Su suggerimento di @Maurie Daubrun.

Un articolo pubblicato su Nautilus spiega come uno sfoggio di empatia possa aiutare a convincere i propri interlocutori, mentre risposte troppo decise e nette siano potenzialmente controproducenti.

Asked at the start of the final 1988 presidential debate whether he would support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered, Michael Dukakis, a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, quickly and coolly said no. It was a surprising, deeply personal, and arguably inappropriate question, but in demonstrating an unwavering commitment to his principles, Dukakis had handled it well. Or so he thought. “The reporters sensed it instantly,” wrote Roger Simon about the scene at the debate immediately after Dukakis gave his response. “Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis.” Dukakis’ poll numbers plummeted, his campaign never recovered, and George H. W. Bush became the 41st President of the United States.

Immagine da Pixabay.