4 ms·

> One time I made a very negative comment on Reddit about a fantasy book, and the author actually responded to me. When that happened I felt incredibly bad But

by shrx 3y ago

> One time I made a very negative comment on Reddit about a fantasy book, and the author actually responded to me. When that happened I felt incredibly bad But why? Was your comment dishonest?

PaulRobinson 3y ago
There’s a difference between being nice (“wow, how ace!”, when you hated it), being kind (“I think this would have worked better for me if…”), and being plain honest (“I hated it, what a crock…”) Many people forget that the other side of a review is human. Social media, trip advisor, amazon, blogs, and reddit are all channels in which people feel free to be honest, but then are surprised to discover the human who you criticised is popping up and responding with hurt. We all know being rude to a service worker to their face ks the sign of an absolute turd of a human being, but seem to think being “honest” in an indirect channel is just fine. Being kind (empathetic, sympathetic, constructive), is less toxic for both parties, retains authenticity (more valuable than “honesty”), and is therefore socially more acceptable in a situation where you remember the criticism is going to be taken on by the other party. It sounds like the person forgot - because it was Reddit - that human empathy towards a creator is a powerful thing, and that a lack of it is incredibly damaging, beyond what you would do if meeting the individual face to face. Being smart and “honest” (more often than not, actually just rude), are not the primary ways of keeping score when determining if somebody is being a good human. Look up Jeff Bezos’ thoughts on being clever vs being kind: he’s not wrong. It’s easy to forget when you think the person you’re being clever about will never read your words, but that’s actually just really, really dumb.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > and being plain honest (“I hated it, what a crock…”) I agree with what you wrote here and elsewhere about the kind/nice distinction, but I'm... not sure if the above is what "being honest" means. Or rather, I personally don't consider it being honest - saying "I hated it" is very vague and likely not what I actually felt, and "what a crock" would be me just doing knee-jerk next token prediction, so badly that even GPT-3.5 would do it better. "Being honest" with feedback is what I imagine to look more like "I didn't like the ${aspect of the work}, I feel it was too ${something} / not enough ${something else}". It's free of bullshit, so it's not "nice"; it's also not making a specific effort to be useful/actionable to the receiver, therefore it's not "kind". It's also not "hostile", as it bears no ill intent. It's just being precise and accurate in reporting how I actually felt about the work and why. Under this definition, I always strive to aim for "honest+kind" with any feedback I give. Of course, I still end up being "kind" or even just "nice" with some people - specifically those who tend to interpret any mention of a potential improvement as implying severe deficiency.

by shrx 3y ago

> One time I made a very negative comment on Reddit about a fantasy book, and the author actually responded to me. When that happened I felt incredibly bad But why? Was your comment dishonest?

PaulRobinson 3y ago

There’s a difference between being nice (“wow, how ace!”, when you hated it), being kind (“I think this would have worked better for me if…”), and being plain honest (“I hated it, what a crock…”) Many people forget that the other side of a review is human. Social media, trip advisor, amazon, blogs, and reddit are all channels in which people feel free to be honest, but then are surprised to discover the human who you criticised is popping up and responding with hurt. We all know being rude to a service worker to their face ks the sign of an absolute turd of a human being, but seem to think being “honest” in an indirect channel is just fine. Being kind (empathetic, sympathetic, constructive), is less toxic for both parties, retains authenticity (more valuable than “honesty”), and is therefore socially more acceptable in a situation where you remember the criticism is going to be taken on by the other party. It sounds like the person forgot - because it was Reddit - that human empathy towards a creator is a powerful thing, and that a lack of it is incredibly damaging, beyond what you would do if meeting the individual face to face. Being smart and “honest” (more often than not, actually just rude), are not the primary ways of keeping score when determining if somebody is being a good human. Look up Jeff Bezos’ thoughts on being clever vs being kind: he’s not wrong. It’s easy to forget when you think the person you’re being clever about will never read your words, but that’s actually just really, really dumb.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> and being plain honest (“I hated it, what a crock…”) I agree with what you wrote here and elsewhere about the kind/nice distinction, but I'm... not sure if the above is what "being honest" means. Or rather, I personally don't consider it being honest - saying "I hated it" is very vague and likely not what I actually felt, and "what a crock" would be me just doing knee-jerk next token prediction, so badly that even GPT-3.5 would do it better. "Being honest" with feedback is what I imagine to look more like "I didn't like the ${aspect of the work}, I feel it was too ${something} / not enough ${something else}". It's free of bullshit, so it's not "nice"; it's also not making a specific effort to be useful/actionable to the receiver, therefore it's not "kind". It's also not "hostile", as it bears no ill intent. It's just being precise and accurate in reporting how I actually felt about the work and why. Under this definition, I always strive to aim for "honest+kind" with any feedback I give. Of course, I still end up being "kind" or even just "nice" with some people - specifically those who tend to interpret any mention of a potential improvement as implying severe deficiency.