> If you're working for someone who can't tolerate debate, leave.

I dunno about you, but I've left a bunch of jobs (or been left) because I thought the people involved could handle debate, when they couldn't.

Your boss is a human, they have issues that may prevent them from accepting your (clearly better ;) ) solution, or they may have context that they can't share (their boss might be pushing for something dumb).

Ultimately, the hierarchy and the power differentials are real, and unless you're happy jumping ship all the time (which I am not, anymore) you need to find a way to deal with disagreements more productively (which often involves letting people save face by disagreeing in private).

> It's a chief reason California tech companies become dysfunctional.

I think the deeper reason for Cali tech dysfunction is the relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.

> relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.

They are aspects of the same thing.

Debate implies that things aren't already perfect. "Why would positive people argue", a Californoid might ask, "instead of working together to make something great?".

My chief problem with California tech is that it's structured to reward schmoozing at the expense of ideas themselves and marketed as the opposite. It's unreality.