When Pullman discusses reaching an audience based on their emotional state or expected reaction, I too agree that it is pertinent in understanding two sides of an opposition; in order to reach opposing audiences with various emotional expressions. Pullman states that to do so one must infer emotional states by oral and/or body language, understand emotional influences, anticipate emotional responses, and control that of one’s own.
Pullman states that to reach an audience an orator must not only be able t0 empathize and sympathize with the audience, but also stay tactful in the approach; allowing yourself to stay poised and in control. However, if the audience is read wrong than they may never be convinced of the argument. Just remember to reach an audience not only read them, but know who you are amongst them. What is your position? What makes you able to connect with them? Now, ask yourself is this argument for your own sake or to enlighten/convince others? Be mindful of the presentation given. Your own disposition, diction, and tone set the ore for how an argument will be perceived. In a way it makes all the difference to ask, than to command. It’s no different from that. Wash the dishes, I have guests coming over versus Can you wash the dishes, it’s not a good idea for guests to see such clutter. – both statements request a person to do the same thing but one is more demanding and sets the tone for resistance and gripe; while the other engages in conversation as if an option were given. Two totally different approaches setting two different tones with the expectation of various responses. Know your audience, know yourself, and appeal to emotions.