> A lot of arguments can be avoided by delving into the scary but true, raw but honest emotional side. I learned this from a great consultation.
I'm surprised no one has counter-pointed this yet, but I've found that a lot of arguments can be created by delving into the scary, raw emotional side. Although they are honest reflections of one's emotions, they may not be a correct or reasonable reaction to the situation. Such emotional revelations can provoke an equally emotional reaction from the other party, with similar reasonableness problems. This can then go any number of directions after that, from a new found emotional closeness to a guns-blazing tear down of one another. Whichever it is, be assured that the people involved are not thinking, only acting. Many more people are hurt or killed out of an outburst of raw emotion than are out of an outburst of rationality.
This also seems to assert that, by wanting to avoid arguments, arguments are to be avoided at all costs. If so, why? If not, which arguments are worthwhile having? I have seen a lot of good ideas, a lot of novel ideas, come out of an argument from two people who aren't averse to intellectual jousting. It seems unlikely these ideas would've formed if these people had spent their time instead making sure conflict is minimized.
> That is how people connect with each other.
This is not the only way people connect with one another, although it may be the most prevalent. Many of the connections I make with people are based on an intellectual rather than an emotional connection. We find enjoyment in discussing ideas based on their own merits and evidence we've discovered, not based upon the emotional reaction they invoke in one or the other parties. Knowing how people feel about ideas says almost nothing about whether they are correct, and that correctness is what interests me more. My goal in all my relationships I have is learning, maybe about the other person to a point, but also about the larger world with the other person serving as someone with which to test the ideas I come up with, and me likewise for them. Perhaps there is an emotional component there in the larger friendship, but it is not the facilitator of the individual conversations.
I hope you aren't making implications in this direction, but I can't help but feel that you are blaming the people who are less emotionally driven for the distance and disharmony in society. To quote the author Sam Harris, who I think phrases this quite well: There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. He is talking about religion, but I think it applies equally to all things.