Model UN Psychology

by J. John Lee

As you train for any given Model UN conference, you will receive exhaustive instruction
on the rules of procedure, the basic format of your committee and perhaps some background on
the nation or position you will be playing at the conference. All of these elements are important
and helpful to success in committee. However, none of them are sufficient to guarantee it. What
IS necessary for success is an understanding of the psychology behind Model UN committees.
Before this subject can be tackled in the context of helping you improve your delegate
skills, it must first be defined. What I refer to as the psychology of Model UN is essentially
the intangible social elements of Model UN committees that must be mastered in order to win.
Great delegates understand that the key to winning any committee is to project an image that
confers authority and credibility upon them. The goal is to become the most influential member
of the committee, the delegate that all others reflexively consult on all important aspects of the
committees business. The most influential members (provided that they stay on policy) are
generally whom you will see shaking the chairs hand at closing ceremonies, paraded around the
room on a litter borne by the conference Secretariat. Yes, that can be you.
All good delegates should keep the following in mind at all times:

Everyone is there to win. No one is there to be nice or to cooperate or to be

helpful. If someone is aiding you, there is a reason. NEVER depend on any other
delegate for your success.

Perception is EVERYTHING. Your D+ in your international security class is

completely irrelevant as long as everyone THINKS you are an expert. And if you
nailed an A+, that is similarly irrelevant unless you can translate that into
perception in committee.

Visibility is ALSO EVERYTHING. This is particularly true in larger committees.

When a chair and his staff is deliberating on awards, he/she almost always has
nothing but memory to rely on. The more you are seen and heard, the likelier it is
that you will be remembered.

I have encountered many delegates of varying ability during my eight year tenure in the
world of Model UN. The best of the best are very dissimilar in many ways at first glance. Each
uses a different style, and each have certain strengths and weaknesses. Understanding your
strengths and weaknesses is the first step to mastering Model UN psychology. Understanding
your opponents strengths and weaknesses is the next. The final step is figuring out what to do
with everyone else, the vanilla, the silent majority, the unimportant people that dont talk much
but can still vote (thus help you).

Binder Nerds:
A certain University of Chicago delegate I once faced in committee was what I would
call a Binder Nerd type of delegate. I walked into the committee room and saw three
enormous black binders brimming with useless information on the table in front of this delegate.
The operative word there is useless. I managed to win the committee without any of it.
However, he was able to successfully utilize those binders to win an award despite the fact that
his experience at the delegate party was about as exciting as a tennis match with Strom
Thurmond.
Binder Nerd delegates (whether they use actual binders or not) have a difficult time
with bullshit. They are uncomfortable talking out of their respective asses. This is not a problem
and can ostensibly be an advantage. Unfortunately, if you are a Binder Nerd delegate (dont
worry; all of my categories will have derogatory labels for fun), you must invest a significant
amount of time on research prior to conference. The University of Chicago delegate I mentioned
succeeded by convincing everyone in the room myself included that he was the authority on
any facts relevant to the situation at hand. Thus he was consulted often for information and was
therefore a critical member of the committee. He was able to incorporate voluminous amounts
of useless information (i.e. information unnecessary to solve the problems before the committee)
into the committee proceedings, elevating mundane trivia to the level of crucial data that many
decisions hinged on. No one dared challenge any of his information because of his binders. It
may all have been printed out from www.theonion.com for all we knew, but we dared not
challenge his authoritative knowledge as he flipped through his binders for fear of being
humiliated by those very binders.
Binder Nerds can be defeated in a number of ways. The key is to undercut the
importance of their knowledge. Their expertise cannot be challenged directly (unless you are
yourself a Binder Nerd) and so you must wean the committee away from it. The committee must
be convinced either that the highly specific information available from the Binder Nerd is
unnecessary to the task at hand or that the Binder Nerd is a good resource but should be treated
as nothing more turn the Binder Nerd into just a walking encyclopedia. Can encyclopedias
debate with you and sway people? Obviously not.
The former method is a bit easier. When preparing for conference, your committee staff
put in a great deal of effort to assemble the information they feel is the most necessary or
relevant to their committee. This is encapsulated in the background guides and (for crisis
committees) the crisis information presented during committee. Refer to this information when
you speak, instead of the Binder Nerds information. You are helped by the fact that the no one
enjoys the Binder Nerds superiority in information and thus many of the other delegates will
likely catch your cue to concentrate on the information that they are more familiar with. While
the Binder Nerd may attempt to break in with additional information, simply acknowledge it but
return to the information provided to everyone by the committee staff. Even if the Binder Nerds
information assists your position, focus on the background guide or crisis updates as the
backbone of your factual arguments. The more nerdy and marginal your Binder Nerd seems to
be the better.

