3 ms·
Won't you accomplish the same result by asking questions around the suspected fatal flaw? If it's really a flaw, the suggester is made aware of it. If it isn't
by taxikabs 9y ago
Won't you accomplish the same result by asking questions around the suspected fatal flaw? If it's really a flaw, the suggester is made aware of it. If it isn't a flaw, the asker is given evidence that it's not. It just seems like a different approach to these end result.
I also believe that method promotes hashing it out together. Outright rejection of an idea seems to put the onus back solely on the suggester to defend the idea without having been communicated the reason. That said, communicating the reason for rejection goes a long way towards making both process more equivalent.
- tzs 9y agoI should have mentioned that a blunt "that was stupid" was generally only for people you knew. If it was someone you didn't know well you would not be so blunt. The nice thing about working with very smart people is that when they have one of their rare very bad ideas, they are smart enough to see it right away as soon as they see you reject the idea (assuming they think that you are reasonably bright too). For the more common case of bad ideas that are not super bad, then yeah, there probably needs to be some discussion to work out if they need to be rejected, or if the bad parts can be fixed. If you can keep your ego disentangled from your ideas and from how people respond to your ideas, a group can move past the occasional really bad ideas very quickly, and spent most of its time on the good ideas, or on the not good ideas that have some good things in them that can be saved.