commanders, lawyers, advisors, entrepreneurs, and spouses in crisis alike.

To illustrate this, let me share an example. I once handled a case involving two brothers who were partners in a limited liability company (sp. z o.o.). One of them maliciously blocked the other’s dividend payout, fully aware that his brother desperately needed the cash. The case went to a commercial court. Armies of lawyers, forensic accountants, and business valuation experts were brought in. Over time, it turned out that the brothers had simply had a massive falling out over who was supposed to host Christmas Eve dinner. The court could have litigated for ten years without ever touching the true essence of the dispute. Any formal judgment would have only deepened their conflict.

Redefining Victory: What Does It Actually Mean to “Win”?

What, then, constitutes victory? It is certainly not the mere act of winning a court case. If Pyrrhus had been a lawyer, he would have agreed with me without hesitation. For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend Thomas Schelling’s brilliant book, The Strategy of Conflict.

While I have presented a detailed exploration of how winning and losing are defined in a separate article, I will limit myself here to the most common understandings of victory. In practice, they can be divided into four distinct categories:

1. Absolute Victory — Achieving Personal Objectives

You win if you achieve your original, baseline plans.
You win if, post-dispute, you retain more options and opportunities to pursue your core interests.
You win if you incur lower reputational costs.

2. Relational Victory — Outcome Relative to the Opponent

You win if you defeat the opponent in a direct, head-to-head confrontation.
You win if you extract more benefit than the other side.
You win if you inflict heavier losses on the opponent than you sustain yourself.
You win if you drive the exhaustion of the opponent’s resources.
You win if you permanently prevent the opponent from achieving their core interests in the long run.

3. Perceptual Victory — Narrative and Reception

You win if you subjectively perceive yourself as the winner.
You win if your opponent perceives you as the winner.
You win if external observers perceive you as the winner.

4. Strategic Victory — Post-Dispute Position

You win if your relative position improves more significantly: a) compared to your baseline position, b) compared to the opponent’s baseline position, or c) compared to the opponent’s subsequent, post-dispute position.

As we can see, a single legal proceeding rarely guarantees victory in any of these categories. The court rules only on a single fragment of reality—and not necessarily the one that matters most to the parties involved. In divorce, corporate, or asset disputes, a court may decide a crucial matter, but just as often, it touches upon only one of many threads, completely disconnected from what determines a real win or loss.

Furthermore, the outcome of a dispute can be evaluated entirely differently by various individuals. This divergence typically stems from:

The application of different criteria for success;
Access to asymmetrical information; or
Discrepancies in the time horizon through which the consequences are viewed.

The Real Reason Why Smart People Fail

This is exactly why intelligent people lose so often. Driven by sheer determination, they execute actions that:

Either cannot logically lead to their intended goal,
Or the goal itself was defined incorrectly and fails to improve their overall position,
Or they concentrate heavily on the least significant aspect—such as a relational victory (the need to be deemed the winner), which in practice yields a profound strategic defeat.

Yet, this very discrepancy can be useful. It allows parties to save face—which is frequently the ultimate psychological prerequisite for accepting a factual defeat.

Infographic titled “What Does It Mean to Win? The Four Dimensions of Victory” by Jakubiec i Wspólnicy. It presents a circular model showing four types of victory — Absolute, Relational, Perceptual, and Strategic — surrounding a central concept of Real Victory: winning the conflict that truly matters. Each quadrant lists defining criteria, while a separate section explains that Court Victory is only one contributor, not victory itself. The design emphasizes that legal outcomes influence but rarely define real success.

The Anatomy of Failure: Why Smart People Lose in Court

Failure stems from various causes. However, before we dissect them, it is worth noting something crucial: not all failure is inherently bad. Sometimes, a loss closes a flawed alternative and forces a course of action that proves highly beneficial in the long run. Certain failures function merely as a system correction mechanism—painful, yet necessary.

However, if we want to understand why highly intelligent people fail, we must map the root causes of failure across the three dimensions of conflict: the real, the perceptual, and the legal. Most importantly, we must expose the specific errors characteristic precisely of intelligent individuals.

Table: Why Highly Intelligent People Fail Across the Three Dimensions of Conflict?

Dimension of Conflict	Specific Failure Pattern	Why Smart People Are Especially Vulnerable
Real Conflict	Overconfidence	Intelligent individuals overestimate their ability to predict the behavior, intentions, and thresholds of other actors.
Real Conflict	Illusion of Completeness	They construct coherent, elegant narratives from incomplete data because their minds refuse informational gaps.
Real Conflict	Elegance Bias	They prefer intellectually satisfying solutions over those that are operationally effective.
Real Conflict	Planning Fallacy	They underestimate time, cost, friction, and opponent counter‑moves due to excessive trust in their own planning ability.
Perceptual Conflict	Narrative Capture	They become prisoners of their own internally coherent story, which eventually outweighs the actual facts.
Perceptual Conflict	Confirmation Bias 2.0	They do not merely seek confirmation — they actively engineer it through sophisticated rationalization.
Perceptual Conflict	Self‑Justification	Their intelligence makes it harder to admit misjudgment, leading to escalation rather than correction.
Perceptual Conflict	Misreading the Audience	They overestimate how much others care about the conflict, misjudge stakeholder investment, and misread reputational stakes.
Legal Conflict	Legal Tunnel Vision	They equate legal correctness with strategic victory, misunderstanding the limited role of law in a dynamic conflict.
Legal Conflict	Overengineering Arguments	They overcomplicate and over‑refine arguments, losing sight of what actually persuades a judge.
Legal Conflict	Misreading the System	They treat the court as a logical machine rather than a human institution with its own constraints and dynamics.
Legal Conflict	Cost Blindness	Convinced of the righteousness of their cause, they ignore financial, emotional, reputational, and temporal costs.

1. Real Conflict — Flaws in Reality Among Intelligent Minds

It is at this foundational level that intelligence most frequently becomes a trap. This is not because smart people think poorly, but rather because they think too well, and their minds refuse to tolerate ambiguity.

1.1. Overconfidence — Overestimating Predictive Capabilities Intelligent people deeply believe they can accurately predict the behavior of other participants in a conflict. This illusion invariably leads to flawed strategic choices.
1.2. Illusion of Completeness — Constructing Coherent Narratives from Incomplete Data The smarter an individual is, the more effortlessly they craft beautiful, logical explanations to fill information gaps. The problem is that these narratives, while intensely compelling, are often entirely false.
1.3. Elegance Bias — Choosing Elegant Solutions Over Effective Ones Intelligent people have a strong tendency to select courses of action that are logical, aesthetic, and intellectually satisfying—yet do not necessarily work in practice. In litigation, elegant solutions often take the form of sophisticated, academic legal theories, while effective solutions are frequently simple, raw, and tactical.
1.4. Planning Fallacy — Underestimating Time, Costs, and Friction The more someone trusts their own planning capability, the more they blind themselves to random variables, procedural delays, opponent counter-moves, and collateral costs. This is a direct path to strategic disasters.

2. Perceptual Conflict — Flaws in Narrative Among Intelligent Minds

This is the most elusive and treacherous plane. Here, intelligence transforms into the ultimate trap, inadvertently triggering a dangerous spiral of escalation.

