4 ms·

> It’s like people assume that critique cannot be helpful unless its somehow balanced with positives or provided in the context of some anonymous format or at a

> It’s like people assume that critique cannot be helpful unless its somehow balanced with positives or provided in the context of some anonymous format or at a time when authors hace prepared themselves to hear comments and will therefore not be surprised if someone says something critical. I think this is spot on. This is the norm, and it’s seeping in everywhere. You see it in the corporate environment too. Perhaps it can even be generalized one more step: People increasingly expect to be able to react completely instinctively to stimuli, outside of a few clearly defined contexts such as the Q&A after a scientific talk where they will “brace themselves”.

omginternets 4y ago
>People increasingly expect to be able to react completely instinctively to stimuli This is a good framing, and one that fits a cluster of related behaviors and emerging cultural norms I've witnessed. One of these is hardly original: the tendency to speak about what one "feels" versus what one "thinks". We should be careful, because "I feel" is often used as a synonym of "I think", but I am increasingly under the impression that American culture has become more accepting of unarticulated, unreasoned, stream-of-consciousness thought. But this is now ratcheting up a notch. Not only is this kind of impulsive speech acceptable in the workplace (no big deal, in and of itself), there is now an emerging social norm such that we may no longer expect more. That, I think, is detrimental.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > I am increasingly under the impression that American culture has become more accepting of unarticulated, unreasoned, stream-of-consciousness thought. Politicians speaking about grave matters will spout absolute gibberish with a straight face, and nobody calls them out or asks them to explain what they mean. I think it is because the individual words and phrases used, and the intonation they are spoken with convey the right feelings and emotions. What seems to matter is that they are feeling appropriately happy, sad, angry, about something. After that, people don't care too much or maybe don't even realize that what is being said does not actually mean anything or provide them with any real information. It's bizarre, but it must work. Lots of politicians do it on all sides of politics, I'm not talking about the thing where they say a lot of words without answering a difficult question, and it's not just occasional mis-speaking or conversation taken out of context, because they do this in their speeches too.
periheli0n 4y ago
It may seep in in the corporate environment. But I cannot see it in academia. A relevant presentation will be followed by a critical discussion. If there is no discussion or only positive comments, the presentation was is very likely irrelevant, or shallow at best. I would consider an academic environment without critical discussion as broken.
athrowaway3z 4y ago
> People increasingly expect to be able to react completely instinctively to stimuli I think this is true. If we're doing hypothesis about human behavior, you might be able to argue that our methods of communication, always forever online, have spawned this approach as an adaptation to stress of having to embody more personas for more numerous interaction. ( You can take it a step further and question the origin of 'acting' out a persona but i belief that in itself is extremely valuable ) On a further tangent, i still sometimes think about an Asian person commenting on the traits of US society to be obsessed with behaving as 'your true self' everywhere and all the time, whereas their culture it was noticeably less so.
ellen364 4y ago
I sometimes wonder if people have become more resistant to critique or if uninvited critique has become more common. But early twentieth century books like How to Win Friends and Influence People emphasise that people respond well to positive reinforcement, which makes me suspect that people have long given unsolicited criticism and long been annoyed by it.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  Sure if your goal is to get something from a person then you should use another tactic. People have always had egos and taken criticism personally. Often it becomes an argument. But those arguments can still be very good for everyone else in the field to hear and for research progress. In this article the problem was the new "weapons" people have created by which the person being criticized can automatically win that argument based on emotion basically.

omginternets 4y ago

>People increasingly expect to be able to react completely instinctively to stimuli This is a good framing, and one that fits a cluster of related behaviors and emerging cultural norms I've witnessed. One of these is hardly original: the tendency to speak about what one "feels" versus what one "thinks". We should be careful, because "I feel" is often used as a synonym of "I think", but I am increasingly under the impression that American culture has become more accepting of unarticulated, unreasoned, stream-of-consciousness thought. But this is now ratcheting up a notch. Not only is this kind of impulsive speech acceptable in the workplace (no big deal, in and of itself), there is now an emerging social norm such that we may no longer expect more. That, I think, is detrimental.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> I am increasingly under the impression that American culture has become more accepting of unarticulated, unreasoned, stream-of-consciousness thought. Politicians speaking about grave matters will spout absolute gibberish with a straight face, and nobody calls them out or asks them to explain what they mean. I think it is because the individual words and phrases used, and the intonation they are spoken with convey the right feelings and emotions. What seems to matter is that they are feeling appropriately happy, sad, angry, about something. After that, people don't care too much or maybe don't even realize that what is being said does not actually mean anything or provide them with any real information. It's bizarre, but it must work. Lots of politicians do it on all sides of politics, I'm not talking about the thing where they say a lot of words without answering a difficult question, and it's not just occasional mis-speaking or conversation taken out of context, because they do this in their speeches too.

periheli0n 4y ago

It may seep in in the corporate environment. But I cannot see it in academia. A relevant presentation will be followed by a critical discussion. If there is no discussion or only positive comments, the presentation was is very likely irrelevant, or shallow at best. I would consider an academic environment without critical discussion as broken.

athrowaway3z 4y ago

> People increasingly expect to be able to react completely instinctively to stimuli I think this is true. If we're doing hypothesis about human behavior, you might be able to argue that our methods of communication, always forever online, have spawned this approach as an adaptation to stress of having to embody more personas for more numerous interaction. ( You can take it a step further and question the origin of 'acting' out a persona but i belief that in itself is extremely valuable ) On a further tangent, i still sometimes think about an Asian person commenting on the traits of US society to be obsessed with behaving as 'your true self' everywhere and all the time, whereas their culture it was noticeably less so.

ellen364 4y ago

I sometimes wonder if people have become more resistant to critique or if uninvited critique has become more common. But early twentieth century books like How to Win Friends and Influence People emphasise that people respond well to positive reinforcement, which makes me suspect that people have long given unsolicited criticism and long been annoyed by it.

JamesianP 4y ago
Sure if your goal is to get something from a person then you should use another tactic. People have always had egos and taken criticism personally. Often it becomes an argument. But those arguments can still be very good for everyone else in the field to hear and for research progress. In this article the problem was the new "weapons" people have created by which the person being criticized can automatically win that argument based on emotion basically.