The latter method is a bit more difficult. This is best accomplished during informal
discussions such as during caucus. Lead a discussion with the Binder Nerd present.
Occasionally, when appropriate, ask a very specific and narrow question to the Binder Nerd like,
what percentage of the population is ethnically Arab? There isnt much room for advocacy on
the part of the Binder Nerd and the information requested only serves as support for your own
opinion. Dont ask the Binder Nerds opinion or interpretation, and never seem to construct a
new argument from the provided information. Use him as a walking encyclopedia to back you
up. The others will catch on. This is the method I used against my Binder Nerd. If hes your
second banana, he obviously cant beat you to an award.
If you are a Binder Nerd, your job is to couch your information in an opinion EVERY
TIME you provide information. Therefore, Venezuela is the largest exporter of petroleum in
South America is not enough. Instead say, We believe that Venezuela has a responsibility to
shoulder more of the costs of this project since, after all, they are the largest exporter of
petroleum on the continent. Never just offer data. Always advocate a position and back it up
with your knowledge. This way, your position will always seem the best supported and no one
else will be able to use your information to support any argument other than yours or some
variant of yours.

Playground Bullies:
I have encountered a certain Harvard delegate a few times in competition that I would
label a Playground Bully or Bully. His modus operandi basically consisted of bullying and
intimidating other delegates in order to achieve dominance and thus authority. This can be done
through badgering, sarcasm, repetitive disagreement, disparaging humour, etc. My Bullys
favoured weapon was sarcasm. Anytime an argument or proposal was presented that ran counter
to his interests or his views, my Bully mocked it through extreme examples and sarcasm and
then restated his own opinion, indiscreetly reasserting the superiority of his position. He was a
very effective delegate; I lost to him one of the two times we competed. Unfortunately though
for my sexually frustrated Bully, women dont find obnoxious Model UN nerds very alluring.
In any event, Bullies are a challenge on two fronts. First, you must not become
intimidated by the Bully. Second, you must prevent the Bully from dominating everyone else.
Believe it or not, the first of these tasks is more difficult. It is very difficult to continue to oppose
and disagree with someone who seeks to mock you every time; it may seem as if you clash
repeatedly and the Bully wins every clash. However, you have some very important allies. If
your Bully is bullying you, he/she is likely bullying the rest of the committee. Neither the
delegates nor the dais will enjoy such a situation, and its your job to translate that distaste into
action. If no one does, the dais will be forced to acknowledge that despite his/her offensive style,
the Bully was the most effective delegate. If you are a Bully, the danger lies in overdoing it.
You must find the balance between dominating and annoying the dais. You push to be effective,
but you must not push too far lest it come back to bite you.
The key to avoiding intimidation by the Bully is the rallying of support from other
delegates and/or the chair. In any exchange with the Bully, always be sure to remain the clear

opposite. Be respectful of other delegates. Acknowledge the contributions of others. Stress that
you are open-minded and everyone else should be as well. Solicit the contributions and opinions
of others (selectively, of course you dont want speeches that oppose your ideas). In addition,
highlight the negative aspects of the Bullys style to the rest of the committee. If the Bully
mocks the proposal you have just made, dont come back with more fire and brimstone. Portray
the Bully as an obstacle to progress. The Bully is close-minded. The Bully doesnt care about
anyone elses ideas. The Bully is the only thing holding up the compromise that can get
everyone off this really boring topic weve been debating for hours. So if the Bully comes with,
That proposal is clearly nave. It is about as practical as a screen door on a submarine. WE
have been saying all along that [his/her idea] is the only responsible course of action, then come
back with, If any nation has concerns with this proposal, I encourage you to work with the
many nations collaborating on this already so that your concerns are addressed. We would be
more than happy to accommodate you. But incendiary rhetoric only serves as an obstacle to
progress. Remember to always address the committee as a whole. Never address the Bully or
make an argument directly at the Bully. The Bully is not interested in being convinced or in
compromising. However, the Bully is only one vote so concentrate instead on the rest of the
committee (of course this is complicated if Bully has veto power).
If you are a Bully, you must avoid being ostracized by strategies like the one described
above. If your opponent makes an appeal to the rest of the committee, you must do so as well.
State your opinion not as the objective truth nor as the best idea but rather as the idea that
everyone else clearly sees as the correct course of action. You are not imposing your will but
instead merely articulating the opinion of everyone else whether theyve said so or not. Dont be
arrogant, but be assertive. Attack the views of your opponent as you always would, but prevent
him from rallying the committee by making it seem unintelligent or foolish to think in a way
other than your way. Clearly most nations here recognize that [opponents idea] is nave. It
does not address [your concern #1] nor does it respect [your concern #2], both of which are
crucial to all of the nations here. While compromise is important, common sense is just as
important and this proposal, while admirably a product of collaboration, lacks coherence. We are
fully open to collaboration, but let us begin with a sensible foundation, namely [your proposal].
Clearly only uninformed people without common sense would go for your opponents proposal,
right? Right.

