'Attribution' helps manage emotions

'Mostly, though, liberals know conclusions, which they erroneously identify as facts. For example, they know that huge numbers of Americans have no medical care; they know that Obama was a top student at every school he attended; and despite their support for the military, they know that most American troops are ill-educated, violent hicks. As it happens, each of these statements is factually wrong (see here, here and here) and, instead, reflects only an emotional conclusion.'

I have had my fair share of making such emotional conclusions, as much as facing such conclusions either in classrooms, at home, at my workplace, almost everywhere, by parties other than me. At such times, as Bookworm says, trying to factually correct whats been emotionally concluded is a bad idea. Unless its done with the right 'attribution'. Attribute what you say to a source that's acceptable. Someone who the other party identifies with. As Bookworm shows, the truth about Obama, for instance, shouldn't be attributed to Rush Limbaugh, instead to New York Times. NYT is acceptable, Rush isn't.

At times customer service scenarios call for recovery. And some such recovery scenarios develop at the behest of the customer himself, who's at fault. But don't dare point that out to him. Acceptance and repentance by a customer is as rare as Haley's comet. Instead attribute the mess to what's acceptable. Something like the fact that the Executive chef himself was out there preparing the damn dish and that's why the delay, and that the last time the chef did it himself was when Lady Di had come visiting. That should shut the customer up. If you were to look keenly, you may even spy the customer swelling up with pride. Be careful not to let your grin show.

Service recovered! Satisfaction guaranteed!