In many places I’ve encountered someone (icluding some one organization) where; all but one contribution (including the one’s which support the main one) has been stifled, or disqualified, by a put down that has no facts, or other good reason, for the put down. An observer may say that the one who does the “put downs” is more of an able contributor due to their success but; breaking other peoples’ stuff is easier than it is for the owner to defend it. Like a jealous person with a sledgehammer overwhelming the victim. No brain sweat required for the wielder of the sledgehammer.Also, the one whose contribution is swept aside may have a guilt trip-derived feeling that it could be somehow “rude” to defend and, thereby, bring overt conflict into the discussion, even though covert conflict may already have been imposed by the one who takes the easier, softer way of destroying, rather than reasonably disputing.
At the end, the destroyer; whose idea was the only one which was fully, or effectively, presented; can truthfully claim that their’s was the best – since it’s the only one fully and effectively presented.
What comes to mind is an anology of children building sandcastles on a beach. While I admit that probably no analogy is perfect in application; I feel that there is a fair comparison if one of the children kicks everyone else’s sandcastles apart and proclaims, rightly so, that their sancastle is the best. I mean, if it’s the only one (which survived) it is the best on the beach at the time. Low self esteem and a giving in to fear of comparison may well enter here.
But then, if their’s is the best because it’s the only one – wouldn’t it also be the worst for the same reason?