you strike me as someone who's reasonable and willing to change their mind if they see a new angle. So you seemed to be saying that the author wrote a whole ar

you strike me as someone who's reasonable and willing to change their mind if they see a new angle. So you seemed to be saying that the author wrote a whole article on how one can be much more persuasive by getting someone to agree to some general statement without actually expressing something particular about it -- without the author actually then doing so. :) I mean, it would be like reading an article about how "short titles are better" so you agree with all of the points, then as a final check you scroll up to the top of the page and see that the article is titled "How shorter titles increase clickthrough rates, sharing rates, impact score, reading of the full article, and are basically better in every way -- according to research by Facebook." A long article about how short titles are better, but where the article itself doesn't have one. That would be an example of an article not practicing what it preaches. How about our article? Do you think it does or doesn't "practice what it preaches"? Does it try to "pre-suade" some measure of agreement? Does it start by talking about general statements, before it gets into its thesis? What do you think?