> Someone proposes an idea in a meeting.

Soooo, either this is a low-effort initial spitball, or it's something bigger that probably should have been broached separately.

> The person proposing has been thinking about this for weeks or months. They've tested pieces of it in their head or even built proofs of concept. They understand things about the idea that aren't obvious yet. And they're trying to explain all of this to a room full of people encountering it for the first time.

Ohhh, something bigger. Why would you first propose it in a meeting? If the meeting is about something else, it's probably not the right forum. If the meeting was called about this particular idea, then (a) if you really did all that work up front, you probably should have shared first, and (b) you really should be able to anticipate and have answers for the most likely criticisms.

Seriously, doing a bunch of upfront work and then trying to present it as a fait accompli in a meeting to a bunch of people who have never seen it or thought about it is never going to go well.

And whining about the fact that it didn't go well on the internet just makes it obvious that you still don't have any clues about human nature.

Look, you are right that there is often resistance to new ideas. But you are not going to alter human nature, and the right way to get your ideas across is obviously a different approach than the one that you chose.

> Shooting down ideas is easy. The hard part is sheltering the flame long enough to see what it becomes.

As other commenters have discussed, this is simply wrong.

But even more than that, this sentiment, and your whole post say much more about you than the others who you denigrate for "shooting ideas down."

Your attempt to "teach" others about this moment proves that you, yourself, did not learn the correct lessons from it.