The attention must be paid in the creators and users of law, in humans with emotions and ideas and not in the logic of law. The hypothesis is that humans feel, think and behave depending in their biology and environment in which such biology has grown. It can also be supposed that according with evolutionary and anthropological findings, there is not such an essentialist feature in all humans so that they are always friendly or always aggressive. Finally, studies of human evolution show that personal interaction inhibits aggression and facilitates friendships. Instead of looking for unreal humans without personal feelings and thoughts, the legal system should promote the personal communication between the parties to solve their dispute.
Legal problems consist of conflicting interpretations of rules.
They are not empirical. Legal disputes require not a doctrine but an activity to elucidate meaningful legal propositions. The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known. The mediator should facilitate parties to clarify their legal misunderstandings to reach an agreement. If there is the belief that one needs to apply rules for conflict solution, a very fundamental warning is appropriate.