Bill Clintons:
Former president Bill Clinton, despite my utter lack of respect for the mans integrity, had
a lot of talent in one key area for delegates that I call Clintons. A Clinton is an unparalleled
bullshitter. Crap flows from a Clintons mouth and yet sounds absolutely plausible. Clintons
typically do minimal preparatory research, relying on their capacity to bullshit to fill in the gaps
of their knowledge. Clintons are often the most difficult delegates to face in competition because
of their flexibility. However, their success depends wholly on the credibility they build in the
committee. If their credibility is ever damaged, they cannot be successful without first repairing
that damage, often an impossible task given the short time frame of Model UN conferences.

As much as I find the label distasteful, I am a Clinton. For example, I once faced a
delegate from the Air Force Academy in a simulation of the National Security Council. I played
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs while he played the Attorney General. The issue was North
Koreas ballistic missile capability. I was asked by the chair/President to give the committee a
rundown on this topic. I listed three missile types that I had found in ten minutes on a website,
one of them the Taepodong-3. I stated that it was a long-range missile (because I wanted the
committee afraid of North Korea and thus keen for military protection, my bailiwick). The Air
Force cadet jumped all over himself to raise his placard and eagerly informed the committee of
what he had undoubtedly learned the previous week in some class at the Academy. Taepodong-3
missiles are actually intermediate-range, he told us.
Confronted with this blunder, I had to react and save myself. I came out with, Although
I appreciate the effort on the part of the Attorney General to help this body, unfortunately she (he
was playing Janet Reno) lacks the expertise required in this area. Military intelligence is clear on
this. The Taepodong-3 missile is what military experts term a long-range missile, namely one
that has the capability to strike at targets as far as 5000 miles away. It is not what we would call
an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which has a much longer range, but in the INTRAcontinental missile category, this missile is long-range. The Taepodong-2 missile is an
intermediate-range missile in that it can strike up to 3000 miles away. But the Taepodong-3 is
long-range and thus a threat to our forces in theatre.
The only piece of information in that tirade that turned out to be accurate in real life is
that North Korea possesses missiles called the Taepodong-2 and -3. Everything else was
bullshit. However, what I kept in mind was what the cadet failed to acknowledge: Model UN is
NOT real life. It truly does not matter if the Taepodong-3 missile is CALLED long-range or
short-range or home-on-the-range. Clintons invent information as needed for their purposes, and
good Clintons can pit their bullshit information against actual knowledge and often win (unless
of course a Binder Nerd on the other side of the dispute has physical proof, which the cadet in
my case unfortunately did not). My briefing was followed by a speech by the chair/President
that NSC members should stick to their areas of expertise to avoid confusion, a rebuke for the
Attorney General no matter what education he had in real life.
Defeating a Clinton entirely rests on challenging his/her credibility. This can be done
several ways. Clintons will often display inconsistencies in their claims over time. If these can
be pointed out, they must think quickly to compensate. Factual information can often be used, as
the cadet in my committee attempted to do. However, always remember the Model UN
situation. What the cadet could have said to avoid what happened might be, General Shelton
(my character), I remember from an earlier report you gave last month (in the mists of history
prior to the conference) that the Taepodong-3 missile was in fact an intermediate-range missile,
not long-range. Obviously this is an important point so, with the Presidents permission, could
we ask the Secretary of Defense (not me but still a military source) to request some specs on
these missiles so we can be sure? This would have done a few things. First, the Secretary of
Defense is brought in to usurp me as the authority in military matters. Second, my report was
disputed but I have no opportunity to rebut since clarifying information (probably from the crisis
staff) is on the way. Finally, if the clarifying information does dispute what I said (which it
would have), I am forced to somehow explain my misstatement or face damaged credibility.
This is a great strategy; force the Clinton to go further and further into bullshit either in depth or

