[tptacek]

The "if you're going to argue yourselves to death, do it now" advice seems incomplete to me. It presumes a model where a team is either going to argue itself to death or not; the outcome is predestined, and so it's better to know early. But reality as I've experienced it is that arguments degrade teams (and relationships of all sorts). A team that might have survived can be killed by inviting a pointless argument.

A team has a capacity for arguments that depletes over time as arguments exhaust the team members. Arguments happening in rapid succession set up a vicious cycle, because there's a migraine aura of bad communications surrounding any big argument, and difficult decisions that happen in that aura spark needless new arguments. Lots of arguments also carry a potential for resentment, which creates a longer-term communication problem which sometimes insidiously builds as the company runs.

The "trial arguments" theory that Quora comment suggests seems to me a little like those parents who throw "chicken pox parties". It's probably fine and maybe even pragmatic, but it's a risk.

[1stop]

Off topic: Given the existence of a chicken pox vaccine. A chicken pox party is not even pragmatic. :)