Honestly, if I worked for someone who got angry and called someone a moron immediately for questioning their new strategy I'd be looking for another job. Nothing is worth dealing with that kind of person.
Of course
> As in, you shouldn't try this unless you know why it failed before and why it will be different this time.
Also correct
> That isn't on someone else to figure out for you, unless you want to task them with figuring it out for you I guess.
No, completely wrong. You're in a meeting. Collaborate. You are nothing but a huge detriment if you just voice your opinion, put your head down, and smugly say "told ya so" if they do it and it doesn't work. It is on the team collectively to solve problems together and you get 0 points for being right in retrospect.
Sounds like you'd be a natural pick to run a company with 270,00 employees.
<Drop book references with further context and justifications for why your case falls right in line with those discussed in the literature, like an expert in the field would be expected to do>
I mean, don't get pissed because it's been tried before, and no one will let you recultivate low hanging fruit to pick anymore. The fact more people are not well read on this type of stuff, is mind boggling.
Even more mind boggling is people being upset about someone directing them away from the pit of misery, wailing, and gnashing teeth.
But too often it's just a pendulum swing between two competing options that are both painful, and familiarity breeds contempt. Those glorious moments at the bottom of the pendulum swing are the only time we have any peace. If 1 of something is awful, 100 of them is probably awful too. 3 might be wonderful, but half the team steamrolls right past it without stopping to look around.
Where the technology treadmill concerns new languages and tools, it's in the interest of young people for there to be upheaval because from their perspective, they have a level playing field if we are using a tool that is 2 years old. They also haven't experienced the heartbreak of pouring too much of yourself into a doomed technology and so they are willing to rathole on just about anything. That 'cynicism' they see might just be someone with an advanced case of Same Shit, Different Day. "This didn't work the last three times," is offered on its own merits, but some people put a lot more thought behind it. It could mean "don't try new things just because they're new" or it could mean, "the new thing has not solved any of the problems that killed it the last three times." I think if you mean the latter, it's partly on you that you get lumped in with the former, because you could chose to invest 10% more effort into your reply and sound less like a naysayer. But honestly it's exhausting chasing after kids every time they pick up something new and put it immediately in their proverbial mouth.
Right. Discuss it. That's my whole point. Maybe they haven't changed. Maybe you are correct and you are completely correct to aggressively fight the idea. That's fine. But if you don't engage people on the team you're not a useful team member.
Saying I saw this in the 70s and it didn't work is the least impressive argument possible, and frankly is just begging for ageist biases. It looks like you haven't considered that things might have changed. If I tried last week, I would still emphasize the reasons why it didn't work rather than when it didn't work.
I'd also be pretty pissed if someone tried to dump book references on me if it's their job to be the expert on that subject. My gut reaction to that sentiment is that this person is going to refuse to actually discuss content.
This hypothetical dinobaby is immediately one of my least favorite people.