3 ms·
Well I'll summarize my perspective as well. If somebody needs emotional coddling in order to see reason - they aren't really going to see reason (not in the lo
by woodman 11y ago
Well I'll summarize my perspective as well. If somebody needs emotional coddling in order to see reason - they aren't really going to see reason (not in the long term at least). It therefore makes no sense to deviate from a logic based approach in argument; the "geeks" are doing it right. A verbose argument is easily ignored (as I've apparently demonstrated), so adding emotional appeals can do nothing but distract.
- etangent 11y agoThank you. I share your view that logic/reason is superior to emotional appeal. However the two are often orthogonal. When dealing with public, it is possible not to sacrifice any logical soundness whatsoever while also ensuring that your message is not ignored b/c of seeming insensitivity to whatever bullshit people care about. Just because something is not often done does not mean it is impossible. Understanding what other people care about is called "emotional intelligence". Possessing emotional intelligence does not necessarily mean that one does not possess rational intelligence (heh, it would be a logical fallacy to say so). The two can complement one another. If you care about having influence in the world, you should attempt to acquire both. Just because some people only have one and some only the other does not mean that no person exists that has both. That was my point.