5 ms·

I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently. But you can bet you’re missing out on some great w

by zpeti 5y ago

I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently. But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it. Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. People choose to work for Gordon Ramsey. He’s not abusing random people in the street.

enkid 5y ago
You can give honest feedback to someone without verbally abusing them. In fact, not giving honest feedback can be a form of mental abuse. I'm a strong believer in continuous honest communication, but that doesn't have to be in the form of yelling at someone.
legerdemain 5y ago
This rejection of vocal criticism as the driver of brilliant creativity is very similar to the "enlightened" rejection of the idea that the greatest accomplishments often come from the darkest places where we're often too afraid to look. Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit?
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit? Would you therefore claim that people should intentionally be subjected to these conditions? I think one can acknowledge that great creativity comes from dark places without celebrating, welcoming, or, worst, inflicting those dark places.
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    No, of course not. My point is that trying to eliminate the dark places is bad. Dark places happen naturally, we can't really eliminate them. My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good. But that was the context in which we were having the discussion: not about Elliott Smith and the like, but about Gordon Ramsay, who creates such dark places (although of a very different sort from the dark places inhabited by someone with depression), and whether the cost that imposes on the participants is acceptable.
JasonFruit 5y ago
Your point about the voluntary nature is good. Your other point needs work. There are useful ways to communicate someone's failures, and counterproductive ways. The TV Ramsey, for all his entertainment value, is a counterproductive example, despite his partly-fictional nature. Imagine, for a moment, a reality show featuring an amped-up-to-11 Steve Jobs breaking keyboards over developers' heads while shouting creative abuse; would such a program inspire tech CEOs to do better, or worse?
acituan 5y ago
> I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently. Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique. > But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it. Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK. Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean... > Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?
- zpeti 5y ago
  > Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
  - acituan 5y ago
    You have equivocated verbal abuse with vocal criticism through insinuating what Gordon Ramsey did on TV to be the latter and tying that to a telos of greatness. Then you hedged against criticism with a strawman fragility accusation. What Ramsay does is verbal abuse through and through, not calling it so is abuse apologism at best, and more like gaslighting when considered together with accusations of fragility.
    - enkid 5y ago
      Go back and read your post. You called it abuse.
      - 5y ago
JadeNB 5y ago
> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it. Do you really want to articulate the position "I'm sorry you were abused, but I believe that it's OK because of the end product that I got to enjoy"?

by zpeti 5y ago

enkid 5y ago

You can give honest feedback to someone without verbally abusing them. In fact, not giving honest feedback can be a form of mental abuse. I'm a strong believer in continuous honest communication, but that doesn't have to be in the form of yelling at someone.

legerdemain 5y ago

This rejection of vocal criticism as the driver of brilliant creativity is very similar to the "enlightened" rejection of the idea that the greatest accomplishments often come from the darkest places where we're often too afraid to look. Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit?

JadeNB 5y ago
> Would some of mankind's greatest musicians, such as Elliott Smith, Kurt Cobain, and Beethoven, have created their music if they weren't dealing with some tough shit? Would you therefore claim that people should intentionally be subjected to these conditions? I think one can acknowledge that great creativity comes from dark places without celebrating, welcoming, or, worst, inflicting those dark places.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  No, of course not. My point is that trying to eliminate the dark places is bad. Dark places happen naturally, we can't really eliminate them. My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > My point is not, as you seem to think, that creating more dark places intentionally is good. But that was the context in which we were having the discussion: not about Elliott Smith and the like, but about Gordon Ramsay, who creates such dark places (although of a very different sort from the dark places inhabited by someone with depression), and whether the cost that imposes on the participants is acceptable.

JasonFruit 5y ago

Your point about the voluntary nature is good. Your other point needs work. There are useful ways to communicate someone's failures, and counterproductive ways. The TV Ramsey, for all his entertainment value, is a counterproductive example, despite his partly-fictional nature. Imagine, for a moment, a reality show featuring an amped-up-to-11 Steve Jobs breaking keyboards over developers' heads while shouting creative abuse; would such a program inspire tech CEOs to do better, or worse?

acituan 5y ago

> I know in the modern world any vocal criticism of anyone is not allowed. Everyone is very fragile apparently. Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. In fact, calling anyone who stands up against boundary violations fragile is itself an abuse technique. > But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it. Maybe for your own personal definition of great that thinks objectifying people to a function for some ostensible "greater good" is OK. Maybe other people's definition of greatness necessarily includes not having abused anyone while achieving it. Something something virtue, human excellence, golden mean... > Also my point about voluntary participation still stands. For some absolutized romantic sense of free will, you'd be right. Humans don't work that way though. The number of people who go back to self-defeating patterns is a staggering proof to this; addiction relapses, returning to domestic abuse relationships, eating disorders etc. These are not even fringe issue, these are epidemics. Why would an abusive work relationships be any different?

zpeti 5y ago
> Verbal abuse is not vocal criticism. My original post used precise wording that said vocal rejection of mediocrity. Then I was accused of abuse apologism. I never said verbal abuse is ok, I was accused of it though.
- acituan 5y ago
  You have equivocated verbal abuse with vocal criticism through insinuating what Gordon Ramsey did on TV to be the latter and tying that to a telos of greatness. Then you hedged against criticism with a strawman fragility accusation. What Ramsay does is verbal abuse through and through, not calling it so is abuse apologism at best, and more like gaslighting when considered together with accusations of fragility.
  - enkid 5y ago
    Go back and read your post. You called it abuse.
    - 5y ago

JadeNB 5y ago

> But you can bet you’re missing out on some great work not being produced because of it. Do you really want to articulate the position "I'm sorry you were abused, but I believe that it's OK because of the end product that I got to enjoy"?