in scope or both. The chances of inconsistency or misstatement rises exponentially as the string
of bullshit is lengthened.
If you are a Clinton, you must remember modesty. Keep the bullshit reasonable. Use
phrases like, to the best of my memory, or I will inquire with my research staff but I believe
its correct that so in the rare case that contradictory facts come up, you will have protected
your credibility to some extent. Most likely no one will waste the committees time to research
and dispute every little point you BS, particularly because the committee chair is interested in a
productive debate that results in progress and forward motion rather than factual accuracy. Dont
make outlandish claims. Remember, your bullshit is the filler behind your otherwise cogent
arguments. There probably is real life evidence to back your argument up. You just dont have
time to go looking for it since youll be partying. So use your judgment to make up plausible
bullshit. The plausibility bar is actually set pretty low for many things; the more trivial the
detail, the lower the bar.

Cant We All Just Get Along? or Saps:

Some people really can get by on niceness. Whether its genuine or not, Saps can often
use their pleasantness to become influential, particularly in contentious committees. If everyone
seems cutthroat, the Sap will be the one that most delegates trust, and he/she can use that to
become the dealmaker or Great Compromiser, which looks great in front of the dais. One
memorable example was a young woman on one of my teams during my tenure as the Intercol
Director. Every time I checked on her committee in my capacity as the head delegate, I saw two
camps on opposite sides with her shuttling back and forth between them. Given her inexperience
and general lack of expertise on the topic at hand (she was a linguistics major and the topic was
cyberterrorism), I doubt she was the source of very many original proposals. However, she was
so pleasant a person that she was able to bridge the gap between the two conflicting camps
repeatedly using nothing but common sense and a smile. Her second place finish shocked (and
annoyed) many delegates, but I was not surprised. She was an excellent Sap.
Saps are actually difficult to deal with in that there is nothing to attack. They are pleasant
and conciliatory, always speaking words of compromise and collaboration. How can you attack
that? However, remember the first golden rule everyone is there to win. NEVER depend on
another delegate for success. Do not allow such polarisation to take place that the Sap gains
momentum as the only voice of reason. Become a voice of reason yourself. Advocate
compromise also. Reach out to the other camp yourself although distinguish yourself from the
Sap by remaining an advocate, not a courier. Become a spokesman for your side of the issue, but
spend significant time with the other camp much like a chief negotiator. In open debate when
multiple conflicting positions arise, do not allow the Sap to take the initiative to bring everyone
together. Theyre probably nicer than you so give up trying to out-nice them. Remain an
advocate but move for compromise. Another way to undercut Saps is to force them to take sides.
Actively recruit Saps. If they resist, force them to resist by opposing you rather than taking the
wishy washy middle ground. They cant win by taking a side theyre too nice. A good way to
do this is to push them to disclose how they would vote and force them to back it up, which
would force them to argue either for your side or against it.

If you are a Sap, your best weapon is your neutrality. NEVER take a side (unless you
must to stay on policy or to honor an alliance). If pressed, remain undecided and push for
compromise. Instead of caving, form a new side in the middle and challenge your opponents
to either join you and compromise or remain obstinate. Stubbornness is generally not rewarded
if all it results in is deadlock. Use your niceness to woo the less hardline members of each camp
into supporting your compromise position. Even if your compromise isnt the one finally
adopted, the fact that you were the cause of breaking the deadlock in the first place will increase
your visibility and influence.
One interesting variant of the Sap is the Sex Symbol. The fact is that Model UN
delegates are, underneath their Western business attire, horny college kids. Attractive or sexually
charismatic delegates have a powerful edge. How to fight it? Well, that all depends on your selfcontrol. If you are one of these Sex Symbols, keep it in mind and USE it to your advantage if
you feel comfortable doing so (probably). If you are a female Sex Symbol, give me a call. If
Im not married or engaged, I make a great date.

