Thomas, I know answers like this can come off as canned or insincere but these things keep me up at night.
Robert, they don't come off as canned. They just come off as if all of you attended the same rhetorics course. Because Robert, it is a pattern and I just wanted to point this pattern out.
It is not natural in a conversation to use the name of a person. So you can deliberately trigger cues in the person by doing that. It will heighten their attention. Its also a very common tool used in NLP. And you can also see that pattern by observing conversations on DN threads.
When people comment in convincing mode, they place the name in a way that will trigger a cue and heighten their readers attention. When people don't do that, they engage in regular conversation and answer normally, with context in mind. Because of course, they person knows their name and knows that you are answering to them and placing the name is not needed for the conversation.
So, Robert, sorry if I offended you - I just pointed out an Observation, Robert.
Robert, they don't come off as canned. They just come off as if all of you attended the same rhetorics course. Because Robert, it is a pattern and I just wanted to point this pattern out.
It is not natural in a conversation to use the name of a person. So you can deliberately trigger cues in the person by doing that. It will heighten their attention. Its also a very common tool used in NLP. And you can also see that pattern by observing conversations on DN threads.
When people comment in convincing mode, they place the name in a way that will trigger a cue and heighten their readers attention. When people don't do that, they engage in regular conversation and answer normally, with context in mind. Because of course, they person knows their name and knows that you are answering to them and placing the name is not needed for the conversation.
So, Robert, sorry if I offended you - I just pointed out an Observation, Robert.