2.1. Narrative Capture — Becoming a Prisoner of One’s Own Story The more intelligent an individual is, the more easily they manufacture an internal narrative that perfectly justifies their decisions, explains the opponent’s moves, and imposes order onto chaos. Eventually, this narrative becomes more vital to them than the actual facts.
2.2. Confirmation Bias 2.0 — Intelligent Rationalization Smart people do not merely seek confirmation for their assumptions; they actively engineer it, brilliant at rationalizing reality to fit their preconceived thesis.
2.3. Self-Justification — Defending the Ego The higher the intelligence, the harder it is to admit a miscalculation—to acknowledge a misread situation, a poorly chosen objective, or a failure of one’s own making. Prioritizing ego over core interests always accelerates escalation.
2.4. Misreading the Audience — Flawed Stakeholder Assessment Intelligent individuals frequently overestimate how deeply external parties care about the conflict, how heavily invested the opponent truly is, or how severely their own reputation is at stake. Consequently, they deploy defensive tactics that serve no strategic purpose.

3. Legal (Court) Conflict — Flaws in Procedure Among Intelligent Minds

This is the arena where intelligent people believe most blindly in the power of their intellect. Paradoxically, it is precisely why they suffer their most devastating defeats here.

3.1. Legal Tunnel Vision — Equating Legal Correctness with Strategic Victory A classic delusion: assuming that if you have the law on your side, if your argument is crystal-clear in its logic, and if the statutes support you, you must win. In reality, strict legal correctness is often strategically useless. The most dangerous error is not misunderstanding the law itself; it is misunderstanding the limited role that law plays within a larger, dynamic conflict.
3.2. Overengineering Arguments The smarter the individual, the more they complicate, over-expand, and refine their arguments, completely losing sight of the simple, raw points that actually persuade a judge.
3.3. Misreading the System — Treating the Court as a Logical Machine Intelligent people often refuse to accept that the court does not operate like their own mind, that legal procedure is not a purely intellectual tool, and that a judge is rarely an audience for idealized, academic discourse.
3.4. Cost Blindness — Ignoring Collateral Damage Blinded by the righteousness of their cause, smart individuals stop calculating real transactional costs: financial depletion, emotional fatigue, reputational hits, and the immense cost of lost time.

Failure’s Anatomy Summary

The Anatomy of Failure: A strategic mapping of the 12 behavioral and procedural traps that lead high-IQ individuals and enterprises to catastrophic defeats across the real, perceptual, and legal dimensions of conflict.

Strategic infographic titled "The Anatomy of Failure: Why Smart People Lose in Court" by Jakubiec i Wspólnicy. The chart maps 12 cognitive and tactical traps across three dimensions of conflict: Real Conflict (Overconfidence, Illusion of Completeness, Elegance Bias, Planning Fallacy), Perceptual Conflict (Narrative Capture, Confirmation Bias 2.0, Self-Justification, Misreading the Audience), and Legal Conflict (Legal Tunnel Vision, Overengineering Arguments, Misreading the System, Cost Blindness). The bottom section features a strategic summary and a concluding principle for winning disputes.

Highly intelligent people do not lose because they lack capability; they lose because they become overconfident in the products of their own thinking. They construct logical, elegant models of conflict that work perfectly in their heads but disintegrate in reality. They spin narratives that protect their ego rather than their enterprise. In court, they focus obsessively on legal victory while remaining entirely blind to strategic defeat.

To win, one must first accept that the real, perceptual, and legal systems operate by an entirely different set of rules than those dictated by our own intelligence. Smart people often hire lawyers who resemble themselves — analytical, academic, theoretical — instead of those who actually win trials.

Shifting the Odds: How to Increase Your Chances of Winning

To provide a meaningful answer to how one can increase the chances of winning, we must maintain our core distinction between the three dimensions of conflict. Addressing this question within the Real and Perceptual dimensions—where battles involve complex psychological warfare, market dynamics, and reputational chess—is far too vast a subject for this chapter. Therefore, I will deliberately set those two layers aside for now and focus exclusively on the tactical mechanics of the Legal (Court) Conflict, specifically within the unique and challenging reality of the Polish judicial system.

In Polish litigation, raw intelligence and a sense of moral entitlement are rarely enough. To navigate the procedural rigidity and systemic unpredictability of Polish courts, a smart strategist must adhere to nine fundamental principles:

1. Enter the Courtroom Only When Absolutely Necessary

The Polish judicial system is notoriously overburdened, slow, and formalistic. Litigation should never be your first impulse; it must be your last resort. Treat the decision to file a lawsuit like a declaration of war—an expensive, exhausting measure deployed only when all alternative strategic options, leverage points, and non-judicial mechanisms have been completely exhausted.

2. Master Both the Facts and the Legal Interpretation

Polish civil and commercial procedures are deeply unforgiving of preparation gaps. You must achieve absolute command over two fronts before the first gavel falls:

The Evidentiary Base: Establish an airtight, chronological map of undeniable facts supported by robust documentary evidence.
The Legal Theory: Secure a bulletproof, precise interpretation of the law. In a system where precedents are persuasive but not strictly binding, your legal framework must leave no room for arbitrary interpretation.

3. Rigorously Account for Judicial Risk (Ryzyko Procesowe)

In Poland, “judicial risk” is a structural reality. Different senates or divisions within the exact same court can interpret identical regulations in wildly contrasting ways. Never plan for a best-case scenario. A brilliant strategist calculates the probability of systemic inconsistency, unexpected changes in jurisprudence, and the subjective disposition of the adjudicating judge. If your strategy cannot survive a hostile or unpredictable judicial turn, it is a bad strategy.

4. Select a Top-Tier Trial Advocate

Do not hire an academic or a theorist for a street fight. You need an experienced, highly tactical litigator (adwokat or radca prawny) who understands the gritty reality of Polish courtrooms. A great advocate does not just know the codes; they know how to read the judge, how to react dynamically to unexpected procedural maneuvers by the opponent, and how to deliver surefire, persuasive arguments under extreme time pressure.

5. Secure the Capital Required to Sustain the Siege

Litigation in Poland is rarely a blitzkrieg; it is almost always a war of attrition. Between the initial filing, the exchange of extensive pleadings, delays in scheduling hearings, and the inevitable appellate process, a case can easily drag on for years. You must secure and isolate the necessary financial resources upfront. Entering a legal dispute with a tight budget is a fatal vulnerability; running out of capital midway through a trial forces catastrophic settlements.

6. Construct Razor-Sharp Evidentiary Hypotheses (Tezy Dowodowe)

Under current Polish procedural law, preclusion rules are exceptionally strict. You cannot simply throw a mountain of documents at a judge and hope they find the truth. Every single piece of evidence, every witness, and every expert report must be accompanied by a meticulously drafted, precise evidentiary hypothesis (teza dowodowa). You must clearly state exactly what a specific piece of evidence proves and why it is legally relevant to the core layout of the case. Loose, vague motions will be ruthlessly dismissed by the court.

7. Never Treat the Trial as an End in Itself

The courtroom is not a theater for personal vindication or academic debates. A lawsuit is merely a highly specialized instrument within your broader business or personal framework. Always keep your eyes on the ultimate strategic outcome. If a specific procedural victory does not improve your real-world position, protect your assets, or open up new opportunities, it is an expensive distraction. Never sacrifice your enterprise to win a point of law.

8. Remember that Witnesses and Court Experts Are Only Human

Smart people often expect the court to behave like a flawless, data-driven machine, but it is staffed entirely by human beings.

