9 ms·

How much should you criticize other people?

53 points by mhb 4y ago

h2odragon 4y ago
There's a distinction between criticizing people and criticizing their actions not made here.
cable2600 4y ago
Offer positive feedback instead of criticism. Give examples of how they could be or do better.
- atoav 4y ago
  Positive feedback can be perceived as criticism. Constructive criticism is the word. You tell em what you liked and at which point they lost you and why. If they respond to that you talk about what could be done better.
  - randcraw 4y ago
    Agreed. Criticism intended to effect positive change is akin to uninvited coaching or teaching. If no change is intended, or the recipient is unreceptive, then criticism is pointless and destructive. Probably the way to ensure positive change is possible before you criticize is to feel out the recipient first. Are they genuinely interested in improving? If they show reluctance or opposition, speak no further. If they truly want to improve and they respect your opinion, they'll persist by asking your advice. Another circumstance where criticism may have merit is where powerless subordinates discuss the demerits of a case. If they later agree that the case could benefit from improved tactics or by correcting errors, then the means to that end may be worth refining and then sharing with a super-ordinate who has the power to act on it. But if that prospect does not exist, then again, there's no point in being critical.
dp-hackernews 4y ago
Questions of curiosity to the person directly would be a useful way of drawing attention to the action/behavior in question. The problem comes when the person is unaware that they do or behave in any particular way, which is entirely subjective and open to interpretation anyway, or they are unwilling to acknowledge the presence of a blind-spot. Which may or may not be considered by them as perfectly normal/okay - that's why it's subjective. The real problem is when they see that action or behavior normal/okay for them to do/be towards others, but not when it happens the other way around. A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt could be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you". Although, this is still flawed as it is still open to interpretation, as again "do unto" is completely subjective from both parties. What be the solution? Attemping to understand, and apply some form of reasoning to establish what middle ground may exist?
- 4oo4 4y ago
  This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against. Ideally, it'll open up the person you're talking to, so they can join in your curiosity and better see in themselves what you are seeing, or at least create more mutual understanding. Unfortunately, people that are immature and deal with their insecurities poorly this doesn't tend to work on. At a certain point, people have to want to work on themselves and you have to not concern yourself too much with how they react to information that triggers their cognitive dissonance defenses as long as you are approaching them from a position of empathy and curiosity. It's easy to want to keep helping people no matter what but at this point they will just drag you down to their level as a form of self-protection. So I think the "solution" (or maybe it's a cop-out?) is that you can nudge people certain ways and expose them to new information, but what they do with it is entirely their responsibility and you have to let go if you make a good effort to communicate and they just aren't receptive. We only have so much emotional energy and should use it wisely.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against. Spelling it out for the empathetically challenges ... it is possible to go one step further and recast your entire mind in a curious frame for better results. The reason a curious tone gets good results is because a curious mind gets productive results and tone is a hint at mental state. There is a conversational technique here, but being genuine in curiosity is more powerful.
brudgers 4y ago
Here are some reasons to criticize others: 4. Others may deserve the criticism "They deserve it," is the rationale of bullying. Because "and I can get away with it" is a premise.
- silverpepsi 4y ago
  It's bulling if you are a bully. But what if you are not and the rationale is justice? I feel blessed that all the people I work with are like this. There have been a few times it was necessary to be extremely clear pointing out my shortcomings with something. It was also clear as day they weren't getting any enjoyment out of being responsible for delivering the criticism as there was no emotional satisfaction in their voice and they didn't say a single word above and beyond what was necessary. (You can tell there are emotions thrown in when unnecessary threats or implied threats are added. Or, when they add language which belabors the point of how your actions negatively impacted or inconvenienced them - now enacting their 'emotional revenge' of sorts.)
  - brudgers 4y ago
    You agreed to performance feedback by working for the company you were working for. The feedback was given in order to maintain or improve company operations. Deserving had no more to do with it than deserving has to do with airing up the tires of a company truck to proper inflation. The rational for the critical feedback was your work. You got to decide that you deserved it.
    - silverpepsi 4y ago
      Not entirely sure where you're going with this. Deserved means "rightfully earned because of something done or qualities shown; merited." And that's a perfect description of the faults I demonstrated. It might happen out of laziness for another worker, but in my case it was mixed fear/social anxiety that kept me from pushing the customer harder, as needed, to enable me to finish required work. Just an example.
Milan98 4y ago
In context of work/study or any professional time, it depends on the person being criticized, whether the criticism will be taken as a good (constructive) or not. And it is better not to do it publicly. But when it comes to criticizing a person for what he does in daily life or his behavior with others as long as we don't know him, here we have no right to do, it is simply a part of personal freedom: never judge people's actions until they hurt us...
bitshiftfaced 4y ago
A couple of things I've learned: 1) Model the correct behavior when possible. 2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive opposite of the criticism), catch them at it. Describe, in a matter of fact but appreciative way. Avoid evaluative language. Avoid the word "you." "I got that paper work well in advance today. Thanks." 3) When you need to give negative feedback, again use descriptive language instead of evaluative, give information (only what they reasonably may not know), avoid the word "you," and keep it short and private. "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day."
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are. Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them.
  - bitshiftfaced 4y ago
    This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of things? > Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them Is this referring to how I presented the information?
