"It will never work" and Other Types of Feedback on Ideas
In "Artemis" by Andy Weir I have encountered a great idea (mild spoiler ahead): lower gravity can make conditions for producing an optical fiber with interesting properties, not attainable if the production takes place under the gravity of the Earth. This idea, or rather a hypothesis, is powerful not only for optical fibers, but in general, as it may change the way space missions are planned and sustained. I have not investigated further whether it has been stated previously elsewhere, but in a hypothetical situation where this idea would be pitched for the first time, I imagine a vivid discussion on potential uses, obstacles, reasons why it would be good or difficult, etc.
While it sounds like a standard for having a battle of opinions and a creative discourse, this is clearly not always the case when a new idea or a sketch of a research problem is presented. From my experience, there are four classes of reactions:
Class 1: It would never work. This type of feedback is given without any or only a superficial explanation why the idea is shot down. In the same class of feedback is "I have done almost the same 20 years ago", but a further investigation leads to conclusion that the "almost" is an exaggeration and what s/he did 20 years ago is not even remotely related. Another classic statement from this class is the religious one "I do not believe in it". This type of feedback can be given due to various reasons, often by a seasoned professional that is busy enjoying its "seasoned" attribute and does not allow to be excited or surprised by new ideas. The person providing this type of feedback: (a) is in an echo chamber where s/he believes that nothing new can be done, (b) does not want to waste time discussing with you; (c) does not like the fact that the idea is not proposed by him or her. Unless you manage to convince the person to transit to Class 4(see below) and engage in discussion with you, move on, even if the scene behind your back is as in the picture with Reagan, see below. Regardless of the lazy and depressing feedback, there could be some basis for criticism and it is worth to rethink the idea critically, it may come out stronger out of it. Bonus: There is a chance for a delayed gratification. I recall presenting a new research topic to a seasoned professional, I was scolded not to waste time with it because it is a standard problem just with a changed set of parameters; 2 years later the seasoned professional was organizing workshops on the topic.
Class 2: Great idea! This may sound encouraging and boost the motivation enormously. Not so fast, since if it does not transit to Class 4(below), it is a lazy and worthless feedback. Imagine having a research advisor like the one on the picture below; the frustration after a series of worthless positive feedback is much higher compared to the one from Class 1.
Class 3: “(⊙‿⊙)” There is usually silence while you present the idea(s) and the listener stares at you, expressing lack of interest. In the best case, there is indeed a lack of interest or the listener is too polite to interrupt you. In the worst case, the listener goes through an internal rollecoaster ("This is a great idea, although I am hearing it only now, it reminds me of something I have been working on, so it is actually my idea") and, a couple of months later, you find your idea turned into a million-EUR project or a couple of research articles in top journals. Yet, it may be difficult to recognize whether the stare is due to being uninterested or due to an active process of kleptomnesia (generating an idea that you believe is novel, but in fact was created by someone else). Fortunately, the reputation for stealing ideas is spreading fast and can be used to mitigate this problem. Speaking from a personal experience, I have been warned by people in my research community not to discuss new ideas with specific persons. NB. Credits to Strahinja Došen for reminding me to include this class.
Class 4: Potentially interesting, but you have to consider X Y Z. This is the constructive criticism and people that take the time to do it are precious. They may tell you that they know that someone made something related in the 1980s, but will elaborate upon that and help you draw connections. Somewhat in the spirit of Socrates, these people help you to go through your idea, take away all things that are superficially new or useful and bring you to the essence of your idea (so that you recognize what you do not know); this may help you to develop it in the right direction and to its full potential.
To conclude, one should not not get discouraged by low-quality feedback and put the ideas to test with the Socrateses in the research world.
