The situation described in the article is at least partially caused by people acting without understanding their motivations, or how to concert them. It can be

The situation described in the article is at least partially caused by people acting without understanding their motivations, or how to concert them. It can be drilled many layers into, or it can simply stated as having this work on your team requires everyone meet a certain level of maturity. If every team member understands the axiom that the singular reason for anyone's participation in the discussion of the idea/topic is strengthening the idea/collective understanding of the topic and can maintain that as their primary motivator when deciding how to act then you will find that what was interpreted as toxicity before is then interpreted as passion, and that the toxicity previously motivated by fear of looking bad is now reasoned into nonexistence because engaging in reasonable discussion via admitting to a blindspot is in service of the ultimate goal. You need some combination of things that get you the end result of everyone cognitively keeping their emotional reactions at bay if you want this style of thing to work on your team. edit: also, IMO the whole adding a percentage certainty qualifier to your statements misses the point, bless its heart. The reason discussion gets better results is because you get more data. Slapping a percentage estimator to your certainty implies that you know about how much data you already have (true) and that you know how much data is all the data (false). No one knows that. This is another axiom that's very helpful in diverting the emotional shrapnel that this style of debate can otherwise toss out because it allows everyone to be comfortably humble. Comfortably so because they will not be humbled by another person, but rather by the undeniable infinity of the universe, which some might call God.