# data[].attributes.body
(1) I tend to use a deductive style. From my point of view, we need a set of parameters or some assumptions to make a certain conclusion. For instance, when I design a building in Japan, I have to assume earthquakes that will occur during the building exists. I believe these kinds of assumptions are important because they can change the conclusion. In the case of the example above, an optimistic assumption, which means that we assume small earthquakes, results in tiny structures, which is the conclusion in this case. Therefore, I usually think the process to the conclusion is important.
(2) The advantage of the style is that we can easily find mistakes in the process to the conclusion if we have some inappropriate parameters or assumptions. On the other hand, we need more time to explain our conclusion to other people.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Do you normally use an inductive or deductive style of (persuasion?

I prefer the deductive style. I like to start with concepts, analyses, and details and explain them in a logical order because I feel this is the best way to present any idea to people.

(2) What are the advantages and disadvantages of your preferred style? ----- prior to responding to these discussion prompts, please watch the videos and read the article attached on the board.

The

The advantage of my style is that it is beneficial for people who are new to the information to follow my talk and feel confident. The disadvantage is that people who know the information will find it too much and unnecessary and do not want to listen.

# data[].attributes.headline
(1) Do you normally use an inductive or deductive style of persuasion?; 

# data[].attributes.subject
(1) Do you normally use an inductive or deductive style of persuasion?; 

# data[].attributes.body
I normally use deductive style of persuasion.
Because I usually explain about Korean language and literacy. I prefer that show my students a specific principal first, and show some examples based on that principal. Because it is easy and effective to both teacher and students that explain a principal first.

(2) What are the advantages and disadvantages of your preferred style? ----- Prior to responding to these discussion prompts, please watch the videos and read the article attached on the board.

Deductive style of persuasion is easy to explain. Because go to the point directly, it's fast and simple.
Second, it can show correct examples only. When I use inductive style, sometimes students tell me another examples that is except of today's principal. Then I should explain the reason those examples aren't right example. On this situation, the other students are confusing that, too.

On the other hands, this style steals a chance that students realize themselves about that principle.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you normally use an inductive or deductive style of persuasion?

I think I tend to lean towards the deductive style. It usually bothers me when I don't know the reasoning behind something, that's why I like to give context to others when I'm explaining something to them. However, I do think it is easy for me to shift from deductive to inductive; I usually use the inductive style when the issue is somehow superficial, not that serious, easy to fix, or, if I'm being honest, when I simply don't care that much.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of your preferred style?

I think the fact that I tend to go with the deductive style helps me a lot in my career. I used to work at a daycare, and we know that kids can be stubborn/curious about things and follow you around asking "but why??". So, I have to be able to give them an answer that they understand and that is going to be good enough for them to stop the interrogation.
For disadvantages, I guess I could say that it could be tedious for someone (in this case, children) that is not used to remain concentrated for a long time to sit there and listen to a sometimes ted talk long monologue to explain why I decided to sit on a blue chair rather than on a green chair.
I think I just have to be able to mix both styles to give good but short reasoning behind my actions/thoughts/decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
（１）I usually prefer deductive styles. Especially in law, reasoning is so important to persuade.  So, I usually try to prepare sufficient reasons and logic to support the conclusion. This way of thinking of mine may be attributed to that Japanese law comes from continental law having written laws, not from Common Law in UK and US. And, for business presentation, we have to provide enough information and data to making a decision to audience like clients, directors or bosses in company. It's suitable deductive styles. However, inductive styles should be mixed to it because it clearly conveys the conclusion and makes audience picture the situation and understand well. The inductive style is helpful to get straight to the point, which is very important in business scene.
（２）The strong point of deductive style is that it provides a logical presentation with reasons and evidence to bolster the conclusion.
The disadvantage is that it tends to be wordy and dilutes the conclusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Erin Meyer: Working Across Cultures - Global Matters

# data[].attributes.body
My style of persuasion, I think, is usually inductive. In my work, I get used to working, providing orientation to people, and trying to explain in different ways how they have to operate. For this reason, it is easier to explain an issue by supporting this with examples, being practical, taking a topic, and putting it to practice. When I explain something based on my experience, I feel confident and able to demonstrate that issue in detail and with fundament. The disadvantage of doing that, people could think that I am egocentric because I try to explain or provide information from my experience. In addition, I agree with the information in this video; I usually use the inductive style to describe to my users a benefit, program, or project; however, when I am with my colleagues, we know about the topic; in this opportunity, it is recommendable to take theory, to support your opinion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: Tailor Your Presentation to Fit the Culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: Tailor Your Presentation to Fit the Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fourteen years ago I moved from Chicago to Paris. The first time I ran a training session in France, I prepared thoroughly, considering how to give the most persuasive presentation possible. I practiced my points, and anticipated questions that might arise.

The day of the session, my actions were guided by the lessons I had learned from many successful years of training in the U.S. I started by getting right to the point, introducing strategies, practical examples, and next steps.

