8 ms·

Ask HN: Do you criticize?

38 points by critic 18y ago

If you follow HN, Reddit and various programming-related sites, you may have noticed that much of their content is criticism of some software, people who developed it, the design decisions they made and so on. Programmers are prone to criticizing and tactlessness. Torvalds and de Raadt are perhaps among the better known examples. I too often find flaws everywhere (not just software) and criticize. Lately, I've been reading Dale Carnegie's classic, whose fundamental principle is "Thou shalt not criticize", and came to the realization that the criticism I dished out over the years, however deserved it may have been, has hurt my professional relations, and my career would have been much better off if I had reserved ALL the criticism of others' work. I made it my New Year's resolution to stop criticizing, but the habit of doing this is so deep, it's like a drug. Do you criticize, and if not, how do you manage not to? How do you deal with coworkers doing/saying stupid things, especially in programming and science?

satyajit 18y ago
First thing in your NY resolution would be then not to have a loginid 'critic' :-)
ErrantX 18y ago
Is criticism a bad thing? If people are posting here just to get their ego stroked then there's no real point to it.. If I post something here it would be for it to get torn apart by people experienced in stuff like that. Design decisions are the main area that needs outside help and this is the best place to ask for it IMO.
- critic 18y ago
  Anonymously criticizing things on the internet - perhaps not. In real life, especially in the work environment or personal life, I'm convinced now that criticism is very bad for the one giving it. Withholding criticism though is not something I've completely mastered yet.
cgranade 18y ago
Criticism, if kept in check, can be a valuable tool IMHO. Remember, to many eyes, all bugs are shallow. In a way, then, I think that criticism can provide a way of bug checking designs and modes of thought. Of course, criticism can turn nasty and destructive, but I don't think it has to. That's my 2¢, anyway.
swombat 18y ago
Criticism is extremely valuable. You can't improve without criticism. People who feel like criticism is a personal affront are somewhat foolish. If someone is taking the time to explain you why they think you're wrong about something, you should take the time to consider their opinion. They themselves may be wrong in their criticism, but the intent/result of criticism is to help you improve. I warmly encourage everyone to criticise me at all times.
- dhimes 18y ago
  This is a good post, but your response to critic in the thread started by ErrantX should be read by everybody.
  - swombat 18y ago
    Yep, that's a fair comment. I wrote this one before I read that thread, hence why they are two separate replies. I could probably have merged them as a single response with a bit more forethought.
RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
Criticism is not the problem. How you say it, is. Firstly, recognise that what you're about to hammer on is someone's child. Respect that, and respect the effort that's gone into it. Recognise that it's not perfect, and they will know it's not perfect, but also that it (probably) has merit. Recognise that the person who made this thing is (probably) not an idiot. They are, however, almost certainly not an expert in everything. But neither are you. Your criticism is intended to help. Make an effort to find that which is worth praising. Observe that other aspects need work/attention/deletion, but there will be things that are good. Be genuine in your praise of that which deserves it - there will be something. Express optinions as opinions. "That sucks" is an opinion that is most likely not shared by everyone. "Linked lists can be slow" is a fact, but it's easier to hear that when it's accompanied by "... but fast enough sometimes, and can be replaced by better data structures when necessary." Above all, remember that you are expressing opinions to a person who has feelings, who has invested effort, and who has been brave enough to invite criticism. When it's well intentioned and well expressed, opinions from others are incredibly valuable. When badly expressed, opinions can be of large negative value. Strive to be of positive value.
mooism2 18y ago
There is a difference between criticising something so that it (and other things like it) can be improved, and criticising something as a means of tearing something (or someone) down. Good criticism means saying what is good about something as well as what is bad.
- xenoterracide 18y ago
  I find that a lot of people can't tell the difference between what's meant to be constructive criticism and an insult.
