You should probably read the rest of that paragraph. It specifically starts off with "this may seem overly deferential," and then goes into explaining it in more detail about what exactly they meant.

The way I read it, it's not about asking permission, per se, it's about setting expectations. "Head's up, I'm about to disagree with you." Also by giving them this ability to "opt in" to the disagreement, you're creating a relationship based on trust. In other words, they're hearing you respectfully express your thoughts and feelings, and that makes them _more_ likely to listen to you in the future, versus just barging in with your thoughts unannounced. (Contrariwise, if they say "no" too many times, then they don't trust you or your opinions -- and that's information for you to do what you wish!)

And sometimes? Your boss doesn't want you to disagree, they just want you to execute, saving both of you the time and energy of arguing.

You may still disagree, and you may not like their decision to just execute, but at the end of the day, they're the boss and you aren't. You're free to get another job!

As a leader in my company, I welcome disagreement early on. But at some point, we have to execute and we can't get stuck in a stalemate because I want A and you want B. Someone has to make a decision, and as the superior, that responsibility lies with me (or in some contexts, it lies with my superior, even if I disagree!).

(P.S. You are allowed to disagree with your parents, too!)

No, it's a strategy.

I accidentally stumbled on the permission to disagree when arguing with my partner. We both do it now. Sometimes people aren't in the mood to argue/debate. When you ask permission, if they say yes, they usually keep their emotions in check. If they say no, you save the battle for another day.

It's a great way to build respect.

This sentiment is one I understand, and I'm not fond of deference to power either. That section of the article though, illustrates an example which I would say is useful when challenging any idea, not just one from a person with more "power". It's a small signal that you're going to challenge the ideas, and it gives the other party room to prepare. A social protocol if you will.

There are quite a few good ideas in tfa. The power deference is frustrating, but it's also a reality with groups of humans. In the end, you can build up your own forms of informal power and social capital if you deal with this kind of situation pragmatically. As a result you can become someone people will trust to discuss ideas effectively.