<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Barry, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have never been keen on the distinction between emotional and non-emotional thought because people tend to confound it with the distinction between irrational and rational thought If, while you are watching a terrifying movie, your ten-year-old comes and puts her hand on your shoulder and you jump out of your skin, you have clearly had a rational thought: “There is a blood sucking monster in the room that has just put it’s paw on my shoulder and I must DO SOMETHING NOW!” Now that’s an entirely logical thought, in that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. It’s just that the premises are screwed up. . I actually think “irrational thought” is an oxymoron; all thought is inherently rational. What varies is the probability of the premises.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Barry MacKichan<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 11, 2021 10:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Great Communicator or NLP unto TDS<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>The names of the two styles would be “thoughts” and “emotion” (or, to slice and dice a bit more, “grievance”).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>—Barry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>On 10 Jan 2021, at 13:01, Frank Wimberly wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #777777 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><p><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#777777'>Trump speaks at a junior high level ("fantastic", "disgusting") and repeats every phase two or three times. Obama was a great communicator. The effectiveness of the two styles depends on the audience.<br><br><br>\---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>