One way of looking at this discussion is in two parts:
The reality of the thing (truth, as you see it.)
The desire to get the other person to actually consider and accept your perspective.
In order to blast out a fact (which may or may not be correct, depending on whether or not you are correct), you only need to consider the first. If you actually want to persuade most people, you must consider the second part. Psychology plays into this, so things like approach, subject beliefs, phrasing, tone of voice, body language, and conversational reciprocity will play a part in this.
Some people, of course, "data exchangers", don't need the hand holding, and for these people, you can just blast out reality as you see it, expect the same, vigorously argue it, and then make conclusions (all absent emotion, largely, as data exchange does not require emotion.) A group of these people is a powerful intellectual force indeed.
One way of looking at this discussion is in two parts:
In order to blast out a fact (which may or may not be correct, depending on whether or not you are correct), you only need to consider the first. If you actually want to persuade most people, you must consider the second part. Psychology plays into this, so things like approach, subject beliefs, phrasing, tone of voice, body language, and conversational reciprocity will play a part in this.
Some people, of course, "data exchangers", don't need the hand holding, and for these people, you can just blast out reality as you see it, expect the same, vigorously argue it, and then make conclusions (all absent emotion, largely, as data exchange does not require emotion.) A group of these people is a powerful intellectual force indeed.
Well said!