But the group did not seem to be responding as usual, and soon the first hand came up. "How did you get to these conclusions?" You are giving us your tools and recommended actions, but I haven't heard enough about how you got here. How many people did you poll? What questions did you ask?" Then another jumped in: "Please explain what methodology you used for analyzing your data and how that led you to come to these findings".

The interruptions seemed out of place, even arrogant. Why, I wondered, did they feel the need to challenge my credibility? The material was practical, actionable and interesting. Their questions on the other hand - if I were to spend the necessary time answering them - were so conceptual they were sure to send the group into a deep slumber. So I assured them that the methodology behind the recommendations was sound, and was based on careful research, which I would be happy to discuss with them during a break. I then moved back to my conclusions, tools and practical examples. Let's just say things got worse from there.

The stonewall I had run into was " principles-first reasoning " (sometimes referred to as deductive reasoning), which derives conclusions or facts from general principles or concepts. People from principles-first cultures, such as France, Spain, Germany, and Russia (to name just a few) most often seek to understand the "why" behind proposals or requests before they move to action.

But as an American, I had been immersed throughout my life in " applications-first reasoning " (sometimes referred to as inductive reasoning), in which general conclusions are reached based on a pattern of factual observations from the real world. Application-first cultures tend to focus less on the "why" and more on the "how." Later, as I began to understand the differences between one culture and another in how to influence other people, I heard many examples of the way the typical American presentation style is viewed from a European perspective.

Jens Hupert, a German living in the United States for many years, explained his opposite experience during an interview. "In the U.S., when giving a talk to my American colleagues, I would start my presentation by laying the foundation for my conclusions, just like I had learned in Germany; setting the parameters; outlining my data and my methodology; and explaining my argument." Jens was taken aback when his American boss told him, "In your next presentation, get right to the point. You lost their attention before you got to the important part." In Hupert's mind, "You cannot come to a conclusion without first defining the parameters."

Most people are capable of practicing both principles-first and applications-first reasoning, but your habitual pattern of reasoning is heavily influenced by the kind of thinking emphasized in your culture's education structure.

Different cultures have different systems for learning, in part because of the philosophers who influenced the approach to intellectual life in general. Although Aristotle, a Greek, is credited with articulating the applications-first thinking, it was British thinkers, including Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th century, who popularized these methodologies. General conclusions are reached based on a pattern of actual observations in the real world.

For example, if you travel to my hometown in Minnesota in January, and you observe every visit that the temperature is considerably below zero, you will conclude that Minnesota winters are cold. You observe data from the real world, and you draw broader conclusions based on these empirical observations. Francis Bacon was British, but later, Americans with their pioneer mentality came to be even more applications-first than the British.

By contrast, philosophy on the European continent has been largely driven by principles-first approaches. In the 17th century, Frenchman René Descartes spelled out a method of principles-first reasoning in which the scientist first formulates a hypothesis and then seeks evidence to prove or disprove it.

For example, you may start with the general principle like "all men are mortal." Then move to "Justin Bieber is a man." And that leads you to conclude that " Justin Bieber will eventually die." One starts with the general principle, and from that moves to a practical conclusion. In the 19th century, the German Friedrich Hegel introduced the dialectic model of deduction, which reigns supreme in schools in Latin and Germanic countries. The Hegelian dialectic begins with a thesis, or foundational argument; this is opposed by an antithesis, or conflicting argument; and the two are then reconciled in a synthesis.

No matter which type of country you were raised in, and which cultures you are working with, it helps a lot to be able to adapt your style according to your audience. Here are a few tips to guide your preparation when working internationally:
When working with applications-first people:

Presentations: Make your arguments effectively by getting right to the point. Stick to concrete examples, tools and next steps. Spend relatively little time building up the theory or concept behind your arguments. You'll need less time for conceptual debate.

Persuading others: Provide practical examples of how it worked elsewhere.

Providing Instructions: Focus on the how more than the why.

When working with principles-first people:

Presentations: Make your argument effectively by explaining and validating the concept underlying your reasoning before coming to conclusions and examples. Leave enough time for challenge and debate of the underlying concepts. Training sessions may take longer.

Persuading others: Provide background principles and welcome debate.

Providing Instructions: Explain why, not just how.

These days, I give a lot of presentations to groups across Europe and the Americas. I do my best to adapt to my audience, instead of thinking that the whole world thinks like me.

If I'm presenting to a group of New Yorkers, I'll only spend a moment talking about what research is behind the tool. But if I'm in Moscow, I'll carefully set the stage, laying out the parameters for my arguments, and engaging in debate before arriving at conclusions. If I fail to do this, they are likely to think "What does this woman think. . . . that we are stupid ? That we will just swallow anything?"

When you hope to engage, when you hope to inform and persuade and convince, what you say is important, but how you say it, how you structure your message, can make all the difference - to the Americans, to the French, to everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tailor Your Presentation to Fit the Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourteen years ago I moved from Chicago to Paris. The first time I ran a training session in France, I prepared thoroughly, considering how to give the most persuasive presentation possible. I practiced my points, and anticipated questions that might arise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leadership Speaker Erin Meyer: Low Context vs. High Context Societies