People generally want to be convinced of an idea's value before implementing it, and this is reasonable. For tested and tried ideas, this value is generally a k

People generally want to be convinced of an idea's value before implementing it, and this is reasonable. For tested and tried ideas, this value is generally a known quantity, or at least one that can be estimated reasonably well. As long as that value is high, convincing people to do it is relatively easy: it's mostly a matter of presenting that value in ways they'll accept. For untried (i.e. "creative") ideas, this is much harder. Further complicating the process is that the creators of ideas inevitably place a very high intrinsic value on them. There are many reasons for this, but a lot of them are tied into the ego, either directly ("I had this idea, so it's good") or indirectly ("This idea reinforces beliefs I hold, or advances a cause I favor, or lets me practice my favored hobbies, or may answer a question I'm personally curious about, etc., therefore it is good"). Other people just plain don't find these ego-tied arguments compelling, nor really should they, and so they cloud the process of convincing people to go along with a new idea. It would seem, then, that the trick is to remove one's ego from the convincing process, and argue solely based on what's left. But the ego still complicates things. Even when more observer-independent arguments can be found, they never shine as brightly in the eyes of the creator as the ego-tied ones, and so it feels like you're selling it short: not something creatives like to do, and for obvious reasons. Worse, though, are the many ideas that just plain don't have many (or even any) arguments that don't tie straight back into one's own ego. No one else will ever be convinced to go alongside these, but to attack them is to attack the creator's ego, leading to accusations of sour grapes and headlines like "People don't actually like creativity."