Yeah, this is also an element that's important not to discount, and can help describe why it's hard for engineers and other high-IQ roles to accept that social compliance is the #1 factor in all ongoing voluntary associations.

We're really spoiled in tech because the field is so abundant. We offend someone or get offended, and we're off to greener pastures within weeks if not sooner. I've come to believe that hopping around like this, which I've done for most of my career up to this point, is not healthy, but the availability means that technical people don't have to learn to conform as well as everyone else to survive. And while that means we may be able to keep a job, it's hard to move up.

These things that we struggle with are just normal life to a lot of people. They had to swallow these compromises early in life when it was apparent that good feelings were all they would be able to offer.

This contributes to the cycle because those people pay their dues to the establishment, go through the process, and get used to the circlejerk. They then expect everyone else to do the same.

When someone wants to come in and challenge some of their thoughts, opinions, or practices, even minor things, in what the challenger feels is a sporting way or a way to drive an interesting and inoffensive discussion, the "good feelings violation" siren fires off in the non-technical person's head.

This brings in a large flood of negative feelings and resentment, including but not limited to jealousy that you can express your thoughts openly while they've always had to kowtow, a sense that you're entitled for thinking you should be able to do this and "dictate from your expertise" (as was expressed about me once) instead of "climbing the ranks" the hard way and then quietly and subtly implementing your opinion after you've won the social clout like everyone else has to do, and a sense that you may represent a threat to the perceived competency of the challenged person (and those least competent will be the most aggressive protectors of this perception) in the minds of the people whose trust they live off, which is really everyone -- colleagues, subordinates, and superiors -- which means it's very difficult to overtly question or discuss anything done by anyone, even in what you believe is a polite or considerate way.

Exceptions are basically not made to this. The potential of substantial data loss, massive security holes, etc., are irrelevant. If someone grossly incompetent like this is on your team, the smart move is NOT to challenge or disprove, because again, no one evaluates proof on any basis except "which proponent do I trust more?". The smart move is to frame the situation such that his failures are opportunities for you to deduct from his social clout and add into your own, without ever firing an alarm in anyone's mind that you're trying to do this.

It's all an image game. As an individual contributor, you can avoid a lot of this game as long as you're non-threatening, churn out semi-reliable work, and are at least not annoying if not socially pleasant. Once you try to move up the ladder, even just one rung, image and likability goes from 65% of the equation to 99%.