  - critic 18y ago
    I agree. Indeed, if you criticize the choices a professional made in his area of expertise, you are often criticizing their competence and/or intelligence by implication. Often, the right target for criticism is supposed to be the person himself. For example, if someone without the right domain knowledge or understanding of math deluded himself into thinking he knows enough and starts messing things up, you really don't want to help him along. Imagine some VB noob "fixing" your mission-critical Lisp code, saying it would have been easier if it was all ported to .NET or something. Dealing with all these situations in the best way possible requires a lot of finesse, I'm sure. I just noticed, in retrospect, that such a blunt approach as not giving any criticism ever is STILL better (for me, not my employer necessarily) than what I was doing.
  - arockwell 18y ago
    I run into this problem all the time. As hard as I try to be diplomatic whoever I am trying to give constructive criticism is insulted. It doesn't help that I'm usually trying to give criticism to my boss, but still (at the jobs I've held I have had very few colleagues other than my direct boss).
- markessien 18y ago
  COMPLETELY wrong. Telling someone the good as well as the bad is an obvious sandwich - everyone knows this, and the good is completely ignored. Saying something is good is praise. Saying the bad is critism. Combining them makes some type of praise-criticism hybrid, it does not make good criticism. Let me give you an example of what you are saying: Hey Dude, I really love the colors on your website. It sucks that your website is really useless to the entire world, but that butterfly you put up there is lovely. How is that good criticism?
axod 18y ago
It's not the critic that needs fixing, it's the person who takes criticism to heart, and doesn't learn from it. Criticism is vital feedback IMHO.
- xenoterracide 18y ago
  technically yes, but I find that more often than not, people think it is the critic who is wrong. Should the critic really continue to fight the society he is part of? it only serves to hurt him/her in the long run.
  - lliiffee 18y ago
    Criticism is great, but it should be done appropriately. Instead of telling someone how much X sucks, tell them that, in your opinion, X they might be able to make X much better by doing A, B, and C. This is difficult to do appropriately, but very helpful to everyone. It is also difficult and important to learn to listen to criticism. However, you can probably screw up your life much quicker by giving criticism in an undiplomatic way than by failing to take criticism.
    - xenoterracide 18y ago
      unfortunately it's not as easy as saying it might be able to be done by by doing it way X. my sister was constantly offended by my intended to be constructive criticism of her cooking, and usually it was a simple as this would be better if you used more salt. I never said it was bad, I merely suggested how things could be improved, and she took this as an insult, and a complaint. I find that people don't like criticism period, doesn't matter what, you are criticizing or why. They see it as A, complaining, B insulting, C plain negativity.
      - axod 18y ago
        It depends on the person. I'd much rather people were straight and honest with me, rather than wooly and said the dreaded "That's nice". Also it depends on experience I guess, if you're just starting to learn something out of your comfort zone, you don't really want harshly honest critique of your (probably lame) efforts. You want mainly encouragement. Once you become more confident though, and believe in your own abilities, you just want the truth.
brk 18y ago
Situationally dependent. If you ask for my opinion, you're going to generally get pretty direct feedback. Over the years I've managed to find the right balance (mostly) between tactfulness and directness. I don't generally sugar-coat things, nor do I like when people try to "phrase" their criticism TO me. For the last ~11 years I've been working with various startup or turnaround companies. You don't often have time to make sure that everyone leaves every meeting with their feelings and emotions fully intact. But that also doesn't mean that you can or should be a flaming asshole either. I do not believe that my critical assessment of things has ever hurt a relationship that I would have wanted to maintain. I have had situations where the person receiving the criticism was incapable of handling any negative feedback. But in those cases, that individual usually ends up with a stack of imagined enemies and has zero future value to me anyway.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
For some reason, we socialize people today that criticizing people means that you are smarter than them. I've had people pick apart parts of my comments that weren't even germane to the discussion at hand simply because I said something "wrong" This is why most journalists have a one-email rule: you can write and say hello or thanks for the article and get a reply, but very rarely can you continue a conversation past a couple of exchanges. There are simply too many people on the net who like to argue and criticize. How do you deal with coworkers doing/saying stupid things Learn the four magic words, "Help me to understand..." There are 3 possible conditions. 1) They are mixed up and you are correct, 2) You are mixed up and they are correct, and 3) You are both mixed up. Given equal weighting, 2/3rds of the time you're the person who is mixed up. So when somebody says something that doesn't sound right, ask them to explain it to you. Heck, you might learn something. In that same spirit (humility and learning), you may want to offer some education to somebody who is struggling. But that's only after you listen. Listening gives you the right to talk. To save time on the net, I usually try to restate what I think the other person is saying and then provide the way I understand the situation. "If I understand you correctly, you're saying that large weasels were the first inhabitants of the New World. That's very interesting, because as I understand it, there have been no large weasel fossils found here. Help me to understand. Is there something I might be missing?" Part of the problem with the net is that deep in our minds we view other posters as somehow just part of the machine and not real live humans, whether we acknowledge that or not. So we say things in comments we would never say face-to-face. Programmers are very analytical. When something appears in a program on in a thread that is "incorrect" we must jump in and stomp it out immediately! That little Mr. Spock in all of us turns on and immediately whips up a retort and criticism to show to others just how much more we know.
