[blario]

At my previous job I had this problem. It was intensified by, what I perceived to be, conversation that was more flawed than accurate. I heard so many statements I couldn't agree with, I didn't know where to start commenting on anything. In other worlds, the whole idea or conversation that was being discussed was wrong. Very often I had nothing to say, because how do you tell a team of co-workers that everything they're saying is wrong?

Of course, many would assume I was more likely to be wrong, disagreeing with so many people. I worked in a very stale industry however, no where near as pioneering or cutting edge as some dream jobs in the valley: some would say legacy, enterprise software. So I beg to differ the opposite is possible also. Also, I worked there for years, knowing most colleagues would do anything just to coast, I had far more than 5 minutes to give the processes consideration.

Regardless, what I learned is, if everything in the conversation sounds wrong, and the appropriate "5 minutes" have been given, perhaps you are participating in bad conversations / keeping bad company. Switching jobs is the best thing that could have happened to me in order to improve my expertise.

[specialist]

> Very often I had nothing to say, because how do you tell a team of co-workers that everything they're saying is wrong?

Yup.

I (think I) have four buckets:

1) Awesome! I'm stealing it!

2) Worse than wrong (h/t Murray Gell-Mann) aka not good enough to criticize.

3) Hmmm, worth chewing over.

4) I have absolutely no idea (please talk more).

I'm more like Jason F, where I felt I had a moral obligation to fix things, and have had to learn to keep my mouth shut.

The most insightful advice I ever got was "Sometimes you just have to let people fail. It's quicker than opposing them."

Now I try to save my breathe for people who are worth my time and effort (investment).

[stdbrouw]

> "Sometimes you just have to let people fail. It's quicker than opposing them."

This can be incredibly annoying if you're on the other side, though. One of the most effective ways of killing a project can be to support it publicly but then do nothing at all to move it forward. Anything at all to avoid having a difficult conversation.

It all depends on the situation, I s'pose.

[derroboter]

> "Sometimes you just have to let people fail. It's quicker than opposing them."

Yes, that seems to be the case more often than not… As a consultant I see it almost as a guarantee for success in projects that come after/are replacing failed ones. I think it’s all about ego at the end of the day… people have to have their say and pursue it even if they’re not experts in the field (while they certainly think they are experts - hence the ego thing). I wonder - how can this thinking be undone?

[einhverfr]

Sometimes failure is a great teacher too.

[kstenerud]

Failure is ALWAYS a great teacher. As long as you're listening, you'll learn far more than you would from success.

[einhverfr]

I think the assumption there is that if we do everything right we will always succeed. I am not sure that is the case. I would say that failure (and success) both give one an opportunity to analyse what was done well and what was done poorly.

Sometimes when you take risks, you will lose.