That's an eternal conundrum, and one that eats away at me on a regular basis.
Long story short:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw
Long story long:
I'm a nice person, I'm passive, I like letting people do their thing and letting them learn on their own timeline because, in my experience, 'forcing it' can result in an opposite reaction. I'm happy to provide guidance when asked and gentle suggestions and nudges in the right direction, delivered non-threateningly.
On the flipside, my opinions are relatively strongly held because I 'do the work' to research and understand the issues that I either care about, or am tasked to solve in my work.
I get internally "Jobsian" at the dismissal of my solution for another, but rarely let my internal "Jobs" out of his box. In my earlier years I've been told (by my wife) that I'm scary when in disagreement; my voice, tone, and body language is apparently threatening. I don't want to impose this beast, I don't want my influence to be threatening, I want it to be intellectual; the actual right answer or best path forwards.
Quiet intellectualism, however, appears to be the easiest thing in the world to ignore and / or dismiss.
Or maybe I'm just wrong, and living in my own reality distortion field.
Your self-reflection is commendable. After self-awareness indicates opportunities for tone improvement in conversation, finding the balance between effective and "socially acceptable" is a persistent challenge.
I think socially and culturally a recalibration is happening and the answer may end up being there are plenty of smart, creative, people who aren't assholes but haven't been heard in the past. Or, in a decade we may find out that assholes have a purpose other than shitting on people.
