> So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason. ..or even just the fac

> So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason. ..or even just the facts. I have, on (fortunately rare) occasions, refused to heed a manager's encouragement to speak with someone directly, because my disagreement isn't even about reasoning, but about facts. It can be remarkably frustrating to have to repeat the same thing to someone who believes in something that is demonstrably false. At least over e-mail one can copy-and-paste. It's as if (some) people can't tell the difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion (or judgment). It may be true that face-to-face is best at resolving contentious disagreements on matters of opinion. However, I'd think it could only be true if those disagreements are based on everyone reaching their opinions from the same facts, and even determining if that's the case could easily be short-circuited by a premature opinion (e.g. loudest voice in the room).