Witnesses are deeply unreliable: they forget crucial details over time, perceive events through biased lenses, get confused under cross-examination, or cave under psychological pressure.
Court-Appointed Experts (Biegli Sądowi)—who carry immense weight in Polish litigation—are also susceptible to human flaws. They can be overworked, deliver superficial or deeply flawed opinions, succumb to professional inertia, or struggle to grasp highly modern business models. Your strategy must always build in a margin of safety for human error and cognitive bias.

9. Run Parallel Negotiations — The Courtroom Door Is Never Locked

A highly sophisticated strategist understands that litigation and negotiation are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary tracks. The fact that you are fighting fiercely inside the courtroom should never stop you from talking outside of it. Parallel negotiations can run continuously, addressing not only the narrow legal dispute itself but also all the broader, structural elements of the conflict that the court is legally blind to. Quite often, a well-executed, aggressive lawsuit is the exact catalyst needed to force a stubborn opponent into a highly favorable settlement.

Litigation is never the battlefield — it is only the visible fragment of a much larger strategic landscape.

Table: Nine Principles for Increasing Your Chances of Winning in Polish Litigation

Principle	Core Idea	Strategic Rationale
Enter the Courtroom Only When Necessary	Litigation must be a last resort, not a first impulse.	Polish courts are slow, overloaded, and formalistic; premature litigation destroys leverage and drains resources.
Master Facts and Legal Interpretation	Achieve total command over evidence and legal theory.	Polish procedure punishes gaps; only airtight facts + precise legal framing survive judicial scrutiny.
Account for Judicial Risk	Build a strategy that survives inconsistent jurisprudence.	Identical cases can be decided differently; planning for unpredictability is mandatory.
Select a Top‑Tier Trial Advocate	Choose a tactical litigator, not an academic.	Winning requires courtroom instincts, judge‑reading, and rapid tactical adaptation.
Secure Litigation Capital	Prepare financial reserves for a multi‑year siege.	Running out of funds mid‑trial forces catastrophic settlements and strategic collapse.
Construct Razor‑Sharp Evidentiary Hypotheses	Every piece of evidence must have a precise, articulated purpose.	Strict preclusion rules eliminate vague motions; only targeted evidence survives.
Never Treat the Trial as an End in Itself	Court victories matter only if they improve real‑world position.	Procedural wins without strategic value are expensive distractions.
Expect Human Fallibility	Witnesses and experts are unreliable, biased, and inconsistent.	Polish courts rely heavily on human testimony and expert opinions — both structurally fallible.
Run Parallel Negotiations	Litigate and negotiate simultaneously.	Court pressure often unlocks settlements; negotiations address dimensions the court cannot see.

Conclusion

Winning in the legal arena demands far more than raw intelligence or an airtight legal argument. As we have dissected, high-IQ individuals and sophisticated corporate actors routinely suffer catastrophic defeats not from a lack of capability, but because they fall prey to their own cognitive biases—becoming captive to elegant models, misreading human fallibility, and confusing strict legal correctness with overarching strategic victory.

Ultimately, a court case is never a standalone battle; it is merely a single subplot within a much larger, dynamic conflict. To tilt the scales in your favor—especially within the rigid and unpredictable landscape of Polish litigation—you must discipline your mind to look beyond the courtroom doors. You must balance aggressive procedural tactics with cold, objective reality, recognize the human limitations of the system, and never stop negotiating outside the courtroom. True victory belongs to those who refuse to let their ego dictate their strategy, and who understand that the ultimate goal is not merely to win a point of law, but to protect and advance their real-world enterprise.

Call to Action

When the stakes are high, you cannot afford to rely on legal correctness alone. If your enterprise is facing a complex corporate, commercial, or asset dispute, you need more than just a firm that files pleadings—you need a partner who maps the entire conflict.

Let us dissect the reality of your dispute before the system dissects it for you.

Contact Jakubiec i Wspólnicy today to schedule a strategic consultation. Together, we will look beyond the legal subplot, neutralize cognitive traps, and engineer a path to real, strategic victory.

FAQ

Q1: If I have a 90% chance of winning a case legally, shouldn’t I push forward to a judgment?

A: Legally, yes; strategically, it depends entirely on what that judgment will cost you in the Real and Perceptualdimensions of the conflict. In Polish commercial disputes, a multi-year trial can drain your management’s time, exhaust financial resources, and paralyze business operations. If a 90% legal victory results in a 100% reputational disaster or leaves your enterprise financially depleted, it is a net strategic defeat. Always weigh the transaction costs against the real-world value of the judgment.

Q2: Why does high intelligence make corporate leaders more vulnerable to legal traps?

A: High intelligence is an asset, but without behavioral discipline, it breeds Overconfidence and Elegance Bias. Brilliant minds refuse informational gaps, so they construct beautifully logical, internally coherent narratives (Illusion of Completeness) that explain the conflict perfectly—in their heads. They often fall in love with sophisticated legal theories rather than simple, raw, tactical moves. They lose because they become captive to the perfection of their own models, failing to realize that the courtroom is a human institution, not a logical machine.

Q3: How do you negotiate with an opponent while simultaneously fighting them fiercely in court?

A: By treating litigation not as an emotional vendetta, but as a dynamic leverage generator. Filing a precise, aggressive lawsuit changes the opponent’s calculus, escalates their Cost Blindness, and directly attacks their Perceptual stability. You do not negotiate out of weakness; you use the procedural pressure created inside the courtroom as the exact catalyst to force a rational, structured conversation outside of it. The courtroom door is never locked.

Q4: Court-appointed experts (Biegli sądowi) are professionals. Why do you label them as a systemic risk?

A: Because they are human beings operating within a heavily burdened system. In Polish litigation, experts carry immense structural weight, yet they frequently suffer from professional inertia, severe overwork, or a lack of familiarity with highly modern, fast-paced business models. An expert can misread data, deliver a superficial report, or succumb to cognitive bias. A sophisticated legal strategy must always factor in this margin for human error and include targeted, razor-sharp evidentiary hypotheses to steer the expert’s focus precisely.

Q5: What is the difference between winning a “case” and winning a “conflict”?

A: A court case is merely a highly formalistic subplot. Winning a case means obtaining a favorable ruling on a specific, narrow legal claim (e.g., overturning a corporate resolution or enforcing a single contractual clause). Winning a conflictmeans protecting your long-term baseline, expanding your future strategic options, and advancing your core enterprise interests. If your legal victory does not improve your real-world position, you have simply mastered the procedure while failing the strategy.

business lawyer in Poland, cognitive bias, commercial law, disputes resolutionsJune 7, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

Cognitive Traps and Their Impact on Decision‑Making in the Fogg Model

In several previous texts, I presented some cognitive biases (thinking traps), including the fundamental attribution error, tunnel vision, and my original concept of the Coupled Confirmation Bias. I wrote about them mainly in the context of their impact on the dynamics of conflict, which I observe in my daily work. Now I want to take a step further and show how these same mechanisms influence the decision‑making process in the Fogg model.

To move forward, I introduce a set of tools I’ve developed myself — three decision’s parameters and eight resulting decision types. In the next section, I walk through how these elements interact and why they matter. This framework is entirely my own creation; I find it promising and intuitively useful, though it still needs to be tested in practice. For now, it remains a proposal — and I state that openly.

What Are Cognitive Biases?

