> they can be interpreted as attacking, or weakness
I think a more constructive way to look at it is one style puts a higher cost on wasting time than and the other style puts a higher cost on appearing unsympathetic. I call it "country style" (putting more value on appearing empathetic than being time-efficient) and "city style" (the opposite). People who grow up in one environment or the other often have trouble transitioning to the other simply because they don't understand that there are different quality metrics in play.
But both of those are unnecessarily uncharitable readings. Country style is neither weak nor dishonest, it's just different. A lot of country-style people consider city-style to be "rude" but it's not, it's just more efficient than they're used to.
I think a more constructive way to look at it is one style puts a higher cost on wasting time than and the other style puts a higher cost on appearing unsympathetic. I call it "country style" (putting more value on appearing empathetic than being time-efficient) and "city style" (the opposite). People who grow up in one environment or the other often have trouble transitioning to the other simply because they don't understand that there are different quality metrics in play.