The best way I have found to communicate to mixed groups effectively is by giving the straight shooter response immediately followed by imagery based elaboration, which ultimately gets more airplay/screenplay. Some successful speakers flip the order, but that is more dependent on the audience. Notice this the next keynote or quarterly conference call you listen to.
Maybe it is because I have both arts talent and logical thinking, but balancing the two has never been a problem for me. Make each one as concise as can be while still accurate/full picture.
Regarding the communication bit, I definitely agree with the order. While not doing it on purpose, looking back I did notice differences in the responses of people based on how I'd pitch an idea/project at meetups.
-rationally addressing all of their concerns
-leading them up to the idea so they 'come up with it'
-giving people a detail that they can change
-make sure one of their value added ideas is implemented within it
-putting someone in charge of a section of it
-scratching each others back
Essentially, making the other person have skin in the game.
A chef I used to work with would yell and rile up one worker when he saw we were going to get busy. One day the worker exclaimed, 'I hate this. why don't you yell at Bob?'. The chef replied, 'Bob works like shit when he is angry, you work like shit if you are not'.
Each person has their own trigger. Knowing that trigger is a huge part of managing people.
Personal metaphors are jam packed with information and emotion.
For example, when someone talks about being part of a "club", it seems like an innocent word doesn't it, but to them the club metaphor may mean the inclusion or ostracization of a social group.
Of course, some metaphors are universally understood (especially archetypes) and can be the transport system for new instructions to the subconscious mind. I used the Warrior metaphor for my eyes-open self hypnosis: http://summonthewarrior.com and people seem to respond really well to it, myself included!
I'm no fan of NLP - it was intended as a personal development aid to deal with phobias and disorders, so was intended to be internally-focused. However, in my experience, many use it as a manipulative tool (externally-focused), which I dislike intensely. Makes me feel I'm being played, so recognising that is the value I derive from understanding it.
Dale Carnegie's book, however, is (my opinion) the best and most useful personal development book I've ever read.
That's not a problem of the tool itself, but a problem with the handlers of the tool.
Usually people learn NPL to fix weird behavior within themselves. Once that happens, they usually ignore the meme "with great power comes great responsibility", and go their way messing with other people's ideas, or even feelings.
If you learn it as it was intended, and refrain yourself of exploiting it for profit, you're on the good side.
I always wanted to learn NPL, but I've never tried because I figured I wasn't ready yet. But after this, I think the time might be perfect to pick it up and weed out some weird behaviors of my own.