^ I actually always had you pegged for a pretty passionate man

That's a very good explanation, though -- a lot of 'head types' are that way because they're intimately in touch with their thinking side, and are not in touch with, or comfortable directly addressing, their feelings. This makes sense in light of debates I've had with proponents of opinions I've deemed kind of cold (libertarianism and eugenics come to mind). When I counter their points, especially with maddeningly simple appeals to 'That's not what people
want.', they get worked up! I'm sure to them, I've kicked over their meticulously crafted sandcastle. But they may not have stopped to think that the whole reason they lovingly built such a logically intricate fortress in the first place, was because of something they believed due to passion, taste, or intuition.
This, to me, really forms the basis of the perennial diversity of human viewpoints. People will never reach worldwide consensus on most major issues. This is not because either side, or both, are necessarily working with flawed logic. On the contrary, most hot button issues have two or more sides that both have very well logically developed arguments. The stalemate comes from the basal fact that people take sides on issues more due to what resonates with them and clicks with their own life experience of what's true and real, than due to weighing the relative logical merit of each side.
I think liberals and conservatives, for example, have been arguing since time immemorial over whether societal change is to be feared or not. But the best argument from a liberal in favor of liberalism will not sway a conservative who is just threatened on a visceral level by things new, different, and unprecedented. And vice versa.