There are three general philosophical conceptions of how worldviews might impact negotiations—we can call them “meta” worldviews. At one extreme, actors negotiate, and are fully in charge; they can bypass any specific or “micro” worldviews they originally hold; they remain free agents in the final analysis. At the other extreme, “micro” worldviews shape protagonists’ words and acts to such an extent that, even unbeknownst to them, they are themselves, in effect, being negotiated upon by the worldviews. In between these two poles, both agency and worldviews impact negotiations and influence protagonists on a continuum with various degrees of freedom. If we acknowledge the impact of “micro” worldviews on negotiators, we can study them as a set of interactive components—sociological, psychological, and biological—that mold the identity of an actor or group. This recognition of the impact of “micro” worldviews does not prevent us from offering proactive platforms to reinforce agency. When two people negotiate with each other they can acknowledge, unilaterally and hopefully jointly, how worldviews inhabit and influence each of them, and still dynamically deploy a series of moves to get things done responsibly across their respective worldviews.