Cognitive biases are, in other words, errors or traps in thinking. The term was popularized by Daniel Kahneman. This outstanding psychologist published the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, in which he described mechanisms that affect all of us. Not because something is wrong with us. These mechanisms serve important functions. They simplify many matters. They allow us, for example, to conserve energy or solve a given problem well enough to move on to the next one.

But in complex social relationships, they cause us to misjudge reality, create false narratives in our minds, and ultimately make poor decisions.

Which Cognitive Biases Do We Know?

There are many cognitive biases, and we have probably not discovered all of them yet. Here I will briefly present only a few:

Confirmation bias
Fundamental Attribution Error
Status quo bias
Sunk costs fallacy
Coupled Confirmation Bias – my original concept (and its extension), which is only a hypothesis and requires further development and empirical validation.
Tunnel vision, which is not a cognitive bias in itself, but a systemic mechanism.

The impact of cognitive biases on decision‑making — for example, in the context of reaching agreements — is the subject of extensive scientific research. Some of them are considered inhibiting, others reinforcing. This distinction is useful for drawing further conclusions.

Below I will present, in order:

the mode of decision‑making in the Fogg model, and
the parameters of a decision once it is made.

Only then will I show how selected cognitive biases can influence both whether we make a decision at all, and the content of that decision.

The Fogg Decision‑Making Model

The Fogg model describes human behavior as the result of three interacting components: motivation, ability, and a trigger. A behavior — including a decision — occurs only when all three appear at the same moment.

This means that even if a person wants to make a decision (motivation). And even if they can make it (ability), the decision will not happen without a trigger. Conversely, even a strong trigger will not work if motivation is too low or the action feels too difficult.

In practice, this model explains why people in conflict often remain stuck in indecision, delay key steps, or choose actions that are irrational from the outside. Their internal configuration of motivation, ability, and triggers is disrupted — and cognitive biases play a decisive role in that disruption.

Diagram illustrating the Fogg Behavior Model — showing how motivation, ability, and prompts interact to produce behavior (B = MAP). The vertical axis represents motivation from low to high, and the horizontal axis represents ability from hard to easy. A curved green “action line” divides the space: prompts succeed above the line and fail below it. The model explains that behavior occurs only when motivation, ability, and a prompt converge at the same moment.

Let us remember that, for a decision to occur, all three elements —

motivation,
ability, and
trigger — must appear together. I have already discussed this in detail in a previous text.

Now I will pose a question:

What Is “Ability” in Fogg’s Framework?

I understand ability as a property whose characteristics are better captured by the word feasibility. I did not elaborate on this aspect in the previous article, so I will do it now.

In the Fogg model, feasibility — in my interpretation — is the resultant of two subjectively perceived factors:

one’s own capabilities, and
the difficulty of the task.

Only the decision‑maker’s perception matters. Of course, they may misjudge the situation due to a cognitive error or faulty data. Interestingly, such an error may ultimately lead to a beneficial decision.

Imagine that I have incomplete or inaccurate data. Acting under the influence of a logical or cognitive error, I draw incorrect conclusions from them. Those conclusions would be considered correct if I had access to complete or accurate data — and if I were not acting under the influence of error.

This can be summarized in one sentence: Fogg’s triad influences the act of decision‑making, which is not identical with the way the decision is executed. The manner of executing a previously made decision is described by decision parameters (discussed below).

What Are the 8 Types of Decisions?

I propose that decisions analyzed through the lens of their execution should be assigned three parameters. These parameters determine how the decision is carried out. The three decision parameters I propose below allow me to distinguish eight types of decisions.

In the following section, I present how each configuration combines to form these eight decision types. This is my original concept, which I find highly useful, though it naturally requires further testing. For now, it remains solely my own proposal, which I state explicitly.

My proposal of 3 Decision’s Parameters

The three decision’s parameters are: vector, dynamics, and determination (I am considering whether momentum might be a better term).

1. Vector

Its reference point is the current state. Its value is 0 or 1. Let 0 denote a tendency to remain in the existing arrangement, and 1 a drive toward change.

2. Dynamics

Let us distinguish two values of dynamics: (+) and (–), where (+) means that the decision results in action, and (–) means passivity.

3. Determination

Let us define two levels: (L) and (H), where (L) stands for low determination, and (H) stands for high determination.

Vector expresses the attitude toward the current state and its change. A decision to defend the status quo or to alter it may be realized — depending on circumstances — through passivity or action (dynamics + or –). Determination is a function of readiness to engage, which I understand as the resultant of:

willingness to bear costs (financial, reputational, organizational, energetic, or even biological), and
tolerance of risk.

Vector, dynamics, and determination form a simplified heuristic model created by me (at least I am not aware of any publications that use these parameters — apart from the previously mentioned inhibiting and reinforcing biases). Its usefulness certainly requires further research — for now, it remains a hypothetical model.

I also emphasize that the human psyche is not mathematics — yet paradoxically, mathematics allows us to understand the psyche better.

Table 1: The Three Decision’s Parameters

Decision Parameter	Parameter Value	Description and Meaning of the Parameter
Vector	0	Indicates a tendency to maintain the current state. The decision‑maker interprets the situation as one in which it is better to remain with the status quo.
	1	Indicates a drive to change the current state. The decision‑maker concludes that the existing arrangement requires modification or abandonment.
Dynamics	+	A decision executed through action. It means actively doing something intended to maintain or change the state.
	–	A decision executed through passivity. It means refraining from action as a way of achieving the goal (maintaining or changing the state).
Determination	L	Low determination. Indicates limited willingness to bear costs and low risk tolerance. The decision is weak and easily altered.
	H	High determination. Indicates a strong willingness to bear costs (financial, emotional, organizational, biological) and high risk tolerance. The decision is strong and stable.

Using the three parameters listed above allows us to distinguish eight types of decisions.

Table 2: Eight Types of Decisions

Decision Type No.	Vector	Dynamics	Determination	Description of the Decision	Example
1	0	–	L	A decision to maintain the status quo through passivity with low determination	I decide to sleep a bit longer
2	0	–	H	A decision to maintain the status quo through non‑action with high determination	Sitting on a tree, I decide not to move so I don’t fall
3	0	+	L	A decision to maintain the status quo through action with low determination	I decide to shoo away the cat that is waking me up
4	0	+	H	A decision to maintain the status quo through action with high determination	I defend my daughter from an attacker
5	1	–	L	A decision to bring about change through passivity with low determination	I don’t water flowers I dislike so they will wither
6	1	–	H	A decision to bring about change through passivity with high determination	I decide not to save someone when I want them to drown
7	1	+	L	A decision to bring about change through action with low determination	I want to trim the cat’s claws
8	1	+	H	A decision to bring about change through action with high determination	I want to escape from prison

Jakubiec eight types of decisions

Let us add that:

decisions with vector 0 (maintaining the status quo), and
decisions with negative dynamics (–), i.e., achieving the goal through passivity,

do not in any way mean the absence of a decision. These are not the same. I may decide to sit quietly and remain motionless so that someone does not find me. That decision is not the same as externally observed passivity caused, for example, by apathy or an ambivalent attitude toward the situation.

Similarly, it must be noted that:

a decision aimed at change (Vector 1) cannot be equated with action (+), and
a decision aimed at defending the status quo (Vector 0) cannot be equated with the absence of action.

