Shooting down ideas is not a skill
Whether quickly shooting down ideas is harmful or an essential skill divides opinion among engineers and managers. Many argue that constant naysaying—especially in meetings—kills exploration and favors status games over innovation, while others stress that rigorous critique, past experience, and opportunity-cost awareness are crucial to avoid wasting time on bad or impractical proposals. The emerging middle ground emphasizes timing, tone, and intent: let early ideas “breathe,” then subject them to structured, respectful scrutiny that distinguishes between attacking a proposal and attacking the person behind it.
Is “shooting down ideas” a skill?
- Many disagree with the article title: identifying bad ideas, knowing when they’re bad, and knowing when you don’t know are seen as distinct, valuable skills.
- Others argue the reflex to negate ideas without thinking is common and low‑value, which is what the article is really attacking.
- Several note that in academia, engineering, and high‑stakes work, culling bad ideas early is essential, not optional.
Role and timing of criticism
- A recurring distinction: exploration vs execution.
- In early brainstorming, premature naysaying is said to stunt creativity.
- Later, rigorous critique (risk, cost, stakeholder impact, technical limits) is seen as necessary.
- Some suggest letting ideas “breathe” first, then stress‑testing them with structured questions (e.g., DARPA’s Heilmeier-style catechism).
- Others emphasize classic “design review” cultures where the explicit goal is to shoot holes in proposals so they emerge stronger.
Organizational dynamics and politics
- Commenters describe teams where people compete to sound smart by finding flaws, creating a “kill zone” where nothing new survives.
- Conversely, there are environments where criticism is unwelcome; pointing out problems gets you labeled “negative” and harms your career.
- Power asymmetry matters: the burden of proof often falls on the less senior person, regardless of who is actually right.
How to critique constructively
- Productive patterns mentioned:
- Ask questions instead of declaring impossibility.
- Pair objections with possible mitigations or at least a path to investigate.
- Separate judgment of the idea from judgment of the person.
- Use written RFC/DACI docs so ideas can be examined asynchronously and iteratively.
- Improv-style “yes, and…” to extend ideas before pruning them.
On ideas themselves
- Many stress that most ideas are bad or trivial; “ideas are cheap, execution is hard.”
- Some argue that good ideas don’t inevitably “win”; timing, buy‑in, and politics can kill them.
- Others counter that if an idea can’t withstand basic questions (market, stakeholders, feasibility), it likely isn’t ready.