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct criticism is expected and welcomed. The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean "Interesting, let's think about it." This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because it's so hard to tell what people really mean. It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up in politeness.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Never. Or, as a realistic ideal, as little as you possibly can. On the other other hand I ferociously criticise bad ideas. People are not their ideas. Bad ideas are like mimetic parasites, replicating through and infecting a host. Some bad ideas are harmless opinions. Other bad ideas are a grave harm to their host, and society around them. While people jave every "right" to hold them, sometimes attacking bad ideas seems like an attack on a person (ad hominem), which should be consciously avoided. A person, qua soul, is seldom even responsible for what they host and parrot [1]. But they are responsible for spreading those ideas, which is why teachers, parents and trash social media have much to answer for. And, I believe, it is a duty and responsibility to help people be free of bad ideas, or if possible to steer them away from them. By the same token I believe people who spread bad ideas for profit and personal gain are the most damaged, and damaging of all. It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture where people identify with their ideas that the reaction of some people is to perceive an attack on them-self, as a person. Good criticusm of bad ideas should always be welcome. [1] https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok
- ttymck 4y ago
  I really enjoyed your comment. Nevertheless, I have to ask: what is a person if not their ideas? Their actions?
  - unregistereddev 4y ago
    I'd argue that a person is their decisions. That encompasses actions - we generally decide whether and how to act. This also rings true when you add "bad thoughts" alongside "bad ideas". Everyone has bad thoughts in addition to bad ideas. Part of what makes a good person is their ability to discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts. Part of what makes someone seem wise is their ability to discard (or decide to not act on) bad ideas.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
benoketamad 4y ago
As much as you want.
youeseh 4y ago
People who criticize do it for their own satisfaction, rather than to actually help. Ignore it, unless you're looking for feedback.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hammock 4y ago
>Is there anything useful written on this topic? Seriously? "Don't gossip" is taught to every child from the first moment they are able to string a sentence together.
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
Critisizing is the task of semantic sculpting, by doing so, people ideas and actions can be continuously refined towards optimality.
johnwheeler 4y ago
In over twenty years as a programmer, I don't think I've witnessed a single rational decision being made based on the merits of an idea alone.
- tabtab 4y ago
  That's why it takes about 3x the effort and money to make a smallish CRUD app than it did 25 years ago. Too many eToys to distract decision-making. Warren Buffett said one of his top "skills" is not being afraid to say "no" to dubious investments and ideas. Nobody is saying "no" to our bloated web stacks. When I complain about bloat, I'm often given the reply, "but look at all the wonderful things you can potentially do in the future!" YAGNI, KISS, and DRY have been shot bloody dead.
- mbrodersen 4y ago
  Yep. My experience as well (25+ years of experience). People are guided by emotions not logic. Logic is mostly used to defend the conclusion reached by emotions. Which is why high IQ people makes mistakes all the time but are more likely to get away with it because of their ability to explain it away.
bayareabadboy 4y ago
This is overly simplistic. I think there is value in authenticity as well. That’s not an excuse to be an ass, but its very demotivating when obvious unacceptable behavior isn’t called out as such and criticized.
tabtab 4y ago
There is an art to delivering bad news without coming across as a jerk. I don't do it well despite many attempts. I've seen others do it well and I have to admire such a skill.
incomingpain 4y ago
>I mean in private conversation, not in public discourse, and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back. 0 or never. Even if it were to their face. You will never achieve your goal using criticism of individuals. This is even true of celebrities or public discourse. You have to hit an exceptional threshold before you can even criticize celebrities. Take Jordan Peterson's recent rule breaking. He needlessly criticized: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1526279181545390083 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/15262791815453900... He was even punching down here. In fact the only legitimate criticism here is against JP. He certainly meets the threshold where he has gone too far and should be apologizing. If he doesn't we should be criticizing. 6. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." That's his own damned rule and he's clearly violating it. His sorry not sorry is that he blamed the toxicity of twitter. He's still in the wrong and we should criticize him.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
It depends... professional MLB players, "heel" wrestlers and the like are paid good money to be publicly criticized. Then there's people like my aunt, who just has no filter. Examples there are her talking to my sister "your children are just too fat". That went down well but was just having no filter or foresight and not overt malice. But for regular people, you should never criticize unless it's something particularly selfish or thoughtless.
mjbeswick 4y ago
Don't criticise people in front of others, as it's not constructive. Conversely, make sure to praise other where credit is due. It's fine to question peoples decisions although it is better to do it privately, so people can be more open without worrying about looking bad. When pointing out problems it's better to take ownership than point fingers. It's better to say something like "we have some refactoring to do" etc.
_gabe_ 4y ago
> and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back. If it's not to their faces, don't do it. It's just gossip at that point. Realistically who is this benefitting? There's no way for the person you're criticizing to act on that feedback if you explicitly _never tell them to their face_. There's a time and place to criticize people to their face in a positive and encouraging manner. But gossip has never helped anyone.
afpx 4y ago
I criticize people all of the time. I feel it’s my duty because most people won’t do it. And, often, the people being criticized want and need the criticism. To them, it’s better to get the feedback directly and discretely than via gossip. This practice has the side-benefit of helping to repel people who can’t take criticism.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  I think the article is talking about criticizing others behind their backs. Quote from the article: > I mean in private conversation, not in public discourse, and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back