ORFA:
Youll often see many if not all of these psychological types in the committee room. In
fact, you yourself may encompass elements of multiple types for example, I am predominantly
a Clinton although I sometimes stray into the Bully and Sap categories (while I like to think that
I am a Sex Symbol, Ill just avoid the laughter and move on). In addition, some play one type
for one topic then change as a new committee dynamic takes shape for the next. Therefore it is
important to stay flexible yourself as well.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your own style as well as the styles of
other delegates are the first and biggest steps toward success in the committee room. The rest of
Model UN psychology can be summarised as an acronym: ORFA. Sounds sexual, but actually it
stands for Observe Relate Focus and Adapt. OBSERVE your fellow delegates, the dais and
the staff. RELATE to their needs, their expectations, their motivations. FOCUS on the
situation and your goals. Finally, ADAPT to the changes you see to meet your goals.
This may seem intuitive, but youll find that most delegates simply dont ORFA. If you
observe that many delegates seem bored and frustrated, relate to them and pinpoint the source of
that boredom or frustration. Put yourself in the shoes of your fellow delegates (which probably
wont be hard since you probably are in their shoes anyway). Is the debate dragging? Is there an
impasse in negotiations that needs to be broken? Is this topic a beaten horse? Is the current
speaker the most boring person alive? Or are people overwhelmed? Is there too much
information that needs to be processed and not enough time? Focus on what needs to be done to
respond to their concerns. Adapt if needed by rallying for a new push to a compromise or by
shifting debate to a fresher topic. Or conversely try to slow things down if necessary. Adapt by
trying to summarise the situation (in your terms, of course) to get people back on the same page.
The same goes for any observations you make of the dais or the staff. If they seem to be
frustrated at the lack of progress, or if they seem to be excited by a particular development,
relate and be sensitive to it. Whatever needs to be done, focus on it and adapt to bring it about.

How you adapt will depend on what type of delegate you are. Your reward for your ORFA will
be increased influence; people will respect that you always seem to see whats going on in
peoples minds.
The most important lesson of ORFA is that you must recognise why those other college
students are in that room with you. Some will be hypercompetitive, hungrily seeking a win be
they egomaniacs or nerds or whatever. Some will be utterly apathetic, there because their friends
went as well. Many will be there for the debauchery and free liquor. And a few yes, they do
exist are there for the educational experience. The key is to recognise whom to confront,
whom to woo and whom to ignore. The competitive ones are often either confronted or ignored
depending on their skill. The rest are wooed through ORFA. The most common mistake I have
seen in my time as a Model UN delegate is the lack of ORFA. Yes, everyone is playing to win
as mentioned before. But many will quickly realise, particularly in larger committees, that they
are not talented enough (not you). They must be wooed. ORFA.
Remember that while you are ostensibly trying to win your position by convincing
everyone that youre right, this is only Model UN and you only have a few days. Deep down
most of the delegates could really give a shit about the topic or crisis you are debating its not
real life. To win, you must respond to the psychological dynamics of the committee. Through
ORFA and your familiarity with the different delegate types you will probably see, you should
be able to maneuver your way into a position of influence as well as use that influence to both
gain ground on your positions and ORFA some more. If, in the end, your positions do not
become the policy of the committee, so be it. If you have become one of the key players in the
committee, you have succeeded. After all, even the best delegates wouldnt (or at least
shouldnt) be able to get the Security Council to authorise sanctions on the United States or get
SPECPOL to approve Iraqi annexation of Kuwait even if those ARE the positions of your nation.
If you can bring such ridiculous ideas to a vote or even serious debate, you are clearly influential.

The rules of procedure and background are both very important. Do not ignore them
simply because you read this guidebook. However, these guidelines should fill in the gaps and
help you become a better, more confident delegate. And before I sign off, I must take this
opportunity to preach about the glory of Penn.
We rock. Were awesome. We are the best. We kick immense amounts of ass. We have
always kicked immense amounts of ass.
No pressure.
The Penn Intercol team has always been regarded very highly for two reasons. First, we
are very good. Our delegates are generally excellently trained and prepared. Second, were fun.
Were not stuck up and were not socially handicapped. Im sure you have no doubts of
continuing the Penn legacy on the latter. If youre worried about the former, dont be.
Somehow, some way, Penn pulls through. We support each other, have fun together and help
each other. Yes, its cheesy. But thats why we bring home the gold. And you will be a part.
Welcome.