The initial state (status quo) may be so desirable that we decide to defend it actively (vector 0, dynamics +). Thus, not wanting change, we will take action. Example: If I want a drowning person to survive, I will rescue them. Not wanting to allow a change (life → death), I will take action.

Conversely, it may happen that in striving for change we decide not to act. If I want a drowning person to die, it is enough that I do not rescue them. Drowning represents a change in their state (life → death) brought about by my passivity. Here we have vector 1, negative dynamics, and a level of determination which, in this example, we do not know — but we assume it would have to be very high.

For completeness, it must also be stated that the absence of a decision to change is not identical with a decision to maintain the status quo. A lack of decision results from the absence of at least one element of the decision triad (see above). Thus, the absence of a decision may result from a lack of motivation, a subjectively perceived lack of feasibility, or the absence of a trigger. This does not necessarily mean that the stimulus is irrelevant to us. It may, for example, generate motivation, but we will not make a decision because the task appears unfeasible. In such a situation, the objective absence of action cannot be equated with passivity as a chosen parameter of a made decision.

Example

When encountering a bear in the mountains, I may decide either to surrender or to save my life. But whether I achieve this by playing dead, fighting, or running — that is a parameter of the decision. And in this respect, it may be chosen correctly or incorrectly: I may run up a tree the bear can climb after me, or hide in a rock crevice where it cannot reach me. This does not change the fact that I decided to stay alive (vector 0) through action in the form of escape (dynamics +) or through passivity in the form of playing dead (dynamics –), with high determination in each case (H).

As I indicated above, one must distinguish between lying down because I consciously chose to survive by playing dead, and lying down because I concluded that I have no chance anyway, and besides, I have not wanted to live for a long time.

What Is the Relationship Between Cognitive Biases, the Decision Triad, and Decision Parameters?

Above, I outlined three areas: cognitive biases, the decision triad, and the decision parameters. A natural question arises: how can these elements relate to one another?

Let us begin with the clarification that there is no determinism here. Cognitive biases do not determine a given decision, but they significantly increase the tendency — they “pull” in a particular direction. I also note that one may simultaneously remain under the influence of two or more biases, originating from different sources, whose effects intersect at a given moment, each “pushing” the decision‑maker in a different (or the same) direction.

The Influence of Cognitive Biases on the Decision Triad (the Act of Making a Decision)

As indicated above, cognitive biases may act at every stage and level of decision‑making and decision execution. It may turn out that when the decision triad is activated, one bias becomes influential, and when setting the parameters of execution, we operate under the influence of another. It may also happen that two biases act simultaneously, and their mutual relationship is positive (they act in the same direction), partially opposing, or entirely opposing. Most often, however, we will remain under the influence of one of them.

Let us assume that cognitive biases may influence:

the emergence of motivation by affecting the evaluation of the stimulus that generates emotion, and consequently the direction or strength of motivation;
the subjective assessment of feasibility;
susceptibility to a trigger.

Let us also assume that, with respect to each element of the decision triad, the influence of a cognitive bias may be reinforcing or weakening.

Motivation

A cognitive bias may influence the very existence of motivation (trigger it or extinguish it), and may strengthen or weaken existing motivation.

Perception of Feasibility

A cognitive bias may influence the assessment of feasibility and make the sense of feasibility stronger or weaker (both by affecting the perception of one’s own capabilities and the subjectively perceived difficulty of the task itself).

A distorted assessment caused by a cognitive bias may therefore result in:

evaluating a task as feasible when it is not feasible;
evaluating a task as unfeasible when it is feasible.

and consequently:

making a decision when the goal is “desirable” but objectively unattainable (lack of feasibility);
not making a decision when the goal is objectively attainable and desirable.

Trigger

With respect to the trigger, a cognitive bias may strengthen or weaken its effect. This means that, at a sufficient intensity of cognitive distortion:

certain cognitive biases may interpret as a trigger a factor that, under other circumstances, would not be interpreted that way;
an objectively strong trigger may turn out to be too weak, even though it would be sufficient to make a decision if the bias of that type and intensity were not present;
an objectively weak trigger may turn out to be strong enough to make a decision, even though without the presence of a bias of that type and intensity, it would not be sufficient.

To illustrate this, I will use a table showing the possible influence of selected cognitive biases on a chosen element of the decision triad — feasibility.

Table 3: Influence of Selected Cognitive Biases on the Perception of Task Feasibility in the Fogg Model

Cognitive Bias	How It Distorts the Perception of Feasibility	Consequences for Making a Decision About Change in the Fogg Model
Confirmation bias	Reinforces the belief that previous actions were correct	May result in a decision to change / or no decision to change
Fundamental Attribution Error	Explains the other party’s stance by attributing it to presumed internal traits (e.g., character traits)	May result in a decision to change / or no decision to change
Feedback loop	Strengthens initial assumptions, leading to radicalization	May result in a decision to change / or no decision to change
Coupled Confirmation Bias	Leads to radicalization and escalation	Results in a decision to change
Status quo bias	Leads to a desire to maintain the current state (status quo)	Results in no decision to change
Sunk cost fallacy	Leads to a desire to maintain the current state (status quo) and deepen it	Results in no decision to change
Hyper‑usefulness bias (AI)	Strengthens initial assumptions, which may lead to radicalization	May result in a decision to change / or no decision to change

The Influence of Cognitive Biases on Decision Parameters

A cognitive bias may — independently of its earlier influence on the very act of making a decision according to the Fogg model — appear and exert its effect at the next stage, i.e., when setting the parameters for executing the decision.

Thus, it may influence the vector of the decision and result in our reacting to a given stimulus by making an incorrect decision about maintaining or changing the current state. Example: the radio is playing too loudly. I decide to remove the inconsistency between the volume of the music and my well‑being. A cognitive bias may cause me, instead of adjusting the radio to myself — lowering the volume or turning it off (vector 1, dynamics +, determination L) — to try to “get used to it” (vector 1, dynamics –, determination L).

A cognitive bias may influence the dynamics of the decision and result in my choosing action instead of non‑action incorrectly, after having already set the vector (my stance toward the current state). Example: during a trek, my leg hurts. I want to eliminate the pain (vector 1 — change of the current state). But under the influence of a cognitive bias, I incorrectly choose the dynamics and opt for activity (walking off the pain) instead of passivity (stopping and resting).

Cognitive biases may likewise influence determination, increasing or weakening it. This results in greater engagement and greater willingness to take risks than would follow from a rational assessment. Example: a poorly managed company is generating losses, and my business partner once again asks me to contribute a significant amount of money. A cognitive bias in the form of the sunk cost fallacy may increase my determination to invest more (vector 0 — decision to stay, dynamics + in the form of contributing more funds), causing me to invest more than I would if I were not under the influence of this bias.

As we can see, cognitive biases may independently affect each element of the decision triad and each of the decision parameters.

The Operation of a Cognitive Bias and Its Possible Consequences

I understand the decision‑making process as follows:

first, there is a stimulus;
then, the decision triad results in making a decision or not making a decision;
next, the decision parameters are selected, which serve the function of executing the decision.

I emphasize that the choice of decision parameters may be correct or incorrect (like running up a tree to escape a bear). They are merely tools — ways of executing a decision whose source lies in motivation. Whether we correctly perform the fundamental reasoning — choosing the method of achieving the goal — depends on us or on external factors.

