In my experience, much more effectively and efficiently when the interaction is direct and factual, rather than emotionally padded with niceties.

Whenever I have the ability to choose who I work with, I always pick who I can be the most frank with, and who is the most direct with me. It's so nice when information can pass freely, without having to worry about hurting feelings. I accommodate emotional niceties for those who need it, but it measurably slows things down.

Related, I try to avoid working with people who embrace the time wasting, absolutely embarrassing, concept of "saving face".

When interacting with humans, too much openness and honesty can be a bad thing. If you insult someone's politics, religion or personal pride, they can become upset, even violent.

Especially if you do it by not even arguing with them, but by Socratic style questioning of their point of view - until it becomes obvious that their point of view is incoherent.

This is often dishonest though:

You haven’t proven that your point of view is any more coherent, just attacked theirs while refusing to engage about your own — which is the behavior they’re responding to with aggression.

Most times, my (the questioners!) point of view never even enters the discussion. It certainly doesn’t need to be for this reaction.

Try learning how someone who professes to be a follower of Christ but who also supports the current administration, what they think Christ’s teachings were for instance.

I'm very honestly wondering if they become violent, because using socratic method has closed the other road.

I mean if you've just proven that my words and logic are actually unsound and incoherent how can I use that very logic with you? If you add to this that most people want to win an argument (when facing opposite point of view) then what's left to win but violence ?

Isn't this ultimately what happened to Socrates himself?

(I don't think enough people take the lesson from this of "it doesn't matter if you're right if you're also really obnoxious about it")

I’m pretty sure Socrates wasn’t even being obnoxious about it.

The lesson I took was, he would rather be dead right, than a live liar.

We all end up making that choice at some point, if we recognize it or not.

One lesson I learned is that you, more often than not, cannot convince a person to change their opinion by arguing with them.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Asimov

Never underestimate the effectiveness of violence.

- every successful general and politician ever

... you can change your judgement/thoughts and be on the correct side.

it was not about what I could do, but explaining why people may resort to violence.

And to be very honest even the one using the socratic method may not be of pure intention.

In both cases I ve rarely (not never) met someone who admitted right away to be wrong as the conclusion of a argument.

Have you met people?