> "If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions."
> "If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions."
I fully agree, at a broad and general level.
Analysis and persuasion have different characters, and should not be conflated into one big ball of sameness.
Accurate analysis is hindered, not helped, by constant emotional hijacking. That's a time when it's best to have the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment in order to better understand the rational connection between actions and our humane values.
After one uses this dispassionate logic to better understand real world, you are correct that one still needs to use emotional arguments to persuade others, because that's how the majority get convinced.
Both are true, of their separate domains. But it is not helpful to lump them together and assume that the same dynamics apply to both accurate analysis and to public persuasion, so if passionate emotionality helps with the latter it must also help with the former.
> "If I've learned one thing over the past few years of talking and writing about these kinds of issues, it's that being objectively correct, having all your facts right and using iron-clad logic, isn't even close to enough. You always have to contend with people's emotions."
I fully agree, at a broad and general level.
Analysis and persuasion have different characters, and should not be conflated into one big ball of sameness.
Accurate analysis is hindered, not helped, by constant emotional hijacking. That's a time when it's best to have the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment in order to better understand the rational connection between actions and our humane values.
After one uses this dispassionate logic to better understand real world, you are correct that one still needs to use emotional arguments to persuade others, because that's how the majority get convinced.
Both are true, of their separate domains. But it is not helpful to lump them together and assume that the same dynamics apply to both accurate analysis and to public persuasion, so if passionate emotionality helps with the latter it must also help with the former.