My thought on this: a "no filter" policy is good, but it requires sensitivity. Paul Graham can shoot down a bad idea (that's a service, not a slight) but not a

My thought on this: a "no filter" policy is good, but it requires sensitivity. Paul Graham can shoot down a bad idea (that's a service, not a slight) but not a person, which is an important skill because good people come up with bad ideas all the time and someone has to do the culling. Few people have that ability. Paul Graham is not (from the sounds of it) an asshole. Constructive criticism is good, but assholes are toxic. They shoot down bad ideas, but also good ones, and generally make people insecure. They aren't taken seriously after a while, but they inject random, highly visible, embarrassment that can effectively target anyone and it has a chilling effect. People create and refine these filters and then go too far in the other direction. They know they aren't assholes, but they don't even want to look like assholes. Additionally, most people spend most of their organizational lives as subordinates, in positions where there is literally no upside (and considerable downside) to being a bearer of bad news.