In legal practice, I often see how frequently people make serious errors here: they want to achieve something, but they use tools that cannot bring them closer to the goal. Or they use the right tools incorrectly.

The errors we may commit when setting decision parameters can be divided into:

choosing a tool that under no circumstances serves the achievement of the given goal;
choosing a tool that, under these circumstances, is not suitable for achieving the intended goal;
incorrect use of a correctly chosen tool:
- regarding the method,
- regarding the direction.

Let us note that cognitive biases may influence the final shape of our decision at every stage of its formation:

the emergence of motivation;
the assessment of feasibility;
susceptibility to a trigger;
the setting of the parameters for executing the decision.

How Can a Specific Cognitive Bias Distort Decisions?

Let us now examine how certain cognitive biases may influence:

the act of making a decision (Fogg’s decision triad), and
the parameters of that decision: vector, dynamics, and determination.

I do not have space here to show all possible variants: the influence of every identified bias on each element of the decision triad and each element of the decision parameters. Nor do I have space to show the influence of “clusters of cognitive biases” operating simultaneously or sequentially.

What I can do within this article is show how one bias affects the decision‑making process. I will therefore use confirmation bias.

As a starting point, we must of course assume the most probable decision that would be made if the bias were not present.

The Influence of Confirmation Bias on Individual Elements of the Decision Process

Let us use the example described earlier — encountering a bear in the mountains.

My biological sensors detect danger → motivation to preserve life arises → I assess the task as feasible → the trigger is the assessment that a short time window appears in which I have a chance, but I must act now → I make the decision that I want to stay alive (vector 0) → as the tool (in this case) I choose playing dead (passivity, dynamics –) → my determination is very high (H).

This determination is very interesting in this example. It manifests in my tolerance for costs — the bear may scratch me, test me, even step on me, but I decide to remain in an uncomfortable situation (one I am not accustomed to), in which I suffer successive losses and injuries, for as long as necessary.

How can confirmation bias operate in such a situation? Recall that it consists in seeking confirmation of the correctness of a previously made decision and attributing confirmatory value to factors that do not logically carry it.

The influence of this bias may be presented in the following table.

Table 4: The Influence of Confirmation Bias on the Decision‑Making Process

Stage of the Decision Process	Element	Influence of Confirmation Bias: Reinforcement or Weakening	Effect
Fogg Triad	Motivation	↑ or ↓	We become inclined to maintain the previously chosen course
	Feasibility	↑ or ↓	The perception of feasibility becomes distorted. The direction depends on whether the analyzed action aligns with the previously chosen course
	Trigger	↑ or ↓	We may become over‑reactive or, conversely, fail to react to triggers that we would respond to if the bias were absent
Decision Parameters	Vector (0/1)	—	The vector becomes confirmed
	Dynamics (+/–)	—	The chosen dynamics becomes reinforced
	Determination (L/H)	—	Determination increases to an irrational level

The Influence of Various Cognitive Biases on a Selected Element of the Decision Process

As mentioned above, each cognitive bias may act on each element of the decision process (individually or in selected combinations). Above, I showed how a single cognitive bias — confirmation bias — affects the entire decision‑making process. Now I will show how each cognitive bias may act on a selected element of the decision process. Let that element be the vector of the decision. For simplicity, I will remain with the familiar example of the bear encounter.

Table 5: Influence of Selected Cognitive Biases on the Decision Vector (Using the Bear Encounter Example)

Cognitive Bias	How It Distorts the Assessment of the Situation	Influence on the Decision Vector (0 = status quo / 1 = change)	Bear Example
Confirmation bias	Strengthens earlier assumptions and interpretations	May reinforce vector 0 or 1 depending on the prior narrative	Wanting to survive, I may engage in wishful thinking and see opportunities where none exist, just to maintain hope
Fundamental Attribution Error	Attributes the bear’s behavior to its “bad intentions” rather than the situation	May reinforce vector 0 or 1 depending on the prior narrative	I assume the bear “will definitely attack me,” even though it is only observing me → I start running, which provokes it to chase me
Status quo bias	Overestimates the safety of the current state	Pushes toward vector 0	I remain motionless even though the bear has noticed me and the situation requires change
Sunk cost fallacy	Strengthens attachment to the previous strategy	Reinforces vector 0 or 1 depending on the situation	“Since I’ve already endured so long pretending to be dead, I must endure longer” — even though the situation is worsening because the bear is sitting on me and I may suffocate
Coupled Confirmation Bias	Does not occur because the bear does not use AI (for now)	Does not apply	Does not apply
Tunnel vision	Narrows perception to one aspect of the situation	Strengthens the chosen vector	I climbed a tree and feel relieved that I saved my life. I suppress the fact that bears climb trees very well and will be up here shortly
Feedback loop	Strengthens the initial interpretation through successive stimuli	Reinforces vector 1 or 0, usually toward escalation	I sit in the tree and call a friend who tells me it was a great idea. My conviction is reinforced — at least until the bear gets hungry enough to come after me
Hyper‑usefulness bias	Overestimates the accuracy of earlier “suggestions” or heuristics	Vector is set according to the earlier “suggestion,” not the real situation	If, sitting in the tree, I ask AI whether I made the right choice, and my digital assistant replies: “Andrzej, that was an excellent decision…” I may become so confident that I start provoking the bear

The Influence of Cognitive Biases on Decision‑Making and Decision Parameters. Summary

An attempt to analyze the operation of individual cognitive biases allows us to cautiously draw the conclusion that some of them tend to influence specific decision parameters in characteristic ways. As an example, I will use a two‑dimensional chart that includes only vector and dynamics, but does not include determination (this would require a three‑dimensional chart). We can see that some biases are more likely to “pull” a given parameter in a particular direction, while others may have no influence on, for example, dynamics, but will influence the vector. This can be cautiously presented in the following way.

Infographic illustrating the influence of cognitive biases on decision parameters in the Fogg model. The matrix shows how biases such as confirmation bias, sunk cost fallacy, and tunnel thinking affect the vector (0→1) and dynamics (+/–) of decision‑making.

Let us remember one thing from this. To err is human. We all make mistakes, constantly. Some of the causes of our errors are within our control; others are not. Cognitive biases have the particular feature of operating covertly, exerting a very strong influence on how we perceive reality. They pull us in like quicksand and can cause us to lose contact with reality.

The easiest way to protect ourselves from them is by learning about them, studying them, and checking the logic of our thinking. If we know them, we will learn to detect them — and that will protect us from many extremely costly mistakes.

AI in my work, cognitive bias, commercial law, family casesJune 6, 20260 comments

by dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

VIP Divorce in Poland: Strategy of Assets and Reputation Protection

A Comprehensive Legal and Behavioral Guide to Strategic Matrimonial Proceedings

What exactly is a VIP divorce? Let us clarify at the outset—it is not about charging disproportionate fees, nor is it about selective diligence or varying levels of commitment. As a professional European law firm, we fully immerse ourselves in every case entrusted to us. We derive immense satisfaction from the trust our clients place in us and the profound sense of security we provide. The distinct nature of a high-profile or high-net-worth divorce process does not mean we treat anyone better. We treat every client with the utmost respect, dedicating as much time and attention as their specific circumstances demand.

