4 ms·

Any thoughts about the norm of "constructive criticism"? I think it's partly a good idea, because the feedback-giver can take a little trouble (propose improvem

Any thoughts about the norm of "constructive criticism"? I think it's partly a good idea, because the feedback-giver can take a little trouble (propose improvements along with criticism) that will save a lot more trouble for the feedback-receiver. But also partly a bad idea, because I've seen people defend pointless bureaucratic procedures that shouldn't even exist, by saying "don't say our procedure is bad, say how we can improve it". So it seems that "constructive criticism" is partly a good idea and partly a kind of groupthink practice, but I'm not sure where to draw the line.

lostmyoldone 7y ago
While I feel I only partially managed to capture how I think about it, because I surely have thought about it a lot, as I've seen places where critique flows like water - easily and without much strife to anyone - and places where any critique is/becomes either a disaster - or completely ignored! --- Constructive criticism as such might be a sensible ideal when giving unsolicited criticism, but it also terribly destructive as an expectation, or norm. In many cases the call for constructive criticism is nothing else but a very effective form of censoring as t makes any criticism from anyone that hasn't got the necessary knowledge, or time that be able to find and elucidate the solution to be completely dismissible without consideration. Not at all what one wants, unless you want to suppress "dissent". Requiring only constructive criticism could perhaps acceptable as a very temporary intervention when all else have failed. In any other case it almost certainly devolves into some kind of censure. This does not imply that the one critiquing is free to do or say whatever they want, not at all! Honesty, a constructive intent, avoidance of ad hominems, engaging without prestige or appeal to authority, and a substantial amount of intellectual integrity is always going to have to be required of anyone giving or accepting critique - if it is to be truly useful. Moreover, I would claim that sustainable and effective criticism in a professional setting must also be accompanied by an almost complete lack of subterfuge. Especially any kind of hidden attempt to cast yourself in a better light, or someone else in a worse. Getting to be able to sustain effective criticism can lead to a higher ratio of constructive criticism, but I haven't seen anything suggesting the reverse to be true unless the basic values of honesty and integrity are given equal consideration and prominence. Critique must be expected to sometimes be painful in some - often obscure - way, so what we can do improve how we handle it is most easily explained from the perspective of taking away what makes us fear this particular form of pain. Sometimes fostering a good climate for criticism seem to be about almost everything but the critique itself.

lostmyoldone 7y ago

While I feel I only partially managed to capture how I think about it, because I surely have thought about it a lot, as I've seen places where critique flows like water - easily and without much strife to anyone - and places where any critique is/becomes either a disaster - or completely ignored! --- Constructive criticism as such might be a sensible ideal when giving unsolicited criticism, but it also terribly destructive as an expectation, or norm. In many cases the call for constructive criticism is nothing else but a very effective form of censoring as t makes any criticism from anyone that hasn't got the necessary knowledge, or time that be able to find and elucidate the solution to be completely dismissible without consideration. Not at all what one wants, unless you want to suppress "dissent". Requiring only constructive criticism could perhaps acceptable as a very temporary intervention when all else have failed. In any other case it almost certainly devolves into some kind of censure. This does not imply that the one critiquing is free to do or say whatever they want, not at all! Honesty, a constructive intent, avoidance of ad hominems, engaging without prestige or appeal to authority, and a substantial amount of intellectual integrity is always going to have to be required of anyone giving or accepting critique - if it is to be truly useful. Moreover, I would claim that sustainable and effective criticism in a professional setting must also be accompanied by an almost complete lack of subterfuge. Especially any kind of hidden attempt to cast yourself in a better light, or someone else in a worse. Getting to be able to sustain effective criticism can lead to a higher ratio of constructive criticism, but I haven't seen anything suggesting the reverse to be true unless the basic values of honesty and integrity are given equal consideration and prominence. Critique must be expected to sometimes be painful in some - often obscure - way, so what we can do improve how we handle it is most easily explained from the perspective of taking away what makes us fear this particular form of pain. Sometimes fostering a good climate for criticism seem to be about almost everything but the critique itself.