Daniel H. Pink Quotes

As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress can best be made through engagement instead of isolation.

If you want to make change, 'Show me how' can be a stronger, more effective approach than 'Just say no.' That's what I think.

I enjoyed debate on the floor but it's not really debate in the same way.

You can get a certain amount of pleasure as a mathematical spectator, reading and watching some of the most beautiful arguments that have been created in the history of humanity. But that's too passive.

You can win more arguments then you might think as a writer, even though you legally have no recourse, and your script can get muddied and altered in any way possible. You can use reason, logic, and passion to argue persuasively for a case in your favor.

Questions are often more effective than statements in moving others. Or to put it more appropriately, since the research shows that when the facts are on your side, questions are more persuasive than statements, don't you think you should be pitching more with questions?

The strangest thing about the low quality of Internet argument is that effective argument isn't really so difficult. Sure, not everyone can be Clarence Darrow, but anyone who wants to be at least competent at argument can do it.

Im a soulless lawyer. Give me any opinion and I can argue it.

I think you can be tough and aggressive with facts in a way that you cannot be tough and aggressive with emotional retorts. Most of the people that try to be tough on TV are really just being emotional and not factual.

There's always merit to having a debate.

Dick Durbin's a worthy opponent on any debate. He's very intelligent, quick. Knows his facts and puts them forward well.

Bridge the gap with closed minds though careful dissection of ideas and solid presentation of fact.

My goal as a puzzle designer is to create a meaningful experience for the player, not just 'I solved it.'

Sometimes there is a greater lack of communication in facile talking than in silence.

Public authorities should not simply wait until they are asked for information. They should develop policies that take essential information to the people before they ask for it. Such positive actions can be much more cost-effective, and of greater practical utility, than is the case when departments wait passively for the submission of inquiries.

Don't raise your voice, improve your argument.

If you are approachable, if you keep your line of communication open, then very often, you get to hear what you need to hear.

It is never helpful to point at sticking points, but it is always helpful to encourage one's partners to take a more active and forward-looking approach.

I often debate liberals on Fox News Channel who tend to start yelling and attacking when they run out of facts or common sense. I suppose these folks figure if they bow up and get in our faces, we'll just back down and see the world their way.

I like to say that a 'Times' editorial presents a strong opinion based on reality.

Keep the customer actively involved throughout your presentation, and watch your results improve.

I am passionate about truth and passionate about clarity, and I don't regard myself as particularly militant or aggressive. I simply wish to discuss what is true and to listen to evidence and put evidence forward to other people and have a sensible, sane, moderated argument.

Additional problems are the offspring of poor decisions. When inquiry and advocacy are combined, the goal is no longer 'to win the argument', but to find the best argument.

How can you have a reasonable debate with people who are constantly changing the panic? They are moving the panic to a greater wave of hysteria?

The great enemy of knowledge is not error, but inertness. All that we want is discussion; and then we are sure to do well, no matter what our blunders may be. One error conflicts with another, each destroys its opponent, and truth is evolved.