In my experience, people who have technical discussions are often blind to their own emotions and the effect that their words have on the people around them. In good this can be solved. In bad cases, people talk about "discussing technical issues" and "directness" as a shield for their poor behavior.
An example from real life: A student, Y, was having a problem with her CS lab assignment, and talked to her professor, Prof. Z. She described what she had done and he said, "Well, that was stupid." In his mind this was just something that you say about bad code you've written. However, he was a professor, and he was saying this about a student's code, and he didn't think of the incredible negative impact that his statement made on his student.
In real life, this interaction took the "good path". They had a conversation, he apologized, and he changed how he spoke to students.
The "bad path" (which didn't happen) is where he justified/defended what he said or minimized/ignored the student's feeling.
Everyone comes to these decision points over and over again in their lives. It's inevitable. We all hurt other people. If we always defend our actions as being in the interest of "technical discussions" or state other reasons why our behavior is correct, is it likely that we are simply good people who never say bad things? Or is it likely that we are ignoring/justifying our poor behavior, and failing to learn and grow?
The "bad path" you're describing is what I and many others like about working in software. When I'm meeting with other technical people, we can have a frank discussion about problems we're facing and solutions to them, which comes much more naturally to me than constantly analyzing the feelings and relative status of everyone in the room. I completely understand why other people prefer more empathy-driven conversational norms, and I try to meet them halfway when I can, but I can't support the idea that their preference is fundamentally superior to mine.
> The "bad path" you're describing is what I and many others like about working in software.
This is not true of software in general. Software companies are diverse, and they are run in diverse ways. (Maybe not as diverse as other industries... but there is still a lot of variation.)
> When I'm meeting with other technical people, we can have a frank discussion about problems we're facing and solutions to them, which comes much more naturally to me than constantly thinking about the feelings and relative status of everyone in the room.
There are a few things I'd like you to consider.
1. Software companies face problems with people. Good managers shield engineers from people problems as much as possible, but if you are only having discussions about technical problems and not people problems, then you are probably not having frank discussions.
2. The fact that it does not come natural to you to constantly think about the feelings of others is not unusual nor is it a fundamental part of your job to constantly think about the feelings of others. If that were the case, there would not be so many good software engineers on the autism spectrum. I have worked with several.
3. It is not expected that you intuit when people are hurt, never say anything hurtful, or think about people first when you are having a technical discussion. However, it is expected that you are aware that your behavior can have a negative impact on other people in the organization and that you make reasonable attempts to correct your behavior if necessary.
> ... but I can't support the idea that their preference is fundamentally superior to mine.
This isn't a dichotomy. An organization needs a combination of strong technical skills and strong people skills in order to succeed. Those skills are, of course, not distributed equally. There is no expectation that a software engineer have the same people skills as an engineering manager.
However, consider this.
An engineering manager primarily works on people problems but would suffer greatly if they had zero technical skills. An engineering manager with zero technical skills is a liability. Likewise, a software engineer with zero people skills is a liability.
And the faster you learn how to give good criticism, the better for you. Being cavalier about other people undermines your ability to effectively communicate.
An example from real life: A student, Y, was having a problem with her CS lab assignment, and talked to her professor, Prof. Z. She described what she had done and he said, "Well, that was stupid." In his mind this was just something that you say about bad code you've written. However, he was a professor, and he was saying this about a student's code, and he didn't think of the incredible negative impact that his statement made on his student.
In real life, this interaction took the "good path". They had a conversation, he apologized, and he changed how he spoke to students.
The "bad path" (which didn't happen) is where he justified/defended what he said or minimized/ignored the student's feeling.
Everyone comes to these decision points over and over again in their lives. It's inevitable. We all hurt other people. If we always defend our actions as being in the interest of "technical discussions" or state other reasons why our behavior is correct, is it likely that we are simply good people who never say bad things? Or is it likely that we are ignoring/justifying our poor behavior, and failing to learn and grow?