Is it possible to use logic, rigor, and debate to understand people?

So in fact, for the vast majority of human interactions, logic, rigor, and debate are useless. At work, dealing with computers, I find logic useful, but when dealing with humans, it is the rare case where such an approach is useful.

What does work?

In the end, real maturity means realizing that there is a great diversity to styles of communication, and you increase your own effectiveness by learning as many styles as possible.

I mean just because two people disagree doesn't mean that there is a misunderstanding. They might have opposing interests. Like one person wants to eat the last cookie on the plate and so does the other person so they disagree. It's not like I have to puzzle out how to use logic, rigor, and debate so that I can understand why they don't prefer that I get the last cookie.

> But then, in the 1820s, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky and János Bolyai independently discovered hyperbolic geometry.

As I understand it, Gauss discovered this first bit didn't publish.

It's called listening