- jd 18y ago
  I think that most people who are confrontational and critical online are just like that in person. People can be quite blunt face-to-face, and are perfectly OK with it when people are blunt to them. Blunt interaction has the big advantage that you never have to second guess what a remark means. Consider how many relations (between friends/colleagues/etc) break up because somebody reads too much in a simple remark. The most tactful people also tend to be those who (needlessly) worry the most about what other people say. I say this just from personal experience, so YMMV - but it's worth considering. As for the Mr. Spock argument, I think that has a much more mundane explanation. I, like most people, read far more on the internet than I write. But when I read I read to learn. Therefore, I want to be reasonably sure what I read is correct. Because of the Mr. Spocks amongst us I can read the comments and use that to figure out if the blogger made any sense. More often than not the comments reveal serious flaws in the blogger's post. It is this interaction between blogger and Spocks that leads to better understanding. Both for visitors like me and the blogger. So the Spocks fight against the pollution of the internet by incorrect statements%. It's a futile fight, but I believe it's a noble one. Frankly, I think posting uninformed and wrong comments is far more inconsiderate than pointing out to all future readers that such a comment is uninformed or wrong. %) You called it an internet maxim in another post.
michaelkeenan 18y ago
Criticism can be motivated by a desire to communicate useful information and/or motivated by status-seeking/dominance. Criticism that repels even secure people is the kind that appears to have that self-promoting agenda. I like the way Ben Franklin put it in his autobiography: "I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention." He describes how he cultivated "the habit of expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced any thing that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. ... When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right."
- kaiserama 18y ago
  Too bad Ben Franklin didn't know about Twitter...
- shiranaihito 18y ago
  Then again, some people will compain if you speak in uncertain terms. It seems to me that there could perchance be another problem in our communication, namely that of people of a certain persuasion expressing themselves in quite a convoluted manner perhaps better fitting a person in the process of producing a work of literature, in an attempt at asserting their intellectual prowess. We have something to say, but we encode it in a carrier signal of verbal acrobatics. It's logical because intelligent people want to appear intelligent too, but communication shouldn't be a competition of who can bend the English language in the most ways while still saying something.. and that was close too! Then there's Programming Reddit, where (often very intelligent) people gather to argue about things and out-smug each other while still being more right than their opponents. I read it because there's still a lot of useful information floating around, but it's getting tiresome to read conversations that have a "winner". "C-C-C-COMBO-BREAKER!!" And what's with the Franklin quote? Was it normal to write "I walk'd to the store and purchas'd a banana" in those days? Quick - someone hit me with a "Never start a sentence with 'and'"!
FleursDuMal 18y ago
'I criticise by creation, not by finding fault.' - Michelangelo
dhotson 18y ago
I think it's ok to criticize as long as it's constructive. I can't speak for others, but I really appreciate good criticism. I'm talking about the kind that is brutally honest. It still pays to be polite, I don't take shit from people who are rude. I think it's great that Hacker News has the 'Rate my Startup' style threads. One of the things that stands out is the quality and honesty of the criticism, there's always some interesting points brought up.. and everyone here so damn nice too!
edw519 18y ago
Dale Carnegie never used Vista.
