If my goal is to get others to say yes it's not a discussion anymore. It's exercising power, manipulation, damage control. You name it. In such situations I am all for using emotional means - those get things done with people.
>Do you dryly put forth the facts and let the chips fall where they may?
Not "dryly", I usually have a lot of passion in finding ways to express my point clearly and convincingly. Other than that yeah, if I respect my discussion partners I will not go into condescending niceties. If I don't respect them as good arguers and just want to convince them then I roll out Dale Carnagie attitude - appeal to emotions, make them like you, make them accept your view because of it. It gets things done. It's also anti-intellectual in my view.
>unequivocally-logical suggestion may well be the only viable way out of a situation?
If I am sure (or arrogant) enough to think that my view is the only acceptable one then it's no longer about discussion. It's manipulation/exercising power mode.
>Do you ever have to build consensus amongst a team of smart, driven people who may not all be Turing-complete automatons?
If they are smart I assume I don't have monopoly for truth so I would avoid means appealing to emotions as far as I could. Maybe after all I am wrong and I don't want them to be more likely to accept my view because I am nice. If I am arrogant enough to think they are smart but I am smarter and my goal is to convince them then again - let Dale Carnagie guide me.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate showing respect. I appreciate making sure my discussion partners appreciate that I made effort to understand their view. Those matter a lot among the most rational of people. If on the other hand someone starts with: "Let me first say I've learnt a lot from you, I really appreciated your view on this that and that. I think you are smart person blablabla" and follows with stuff of this kind before getting to the point I am immediately suspicious, with time impatient and then irritated.
I think such discussion culture is counter productive. It becomes socializing/power struggle - the merits of the argument takes secondrary position. It becomes important who is nice, who is liked, who is charismatic, who is good at invoking positive emotions. I don't want that anywhere where merits matter.
You're right. It's manipulation. Building consensus, too, is a form of manipulation. Some of it is irritating, especially if it is delivered in the form you quoted. My hackles rise, too!
From your comment, I am seeing that the real issue is when the manipulation is overt, when someone expresses something in a way that is clearly intended to push you in a direction rather than actually respect and accept your buy-in.
But that leads me to seeing that this really just another form of pathos. In a conversation, the average person wants to feel respected, that their opinion has merit. This is part of rhetoric. In fact, where action and tone are lacking, some people may genuinely need the additional words of appreciation that set you and me off. My point is that logos is not the only valid appeal, and I would propose that nobody is absolutely rational, meaning that degrees of the other forms of persuasion are acceptable and useful means.
To address your first point, all persuasion is manipulation. Somewhere I read that all speech is a form of persuasion, though the reasoning behind this assertion may be a bit contrived. Instead of elaborating on that point, I want to suggest instead that even if it is not "all", even if it is just "most", we could see instead that manipulation is not an evil in itself. Clearly there is nothing wrong with asking somebody where they would like to eat as your means to coerce them into joining you for dinner. Obtaining consensus or bringing someone to agree with you is not, itself, an evil or even irritating.
Armed with all the appeals of rhetoric and following these steps with respect to the audience's needs, I think the four steps listed at the top of the thread are acceptable means in polite society of persuasion, or, if you prefer, manipulation.
Addendum: I just tried the four steps. Was this post a successful example? Did I overdo it?
That being said, I think there's something to be said about recognizing when someone is debating you with winning in mind. Then it's probably worthwhile to change gears and employ some persuasion techniques. But instead of using them to win the argument, use them to turn a zero-sum debate into a positive-sum discussion.
But, yes, if you're already in a productive discussion, these sort of finding-common-ground techniques are probably harmful, but debating someone who wants to win is a losing proposition (unless the real goal is persuading an audience).
It is also important to remember that emotions are always involved. If there was not any emotion why would the discussion be happening in the first place? Presumably both parties care about what they are arguing for.
1. I think being forthcoming about it is very important. Especially when it comes to obvious unclear points/mistakes which are easy to correct. You should do that before attempting the commentary. The main reason is to save time (if correction is obvious, you might as well do it yourself) another is to show good attitude ("I try resolve this issue instead of nitpicking, see ?")
3.Imo it just derails the point. Good thing to do when dealing with unknown/emotional people, just adds clutter between "let's get to the point" people. Nothing wrong with that at some point but if you use it as first thing in the discussion it looks like tactic to influence emotions of other person.
I for one often get annoyed by too many niceties. I feel like someone tries to convince my emotions and not my intellect. It quickly becomes patronizing It takes time. It make me very suspicious of manipulation attempts; afterall if your point/offer is good, why not just present it and let me think about it. I don't want to be more likely to accept your point because you are nice to me. I want to take objective look at it, so keep being overly nice to after the discussion and/or everyday situations which doesn't involve resolving issues. I am not saying diplomacy is useless - it's great in every day relations and/or when dealing with emotional people. Among people who are good at discussing and just want to get to the point it should be kept to minimum.
>"Getting To Yes"
The title would be off-putting to me. I don't want to get to yes. I want to take possibly objective look at your point and I want you to take fair look at mine. The more I respect you the more I want eliminate emotions: positive or negative when discussing things.