Where, then, lies the fundamental difference, and why do certain matrimonial proceedings require the deployment of extraordinary protective measures? The answer lies in an interdisciplinary approach that seamlessly integrates international best practices, advanced behavioral analysis, and strategic brand and reputation management. Our role is not limited to legal representation. We act as strategic advisors, coordinating legal, reputational, and psychological dimensions of the case to strengthen the client’s strategic position.

The 5-Dimensional Risk Model for VIP Divorce in Poland: A Strategic Framework Engineered to Mitigate Litigation Risks and Secure Confidential, Amicable Out-of-Court Settlements. The visual framework below illustrates how these five dimensions integrate into a unified strategic protection model.

As demonstrated, our objective is always to achieve a confidential, amicable, and mutual settlement whenever feasible.

Case Study: High-Net-Worth Medical Partners and Corporate Asset Protection

This precise analytical and operational framework proved highly effective in a recent case involving high-net-worth clients—two medical doctors who co-owned and managed a renowned medical clinic. Both parties recognized from the outset that a “dirty divorce” would inflict devastating reputational damage, which is particularly catastrophic in the healthcare sector where patient trust is paramount.

Through our intervention, both sides quickly understood that an unconstrained conflict would result in mutually assured destruction. By deploying our strategic protocols, we successfully achieved the following:

Immediate Narrative Control: We swiftly blocked emerging leaks and private information from surfacing in the public domain;
Containment of Horizontal Escalation: We halted toxic tactical maneuvers at an early stage, preventing the recruitment of clinic employees, staff, and commercial contractors into the personal marital dispute;
Establishing “Rules of the Game”: We negotiated a strict behavioral framework with the opposing counsel—a rare achievement in the typical realities of Polish family litigation. We clearly defined the boundaries of the remaining dispute and the precise legal instruments that each side was permitted to use.

Crucially, once both parties observed that the other side was consistently adhering to the agreed-upon rules, mutual trust began to rebuild. This stabilization created the necessary psychological and procedural space to engineer a final, comprehensive out-of-court settlement that fully secured the long-term interests of both parties.

Defining the VIP Client in Divorce Proceedings

In the context of matrimonial law, “VIP status” is not a matter of prestige, but rather an objective necessity for specialized, defensive services. This requirement stems from the client’s prominent professional, financial, or social standing when navigating a complex Divorce in Poland.

Divorce for Public Figures and Celebrities (Show Business, Politics, Sports)

A VIP client is anyone whose public exposure necessitates heightened image protection. In an era of instantaneous global media coverage, the professional longevity of public figures, politicians, and high-profile athletes is inextricably linked to their public reputation and compliance with international benchmarks.

In these cases, a VIP divorce encompasses far more than standard courtroom representation. It requires active media crisis management, the robust protection of personality rights, and swift, decisive legal action against disinformation, defamation, and privacy violations. Polish divorce proceedings are conducted in camera, without public access, which provides a strong baseline of confidentiality that we actively reinforce under international privacy standards.

Divorce for Business Leaders and Corporate Executives (Corporate Divorce)

The VIP tier also includes individuals who may not be household names but whose reputational stability is vital within their organization and among key commercial partners. This category comprises business owners, founders, and C-suite executives of major corporate entities.

During a marital crisis, these individuals often become targets of tactical maneuvers orchestrated by the opposing party, designed to undermine their corporate standing or standing among shareholders. We frequently encounter hostile public relations campaigns, deliberate provocations, or fabricated allegations aimed at proving that the executive is acting to the detriment of the company or failing to exercise due diligence. Our firm has developed structured protocols to mitigate the risk of corporate destabilization. Where appropriate, we implement protective corporate structures and strict confidentiality mechanisms, utilizing tools discussed in our comprehensive overview of the NDA in Poland and Contractual Penalties.

Divorce for High-Net-Worth Individuals (HNWI) & Complex Asset Division

Another critical group consists of high-net-worth individuals facing intense, multi-layered financial disputes. Under these high-stakes conditions, a thorough financial audit and division of marital assets become paramount. One of the most critical strategic choices early on is evaluating the impact of fault on asset division, spousal maintenance, and corporate standing. We guide our clients through these high-stakes decisions by analyzing the nuances of Fault vs. No-Fault Divorce options under Polish law.

We provide sophisticated legal counsel that includes tracing complex cash flows, analyzing separate versus marital property contributions, and meticulously establishing a realistic lifestyle analysis for alimony and child support determinations. We work in close coordination with specialized tax advisors to ensure that asset restructuring does not trigger unforeseen tax liabilities. Our team possesses extensive experience in protecting and dividing both traditional assets (real estate portfolios, corporate shares, fine art) and modern financial instruments, including cryptocurrencies and digital tokens.

VIP Divorce Risk Matrix: Key Threats and Strategic Countermeasures

The matrix below summarises the five dimensions of risk and the corresponding strategic countermeasures applied in VIP divorce cases.

Risk Category	Typical Threats in VIP Divorce	Strategic Countermeasures	Relevant Tools & Procedures
Reputational Risk	Media leaks, defamation, hostile PR, online harassment, narrative manipulation	Controlled communication strategy; rapid legal response; personality-rights protection	PR consultants; cease-and-desist letters; injunctive relief; confidentiality protocols
Corporate & Professional Risk	Attempts to undermine position in company; fabricated allegations; provoked incidents	Pre-emptive documentation; internal-risk mapping; corporate-structure shielding	NDAs; contractual penalties; internal compliance procedures
Financial & Asset Risk	Hidden assets; complex structures; tax exposure; aggressive claims	Forensic audit; lifestyle analysis; asset-tracing; tax-neutral restructuring	Tax advisors; financial experts; valuation reports; cryptocurrency tracing
Behavioral & Psychological Risk	Manipulation, provocation, escalation, parental alienation	Behavioral profiling; conflict-pattern analysis; scenario planning	Psychologists; OZSS preparation; mediation strategy
Procedural & Litigation Risk	No discovery; evidentiary gaps; interim-order pressure; long litigation	Independent evidence building; early injunctions; mediation leverage	Interim injunctions; private investigators; AI-assisted data analysis

A Strategy Anchored in Conflict Theory and Behavioral Analysis

A modern, high-stakes divorce cannot be confined solely to traditional litigation. Understanding the dynamics of complex strategic interactions, our firm implements advanced methods rooted in conflict theory (drawing upon classical strategic models such as Thomas Schelling’s game theory).

Poland does not have a discovery system, which fundamentally changes the evidentiary strategy. Since parties are not legally forced to disclose all documents automatically, building an independent evidentiary foundation is essential. To maintain an edge in data compilation and pattern recognition, we integrate modern technology into our workflow, leveraging AI in Family Law Cases to analyze vast amounts of financial and communication data.

By collaborating with specialized psychologists and behavioral analysts, we construct a lawful and highly accurate psychological profile of the opposing party. This strategic intelligence allows us to anticipate with high probability:

The opponent’s risk tolerance or risk aversion;
Preferred tactical maneuvers (confrontational escalation vs. defensive insulation);
Critical leverage points where an amicable, out-of-court settlement becomes the most rational outcome for both sides.

By replacing guesswork with calculated behavioral data, we systematically navigate the strategic landscape to protect your interests.

Evidentiary Realities and Parental Matters in the Polish System

Navigating the Polish courts requires a deep understanding of domestic procedural reality. Because there is no jury, the strategy must be strictly tailored to objective, legal, and behavioral proof that satisfies a professional judge.

