It's not a breezy quick read, but my favourite sci-fi is always likely to be Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson.
On that note, have you ever read Non-violent Communication? Seems like another book in the same vein.
I was about to summarize, but instead, I'm going to copy and paste from the web:
----
Difficult conversations are anything that someone does not want to talk about, such as asking for a raise or complaining to a neighbor about his barking dog. People are usually reluctant to open a difficult conversation out of fear of the consequences. Typically, when the conversation does occur the parties think and feel a lot more than they actually say.
Underlying every difficult conversation are actually three deeper conversations. The "What happened?" conversation usually involves disagreement over what happened, what should happen, and who is to blame. The feelings conversation is about the parties' emotions, and their validity. The identity conversation is an internal conversation that each party has with herself, over what the situation tells her about who she is. The authors identify common errors that people make in these sorts of conversations. The key to having effective, productive conversations is to recognize the presence of these deeper conversations, avoid the common errors, and turn difficult conversations into learning conversations.
----
My favourite example is a scenario in which you have been consistently working late and missing dinner - and your partner is pissed. You feel tired and angry that your hard work is unappreciated and that they are just adding to your frustrations. This is roughly where most couples would fight.
The book helps you understand that when your partner is angry that you've missed dinner... well, unless you've been wasting away of a nutritional disease, they aren't concerned that you're hungry. They feel lonely and disrespected. They are aware that in the early days of a relationship, all of the demons in hell couldn't have kept you away... so what's changed? They are worried for the future of your relationship. They are worried that they've been replaced, physically or emotionally.
And part of this is the questions you have to ask yourself; is your partner correct to be concerned? Has something intangible changed? Am I hiding and using work as a cover?
After reading the book, I had powerful new tools to understand and correct the problem. Which is a big deal because these sorts of problems happen all of the freaking time. And if I can make even some of the problems in my life resolve faster with a better outcome, then I'm truly winning.
Honestly, the book was so powerful for me that when I finished, my primary emotion was anger at myself. I suddenly had to confront the idea that most of the major problems and conflicts in my life had been far more my fault than I'd ever considered... and that if I'd done some simple things differently eg. thought about what someone was really saying, there are people gone from my life that might have otherwise still been there today.
Whatever someone says they are upset about is only rarely what they are actually upset about.
This seems simple and obvious in hindsight, but to truly internalize it has changed my life experience. They aren't sad that you forgot to call; they are concerned that you don't love them. It's almost like when someone is upset, you should try dropping down at least one level of Maslow's hierarchy to interrogate "what's really going on, here" because the upset person is frequently not consciously aware of what they are really upset about, either.
To that end, if you practice consoling people by addressing what they are feeling instead of what they are saying, it might as well be like gaining a superpower. And that is why I put this book at the top of any list. It is the real deal in this regards.
I totally second the recommendation, though.
Cory Doctorow has often said that good sci-fi doesn't predict the future so much as anticipate the present.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Cryptonomicon came out in 1999. While there were early cryptocurrencies that all went nowhere, Stephenson was a good decade ahead of the BTC paper.
It could also be argued that his particular focus on the obliteration of sensitive emails being kept on private servers was unnervingly prescient, too.
I probably shouldn't enjoy being empirically correct so much, but this dispute gave me the opportunity to demonstrate that he was, quite simply, wrong.
Disregarding the movie, it's the attempt to identify sci-fi that is interesting. In the same way the judge couldn't define pornography "but knows it when I see it", there is not one standing definition. However, the greats who established the genre agreed on some important basics which hold water today. Cribbed from Wikipedia:
Heinlein: "...realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."
Wells: "...a conscientious attempt to be faithful to already known facts (as of the date of writing) was the substrate on which the story was to be built, and if the story was also to contain a miracle, it ought at least not to contain a whole arsenal of them."
Shippey: "...the basic building block and distinguishing feature of a science fiction novel is the presence of the novum... a discrete piece of information recognizable as not-true, but also as not-unlike-true, not-flatly- (and in the current state of knowledge) impossible."
It's Wells' point that led to me leaving this comment. Don't get me wrong - I get genuinely excited every time REDACTED shows up in a Stephenson novel... but his immortality is, for me, uncomfortably close to a miracle.
Now, sometimes this is preferable; hands up if you would prefer to not know the word Miti-chlorian.
I'm reminded of "This Is Water" - the David Foster Wallace commencement speech where he started with an allegory about the frog making small talk with a fish. I paraphrase:
"The water is lovely today, isn't it?"
"What the hell is water?"