Of course, there are some other, unspoken prerequisites to this sort of perfect harmony of flower children prancing through the meadow.
- pre-selection of qualified individuals
- dictatorial authority precluding much superfluous decision making
- martial and capital punishment casting a long shadow
- high stakes besides all of this
- weeding out according to fitness long before harmony is reached, where the weak are pruned mercilessly
What about:
- shitty HR negotiations
- lies during interviews, that can neither be proven nor disproved
- grooming habits
- sexual tension
- and the rest of all of our human foibles
The dismissive exaggeration with which this comment describes the topic seems to indicate a hostile disdain that I find confusing, all the more for how common it seems to be.
I can't quite get my mind to really understand why some viewpoints respond with aggression to ideas like what the article calls psychological safety.
I think it might have to do with how it's the aggression itself that were being called on to remove.
