Hitler was kind (high EQ, good at convincing people to follow him), but stupid (had some terrible ideas). OK, maybe that kind of emotional appeal is a shit way

Hitler was kind (high EQ, good at convincing people to follow him), but stupid (had some terrible ideas). OK, maybe that kind of emotional appeal is a shit way to argue, and we should use a more ... intelligent ... approach? High IQ and high EQ aren't mutually exclusive, so it's silly to ask which is important on its own. I think a higher-IQ argument is always better than a low-IQ argument with the same EQ. A high-EQ argument without a high IQ can be actively harmful. Empty rhetoric is good for manipulating idiots. It's useful if you have a good point, and want to make it sound more interesting. But it's not essential, and it's actively harmful if you don't have a good reason for using it. Low-EQ / high-IQ arguments won't convince a lot of people, but they aren't actively harmful (unless you count a few ruffled feathers as serious harm). Also, high-IQ arguments convince the right people - people who listen to reasoning, and are unlikely to change their mind when people use hollow emotional arguments. The kind of people I think we need more of.