Recently, I was disappointed by someone doing something reasonable to me. I wanted to make this person feel terrible or something. There's another like them who I usually worship like a saint or something, unless they disappoint me.
I hate to be treated hatefully and I love to be treated pleasantly. I am what I'll call an emotional-based person.
The first individual who disappointed isn't like me in that way. I imagined doing horrible things to the place I was punished and wondered what they would do to me; I also wondered why they punished me as little as they did. I still don't really know what or why, because I don't understand them. They're what I'll call logic-based.
I think logic based people wouldn't practically worship another who pleases them just once, like I would. They'd instead judge the person all-around. They'd be more probable to tell a cold truth than a sweet lie to someone, in such a judgement. They'd be more likely to upset others with their mindsets. I don't believe these people are devoid of emotions. They ARE humans. They can feel guilt if a recipient is visibly upset by one of their truths.
These people ... to emotion-baseds... are hurtful. When those recipients are hurt, these people are hurt too.
People are hurt.
Emotion-based people, as they have a chance of giving a judgement based on happiness purely, are more likely to say something untruthful, yet positive.
They would please recipients, even logic-baseds for they are human, and feel pleased with themselves.
If we have too many white lies, knowledge and truth becomes obselete. If we have too many truths, everything is logically okay while everyone is upset.
Whether or not this makes sense is unimportant as long as you get the gist.
If only one of these types of people could exist in this world, what would be better?
A so-called logic-based person is displeased if they can sense a shallowness to a "positive" comment.
That a logic-based person would feel guilty doesn't seem to follow from the premise--it seems the author has inserted personal hopes here.
It also is not addressed whether "hurt" has meaning or not. Perhaps an emotion-based person needs to be hurt to understand either themselves or their environment. After all, according to the premise, they will not learn through logic.
It seems faulty, either way, to conclude that any individual is entirely "logic-based" or "emotion-based;" it is more plausible to consider them to tend toward one of these dispositions. This, however, is a problem of wording, and perhaps does not change the basic claims set forth.
A bad question may not be possible to answer. Or, it may lead to wasted words and time as one or both parties try to resolve understandings.
Or, consider the situation where the interrogator does not understand their own question or the facts behind it. Then, also, is the question based on faulty assumptions and cannot be answered directly.
Anonymous has criticized the question and presentation for being pointed: you establish "logic-based" persons as causing net "hurt," and "emotion-based" persons as causing net "pleasure." Anonymous brings up the point that someone may not necessarily be pleased with a "positive" lie if they detect deceit or shallowness to it.
It seems the interrogator (who claims to be one "emotional-based person") has already made their own conclusion and additionally predicts the answer of a respondent. There is little value, then, in actually answering the question, however, there may be in discussing the question itself, as Anonymous and I have done.
Alternatively, perhaps the interrogator seeks confirmation of their opinion, deliberately setting forth pointed reasoning about each side to drive the conclusion of theoretical respondents. Again, the value in answering the question directly is subverted, as the real result is to a question of "do you agree with me or not?"