> ability to tolerate potentially biting criticism that comes with it

I wonder if this is the issue really. Some people can't take criticism unless wrapped in sugar. If it's really, and especially if it comes with potential alternatives it should be socially fine, but it's not.

Another aspect is how the rest of the team felt over time. They probably built up deep resentment towards this person which ultimately only fed back into the cycle. So whether or not they were aware of it, they probably formed a clique to team up against this person, again only exacerbating the core issue.

The article claimed he was a 10x and that he was usually right in any disagreement, so he probably built up resentment towards them, too.

Nothing in that story suggest ability to tolerate potentially biting criticism from other people. The story suggest ability to dish it out.

The dude presented opinions and preferences as facts. Is there any reason to think he would easily accept when one of juniors called him on it? Because if he would be able to accept the criticism, one of colleges would be able to convince him that some of his criticism is wrong. To me it sounds more like he used the biting criticism to keep the "top dog" position.

People who can tolerate potentially biting criticism wont present preferences as facts all that much, because there would learn from people criticizing them for that in the past.