53 points by mhb 4y ago

h2odragon 4y ago

There's a distinction between criticizing people and criticizing their actions not made here.

cable2600 4y ago

Offer positive feedback instead of criticism. Give examples of how they could be or do better.

atoav 4y ago
Positive feedback can be perceived as criticism. Constructive criticism is the word. You tell em what you liked and at which point they lost you and why. If they respond to that you talk about what could be done better.
- randcraw 4y ago
  Agreed. Criticism intended to effect positive change is akin to uninvited coaching or teaching. If no change is intended, or the recipient is unreceptive, then criticism is pointless and destructive. Probably the way to ensure positive change is possible before you criticize is to feel out the recipient first. Are they genuinely interested in improving? If they show reluctance or opposition, speak no further. If they truly want to improve and they respect your opinion, they'll persist by asking your advice. Another circumstance where criticism may have merit is where powerless subordinates discuss the demerits of a case. If they later agree that the case could benefit from improved tactics or by correcting errors, then the means to that end may be worth refining and then sharing with a super-ordinate who has the power to act on it. But if that prospect does not exist, then again, there's no point in being critical.

dp-hackernews 4y ago

Questions of curiosity to the person directly would be a useful way of drawing attention to the action/behavior in question. The problem comes when the person is unaware that they do or behave in any particular way, which is entirely subjective and open to interpretation anyway, or they are unwilling to acknowledge the presence of a blind-spot. Which may or may not be considered by them as perfectly normal/okay - that's why it's subjective. The real problem is when they see that action or behavior normal/okay for them to do/be towards others, but not when it happens the other way around. A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt could be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you". Although, this is still flawed as it is still open to interpretation, as again "do unto" is completely subjective from both parties. What be the solution? Attemping to understand, and apply some form of reasoning to establish what middle ground may exist?

