The most profound misunderstanding about workplace and online arguments is this: if you have a problem that can be settled with dispassionate logic, *you don't end up in an argument in the first place*. You end up in a brainstorming meeting.
Conflict is inherently social. It's a spectator sport. Peacocks showing off their plumage, if you will.
You don't win with facts and logic. You prevail by picking battles wisely, making concessions where possible, and helping both sides save face. If you can't do that, better carry a big stick.
@lcamtuf I think this post kind of proves some of what others might object to or partially disagree to - and that is that:
"different people have different logic / different perspectives / different valuation"
Logic doesn't stand with animal, which is why being a bit of a shepherd and saving face are mentioned (correct me if completely wrong)...
At least "herding" animals or sheep is easier, throw some food around or walk with a bucket, but with people who knows what they are chasing or what there goal is (sometimes even they don't know which is why meetings help realise and moderate that!)
I'm going for sorting emotions at the moment so if you want a human project - "join me" (ask for more info)
