“psychological safety” is a newish buzz term that is basically an excuse for people who can’t handle criticism or debate, which I am seeing as increasingly common among younger devs. It is and should always be ok to freely exchange ideas without fear of being wrong, because everyone can be wrong. Even Einstein was occasionally wrong.
Your comment is a good example of a lack of psychological safety - you shoot the concept down with an intellectually dishonest argument, effectively ridiculing the idea.
The problem you describe is the part that is directly addressed by psychological safety. If you can provide a wrong answer and have people critique it but without ridicule, then you have a “safe” environment where people are comfortable to provide solutions without certainty on their optimality.
It's the exact opposite. A team with strong psychological safety is exactly the type of group that knows how to present critique and debate, even between junior, senior, and management participants.
The point is that participants feel safe challenging an idea.
