Your strength, as I perceive it, is in your attention to details. Obama's strength, as I perceive it, is in his attention to people. Not in a group-hug sort of way, mind you, but in a "come on, we can do this" sort of way.
It's true that I have sometimes had to remind myself to be considerate of other people. I think you're a few years late in that analysis, though. I'm a fairly considerate and inclusive person today, more so than I used to be. I'm probably not as good as Obama, but he's got twenty years on this cat.
As for your distinction between "details" and "people," I like your disclaimer so much that I think it negates the contrast. "Details..."people"...you're being arbitrary here.
I think you are someone who will be as good and as kind as reason, good form, and propriety allow (when required).
You're suggesting that I don't have social skills or lack the desire to be kind and inclusive, and on top of that you're making a straw man of "reasonableness." I'll just have to disagree with you on all counts. Thought, being aware of oneself, and having clear goals that include interacting with people deliberately, do not preclude a person from enjoying the full span of human emotion, and acting on those emotions reasonably (in the real sense of that word) in the course of their life generally and their personal interactions in particular.
Perhaps you are willing to be unreasonable with me?
I'm certainly here talking to you, respectfully. And if you haven't noticed, I have shared my personal thoughts with you. These have to count for something.
I do prefer to influence people by example, where as you seem to prefer to influence people more directly.
Interesting you should say that. From the observer's viewpoint, what I do to persuade people isn't very direct, and indeed there are often whole layers of purpose at work. I am straightforward enough with my ideas, but I have learned over time that changing people's minds by direct appeal almost never works. They have to persuade themselves. The way to make that happen is to put the ideas out there, keep up the exposure and the mood, and let people chew on what they have found. Therefore, I too very much lead by example, and the distinction with you is that my example is explicitly the less direct of the two. Indeed, I am often at my most direct in cases like this, when I am explaining myself. And I am not explaining myself to influence you: I am explaining myself to inform you, because you asked.
I get what you're trying to say: You try to influence other people's attitudes by projecting a positive one of your own. That's a debatable tactic, because it has limited power to actually change people's ideas. The edification upon which it relies is to become so admirable that people seek to emulate your manners, and, eventually, your ideas. I think you will find that it meets with mixed success. Better to work with ideas directly, and let people figure out for themselves what their manners will be. You'll notice that I've never encouraged people to behave pugnaciously; I've encouraged them to
think.
Ideally, I would love to be more positive in my general deportment around here. But to commit to that would require two things that I do not possess:
First, I would need a receptive audience. Being positive to an ambivalent audience often fails to engage them, and being positive to a hostile audience often provokes them. (Think about that the next time you consider Obama's good attitude: He has been surrounded by his most adoring fans for two years. In his performances at the debates and at his press conferences, we see a different temperament. Here is one who suits his attitude to fit the environment, with the purpose of achieving his political aims.)
Second, I would need to know how being less positive does not work. I have a lot to learn about that, even still.