4oo4 4y ago
This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against. Ideally, it'll open up the person you're talking to, so they can join in your curiosity and better see in themselves what you are seeing, or at least create more mutual understanding. Unfortunately, people that are immature and deal with their insecurities poorly this doesn't tend to work on. At a certain point, people have to want to work on themselves and you have to not concern yourself too much with how they react to information that triggers their cognitive dissonance defenses as long as you are approaching them from a position of empathy and curiosity. It's easy to want to keep helping people no matter what but at this point they will just drag you down to their level as a form of self-protection. So I think the "solution" (or maybe it's a cop-out?) is that you can nudge people certain ways and expose them to new information, but what they do with it is entirely their responsibility and you have to let go if you make a good effort to communicate and they just aren't receptive. We only have so much emotional energy and should use it wisely.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against. Spelling it out for the empathetically challenges ... it is possible to go one step further and recast your entire mind in a curious frame for better results. The reason a curious tone gets good results is because a curious mind gets productive results and tone is a hint at mental state. There is a conversational technique here, but being genuine in curiosity is more powerful.

brudgers 4y ago

Here are some reasons to criticize others: 4. Others may deserve the criticism "They deserve it," is the rationale of bullying. Because "and I can get away with it" is a premise.

silverpepsi 4y ago
It's bulling if you are a bully. But what if you are not and the rationale is justice? I feel blessed that all the people I work with are like this. There have been a few times it was necessary to be extremely clear pointing out my shortcomings with something. It was also clear as day they weren't getting any enjoyment out of being responsible for delivering the criticism as there was no emotional satisfaction in their voice and they didn't say a single word above and beyond what was necessary. (You can tell there are emotions thrown in when unnecessary threats or implied threats are added. Or, when they add language which belabors the point of how your actions negatively impacted or inconvenienced them - now enacting their 'emotional revenge' of sorts.)
- brudgers 4y ago
  You agreed to performance feedback by working for the company you were working for. The feedback was given in order to maintain or improve company operations. Deserving had no more to do with it than deserving has to do with airing up the tires of a company truck to proper inflation. The rational for the critical feedback was your work. You got to decide that you deserved it.
  - silverpepsi 4y ago
    Not entirely sure where you're going with this. Deserved means "rightfully earned because of something done or qualities shown; merited." And that's a perfect description of the faults I demonstrated. It might happen out of laziness for another worker, but in my case it was mixed fear/social anxiety that kept me from pushing the customer harder, as needed, to enable me to finish required work. Just an example.

Milan98 4y ago

In context of work/study or any professional time, it depends on the person being criticized, whether the criticism will be taken as a good (constructive) or not. And it is better not to do it publicly. But when it comes to criticizing a person for what he does in daily life or his behavior with others as long as we don't know him, here we have no right to do, it is simply a part of personal freedom: never judge people's actions until they hurt us...

bitshiftfaced 4y ago

A couple of things I've learned: 1) Model the correct behavior when possible. 2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive opposite of the criticism), catch them at it. Describe, in a matter of fact but appreciative way. Avoid evaluative language. Avoid the word "you." "I got that paper work well in advance today. Thanks." 3) When you need to give negative feedback, again use descriptive language instead of evaluative, give information (only what they reasonably may not know), avoid the word "you," and keep it short and private. "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day."

throw1234651234 4y ago
This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are. Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them.
- bitshiftfaced 4y ago
  This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of things? > Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them Is this referring to how I presented the information?
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct criticism is expected and welcomed. The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean "Interesting, let's think about it." This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because it's so hard to tell what people really mean. It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up in politeness.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Never. Or, as a realistic ideal, as little as you possibly can. On the other other hand I ferociously criticise bad ideas. People are not their ideas. Bad ideas are like mimetic parasites, replicating through and infecting a host. Some bad ideas are harmless opinions. Other bad ideas are a grave harm to their host, and society around them. While people jave every "right" to hold them, sometimes attacking bad ideas seems like an attack on a person (ad hominem), which should be consciously avoided. A person, qua soul, is seldom even responsible for what they host and parrot [1]. But they are responsible for spreading those ideas, which is why teachers, parents and trash social media have much to answer for. And, I believe, it is a duty and responsibility to help people be free of bad ideas, or if possible to steer them away from them. By the same token I believe people who spread bad ideas for profit and personal gain are the most damaged, and damaging of all. It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture where people identify with their ideas that the reaction of some people is to perceive an attack on them-self, as a person. Good criticusm of bad ideas should always be welcome. [1] https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok

ttymck 4y ago
I really enjoyed your comment. Nevertheless, I have to ask: what is a person if not their ideas? Their actions?
- unregistereddev 4y ago
  I'd argue that a person is their decisions. That encompasses actions - we generally decide whether and how to act. This also rings true when you add "bad thoughts" alongside "bad ideas". Everyone has bad thoughts in addition to bad ideas. Part of what makes a good person is their ability to discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts. Part of what makes someone seem wise is their ability to discard (or decide to not act on) bad ideas.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

benoketamad 4y ago

As much as you want.

