Humans are Emotional
Ultimately, humans are emotional. Sure, we're logical too, unlike animals that are mostly emotional. Though, advantageous it may be, it leads to more emotional breakdown than ever.
Logics aren't old. Evolution hasn't lay long enough for them to mature. Yet, humans already took advantage, and still taking advantage of, our underdeveloped logical part of our brain to do lots of things, creating the world we have today; while mother nature is still playing its game towards a better logical brain system via trial and error. Certainly, erroneous means it doesn't always give positive results.
Consider heartbreaking moments human encounters nowadays, be it on the heartbreak-inflictor or heartbreak-affector. Our logical system allows heartbreak-inflictor to say to him/herself: "oh, it doesn't have anything to do with me, so I can live through with it", and walk away leaving the heartbreak-affector to suffer the pain for him/herself. Situation 2: heartbreak-inflictor being more emotional tries to calm down heartbreak-affector; and heartbreak-affector, being a psychopath, takes advantages of the emotional calm to push situation to what he/she wants.
Logic allows us to ignore. Basically, to suppress emotions and ignore what other people feels. Yet emotion lies the base towards stronger relationships. A relationship that holds logical bonds, however strong, is never deep. Logic is logic, and logic can only do that much. Trying to solve everything via logic is futile. Worse, trying to ask others to be logical is futile. As if we can control everything if everyone is logical; which is not the truth. And as if we want everything to be logical hence treating everything else logical, which isn't the fact.
People that could understand from a perspective of others is great. Yet even such people requires emotional nest; someone to care about them. Reading self-help books, it tells you that emotions are two-sided: purely giving or purely receiving doesn't lasts. That's why we need someone whom could understand from others' perspective; and someone to understand them. What says everyone lives in their own world, ignoring all others, if not.
This logic goes even worse on people that you feel like you could control but actually you're not controlling anyone. Makes bitter relationships, eh! If you never notice, start looking at yourself from a fourth-person perspective now, how you'd speak to people you feel like you can control. It's an assertion of authority. Authority means relationship going downhill, ultimately ending it in the near future. No relationship lasts if it doesn't plays an equal ground. Especially parents onto childrens. Someone asserting authority means: never listening to what the others have to speak, never cares about what the other person speaks, trying hardest to change what the others are doing without first understanding their emotions, ignore shown via body emotions while not-ignoring shown via words-of-mouth when someone tell you the fact and what you could do to improve, always changing the subject as if you're showing off how clever and knowledgeable you are because you have too much things to say. Nah...
The matured part of our brain: emotions, are still the base for human communication. Trying to communicate on logical grounds creates shallow "connections". And connections IS NOT relationships. You know each other, you connected. You understand each other, you relate. It's more easier, and useful, to wish people communicating on mostly emotional ground, with a tidbit of logic to prevent doing stupid things like killing yourself or throw the table (掀桌子), than asking: "could you be more logical and think on logical grounds?"
And clash certainly will work if a emotional person communicates with a logical person. Imagine yourself as a logical person trying to convince an emotional person with "because". Look to your words: you'll use lots of "because", because you're logical. And what an emotional person wants to hear? "How do you feel?" and let 'em speaks. Similarly, on the other ground; logical person doesn't get convinced by emotions. Especially if you think you'd lose face trying to open up with each other; or you're scared of opening as authority keeps on asserting: a dead loop ending with bitter relations. Yet, stating clear grounds, letting each other know how you'd like them to convince you on which channel, states the path to stronger and semi-permanent relations.
And please, don't do thing half-half. Say, you're a boss hiring me. If you want me to do something with a certain tools, state them clearly at the beginning. And tell me that I could play around with other tools, but ultimately, you want them done with that certain tools. Ok, clear and stated, and convincing. Bad: you let me play first, then at the end, you ignore the efforts one made and start making everything yourself. So, if you'd wanted that done at the beginning, why not state clearly? It leads to emotional bitterment.
And yes, that's for today. Emotions plays a large part in our society today. Sure, if one day humans become more mature in logical and moves everything to logic, why not just create an AI society and let AI rule us rather than we ruling AI as they have higher priority (and strength) on logic? Survival of the strongest, and no humans can beat (targeted) AI in any targeted field.
P.S. targeted AI means the AI isn't a General AI. Like an AI that knows how to play chess, it only knows how to play chess. Similarly, an AI that rules us as a government only knows how to rule us, it doesn't need to know how to play chess. An AI that knows how to maintain our power supply only needs to maintain our power supply, it doesn't need to know how to rule us. General AI is a jack of all trades, strongest of none. And human is considered a General AI.