When children are involved, a priority is establishing clear custody and residency structures. You can learn more about how judges approach these determinations in our practical guide to Child Custody in Poland. Furthermore, high-profile divorces often trigger toxic litigation tactics, including parental alienation. We specialize in protecting the child’s psychological well-being and managing international mobility issues, specifically in Holidays Abroad with a Foreign Father and Defeating Parental Alienation Tactics in Polish Courts.

Expert opinions from the Court-Appointed Team of Expert Witnesses (OZSS – Opiniodawczy Zespół Sądowych Specjalistów) often play a decisive role in parental matters. We prepare our clients thoroughly for these evaluations, ensuring that behavioral and psychological indicators are accurately understood. Furthermore, we place a strong emphasis on the role of prelitigation mediation and the strategic application for interim injunctions (zabezpieczenie roszczeń). Securing financial maintenance or temporary child custody at the very beginning of the process prevents a war of attrition and stabilizes the conflict early on.

VIP Divorce: An Interdisciplinary Team of Experts

Effectively shielding a client’s interests requires a cross-functional network. Within our VIP protocols, our law firm coordinates a dedicated circle of external experts:

Specialised PR Consultants – Deployed to neutralize hostile media narratives and maintain a strictly controlled, professional message;
Private Investigators – Utilizing discrete investigative services to secure reliable, legally admissible evidence for court;
Psychologists and Psychiatrists – Safeguarding the mental well-being of our client and providing specialized support for their children to minimize emotional trauma;
Tax Advisors and Financial Experts – Guaranteeing structural and fiscal security during complex financial restructuring.

The Standards of Jakubiec & Partners Law Firm

At Jakubiec & Partners, absolute discretion, unyielding loyalty, and the emotional and legal security of our clients form our foundational pillars. We recognize that in VIP matrimonial matters, attorney-client privilege and strict confidentiality are paramount. Furthermore, the protection of the children’s best interests remains our ultimate priority, and we continuously strive to insulate them entirely from the adversarial process.

To gain a deeper understanding of our strategic approach to high-stakes family law, asset protection, and legal crises, you can listen to expert discussions on My Official Podcast on Spotify:

🎧 Listen here: The divorce of married business partners (My Official Podcast)
🎧 Listen here: Has a guilty-divorce any sense?
🎧 Listen here: The owner’s divorce as a reason of the company’s fall down

Seeking discreet, strategic matrimonial representation? We protect your assets, your reputation, and your future in full alignment with the Polish Law. Contact a Trusted Law Firm in Poland directly to schedule a private consultation and formulate your bespoke legal strategy: [Contact Jakubiec & Partners].

VIP Divorce in Poland. Frequently Asked Questions:

1. Are VIP divorce proceedings automatically closed to the public in Poland? Yes. Under Polish law, divorce cases are conducted behind closed doors (in camera) to protect family privacy. However, our VIP protocols implement additional, internal operational security measures to completely eliminate the risk of leaks from case files, court registries, or legal pleadings.

2. How does a behavioral profile aid in a divorce dispute without a US-style discovery system? Since Poland lacks a discovery system, we cannot force the other side to hand over hidden documents at the start. Behavioral profiling allows us to read between the lines, mapping out the opponent’s psychological triggers and decision-making patterns. Knowing their risk aversion helps us predict where assets might be hidden and precisely time negotiation leverage, frequently securing a favorable resolution without enduring years of draining litigation.

3. How are corporate assets and company shares protected during a high-stakes divorce? Asset protection relies on advanced business valuations, clear separation of pre-marital or gifted equity, and a deep analysis of corporate bylaws and shareholder agreements. We structure our strategy so that matrimonial claims cannot paralyze the day-to-day operations or liquidity of your business.

4. What role do interim injunctions (zabezpieczenie roszczeń) play in a VIP divorce? They are crucial. An interim injunction is a court order issued early in the proceedings to secure claims before the final judgment. In VIP cases, we use them strategically to instantly secure child support, temporary alimony, or use of a family residence, preventing the opposing party from using financial pressure as a weapon.

disputes resolutions, divorces, family businessJune 5, 20260 comments

Author: dr Andrzej Jakubiec - adwokat, mediator

Is Ending a Partnership Something Bad?

The Law Does Not Recognize Contracts That Bind Us Forever

What Drives Us to Make the Decision to End Cooperation?

Three Elements of the Decision to End Cooperation with a (Business) Partner

Motivation to Exit the Company and End Cooperation

Assessing the Difficulty of the Decision to End Cooperation

The Impulse to Act

The Fogg Curve — When Do We Make the Decision (to Exit the Company)?

The Decision to End Cooperation. What Should Make You Reflect on Ending Cooperation?

Intuition

Guilt

Lack of space to talk about what matters to you

Being promised the future

You get nothing out of it

Deadlock

Red Flags and Their Meaning When Deciding to End Cooperation

The Fogg Curve in the Context of Exiting a Company

Legal audit is the foundation and it’s role in Decision to End a Business Partnership

Decision to End a Business Partnership. Invitation to cooperation

FAQ – Questions about Decision to End a Business Partnership

Can I end cooperation with a partner in any situation?

Do I need a “valid reason” to exit the company?

What if my partner does not agree to end the cooperation?

Is it better to negotiate or go to court?

How long does it take to end cooperation?

Can I exit “without losses”?

How do I know if it’s the right moment for a decision?

Is Ending a Partnership Something Bad?

The Law Does Not Recognize Contracts That Bind Us Forever

What Drives Us to Make the Decision to End Cooperation?

Three Elements of the Decision to End Cooperation with a (Business) Partner

Motivation to Exit the Company and End Cooperation

Assessing the Difficulty of the Decision to End Cooperation

The Impulse to Act

The Fogg Curve — When Do We Make the Decision (to Exit the Company)?

The Decision to End Cooperation. What Should Make You Reflect on Ending Cooperation?

Intuition

Guilt

Lack of space to talk about what matters to you

Being promised the future

You get nothing out of it

Deadlock

Red Flags and Their Meaning When Deciding to End Cooperation

The Fogg Curve in the Context of Exiting a Company

Legal audit is the foundation and it’s role in Decision to End a Business Partnership

Decision to End a Business Partnership. Invitation to cooperation

FAQ – Questions about Decision to End a Business Partnership

Can I end cooperation with a partner in any situation?

Do I need a “valid reason” to exit the company?

What if my partner does not agree to end the cooperation?

Is it better to negotiate or go to court?

How long does it take to end cooperation?

Can I exit “without losses”?

How do I know if it’s the right moment for a decision?

Emergency Checklist: What to Do If You Are Arrested in Poland

Your Rights as a Foreigner in Poland. First of all: call for an English Speaking Criminal Lawyer

Most Common Cases We Handle

Criminal Cases in Poland. How We Can Help You Right Now?

Our Defense Team

Contact Us

The Heuristic Behavior Parameters Model

Purpose of the Behavior Parameters Model

Description of the Behavior Parameters Model

3 Behavioral Parameters

Vector

Dynamics

Momentum

Behavioral Parameters as an Element of Strategy

Table 1: 3 Behavioral Parameters

Determining the Missing Parameter

Each pair of parameters creates a hypothesis space for the third

Limitations of the Behavior Parameters Model

Hypotheses and Truth

Behavior Instead of Declarations

Boundaries of the Model

The Problem of Passivity

The Benefits

The Problem of Activity

Can We Speak of Strategy?