youeseh 4y ago

People who criticize do it for their own satisfaction, rather than to actually help. Ignore it, unless you're looking for feedback.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hammock 4y ago

>Is there anything useful written on this topic? Seriously? "Don't gossip" is taught to every child from the first moment they are able to string a sentence together.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

Critisizing is the task of semantic sculpting, by doing so, people ideas and actions can be continuously refined towards optimality.

johnwheeler 4y ago

In over twenty years as a programmer, I don't think I've witnessed a single rational decision being made based on the merits of an idea alone.

tabtab 4y ago
That's why it takes about 3x the effort and money to make a smallish CRUD app than it did 25 years ago. Too many eToys to distract decision-making. Warren Buffett said one of his top "skills" is not being afraid to say "no" to dubious investments and ideas. Nobody is saying "no" to our bloated web stacks. When I complain about bloat, I'm often given the reply, "but look at all the wonderful things you can potentially do in the future!" YAGNI, KISS, and DRY have been shot bloody dead.
mbrodersen 4y ago
Yep. My experience as well (25+ years of experience). People are guided by emotions not logic. Logic is mostly used to defend the conclusion reached by emotions. Which is why high IQ people makes mistakes all the time but are more likely to get away with it because of their ability to explain it away.

bayareabadboy 4y ago

This is overly simplistic. I think there is value in authenticity as well. That’s not an excuse to be an ass, but its very demotivating when obvious unacceptable behavior isn’t called out as such and criticized.

tabtab 4y ago

There is an art to delivering bad news without coming across as a jerk. I don't do it well despite many attempts. I've seen others do it well and I have to admire such a skill.

incomingpain 4y ago

>I mean in private conversation, not in public discourse, and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back. 0 or never. Even if it were to their face. You will never achieve your goal using criticism of individuals. This is even true of celebrities or public discourse. You have to hit an exceptional threshold before you can even criticize celebrities. Take Jordan Peterson's recent rule breaking. He needlessly criticized: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1526279181545390083 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/15262791815453900... He was even punching down here. In fact the only legitimate criticism here is against JP. He certainly meets the threshold where he has gone too far and should be apologizing. If he doesn't we should be criticizing. 6. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." That's his own damned rule and he's clearly violating it. His sorry not sorry is that he blamed the toxicity of twitter. He's still in the wrong and we should criticize him.

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago

It depends... professional MLB players, "heel" wrestlers and the like are paid good money to be publicly criticized. Then there's people like my aunt, who just has no filter. Examples there are her talking to my sister "your children are just too fat". That went down well but was just having no filter or foresight and not overt malice. But for regular people, you should never criticize unless it's something particularly selfish or thoughtless.

mjbeswick 4y ago

Don't criticise people in front of others, as it's not constructive. Conversely, make sure to praise other where credit is due. It's fine to question peoples decisions although it is better to do it privately, so people can be more open without worrying about looking bad. When pointing out problems it's better to take ownership than point fingers. It's better to say something like "we have some refactoring to do" etc.

_gabe_ 4y ago

> and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back. If it's not to their faces, don't do it. It's just gossip at that point. Realistically who is this benefitting? There's no way for the person you're criticizing to act on that feedback if you explicitly _never tell them to their face_. There's a time and place to criticize people to their face in a positive and encouraging manner. But gossip has never helped anyone.

afpx 4y ago

I criticize people all of the time. I feel it’s my duty because most people won’t do it. And, often, the people being criticized want and need the criticism. To them, it’s better to get the feedback directly and discretely than via gossip. This practice has the side-benefit of helping to repel people who can’t take criticism.

woojoo666 4y ago
I think the article is talking about criticizing others behind their backs. Quote from the article: > I mean in private conversation, not in public discourse, and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back