- critic 18y ago
  I think Dale Carnegie's feedback to Microsoft would have sounded thusly: === Dear Sir: I wish to express my most sincere admiration of your company's business leadership over the years and its continued relevance in all matters of public life. I am especially fond of your Windows XP product, as its ease of use and popularity are unparalleled. It was very generous of you to trust your users to do the right thing when it comes to multimedia copyright. Your Windows Vista product also shows a lot of promise and I'm sure your company's renewed emphasis on security and stability is appreciated by many. I can't wait to see what you will come up with next! ===
  - brl 18y ago
    I think this is the funniest comment I've ever read on Hacker News. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  - Eliezer 18y ago
    Yeah, that's brilliant, but really - you can only decode what it means if you know the other person is too polite to say things outright.
- xenoterracide 18y ago
  criticism is not constructive if it cannot be. Criticizing vista is generally little other than an exercise of complaining, whining, etc. Microsoft most likely does not hear the majority of it, and therefore cannot do anything about it. You cannot do anything about vista's poor qualities other than not use it. Criticism is only truly useful when it can have a positive impact. Imagine saying, I don't think it should have rained today. Although phrased as a criticism, there is no possible good change that can come from that statement. Therefore, it is simply a complaint. Truly, however, criticizing vista in the proper venues and at times where some good can come of it could be constructive, generally, however, it is as useful as criticizing god for the weather. If you want it different, go elsewhere.
revorad 18y ago
I know exactly what you mean about the habit of criticizing being like a drug. I don't know if I can completely give up criticizing; it may not even be a good idea to do so for reasons that others have mentioned here. But after reading the Carnegie book recently, I am trying to be more tactful. Whether I change my behaviour in the long run or not, I find it is a good social experiment to carry out. Now when I disagree with someone or am tempted to criticize them for some reason, I have to think about it carefully. I don't just blurt out my first thoughts. I have definitely seen that it helps to start with a compliment or merely stating the things that we do agree upon. And then I politely pose the differences as questions, similar to what Ben Franklin suggests. It's too early for me to make any big inferences, but one thing I can say is that it certainly feels better to have pleasant conversations than heated abrupt arguments.
davidw 18y ago
The guidelines of this site contain a useful rule: act as if you were saying something to someone's face. If you're more or less normal, that means that sure, you can criticize things, but you won't be a jerk about it.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  The guidelines also include a useful example of how to keep criticism from being personal: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." I love that "can be shortened to." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
wallflower 18y ago
Public criticism is very bad. I once criticized a fellow team member in a fairly loud, emotionally heated public tiff saying stuff like 'If I have to implement that feature that way, I'll quit' (I really did feel like I would have). I was called into the carpet on my manager's office and made very well aware that I had disrupted the team dynamic (because I had surfaced conflict and more importantly other teams had overheard what I had said (which hurts our team's image). Among other things, one of the quieter members of our team expressed concern to our manager (which she had never done ever before). I had to apologize and repair the rift (which took months).
mechanical_fish 18y ago
It's worth remembering that Dale Carnegie was a salesperson. Salespeople can afford not to criticize. That's because, when the sales negotiation ends, they will present you with a contract to sign -- a contract that has been written by some of the bluntest, most critical, most paranoid people on Earth: Lawyers. Salespeople get away without criticizing because they outsource the task to lawyers. As an engineer, it pays to have great sales skills, but you have a much harder task than the average salesperson, because ultimately your job is more like the lawyer's. Your raison d'etre is to build things that actually work. In the famous words of Richard Feynman: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. And that forces engineers to be critical. The decisions they make in the early parts of a project could make an order-of-magnitude difference in the eventual cost. If they don't find the holes in the plan ("gosh, won't your proposed friends-of-friends search scale as O(N^3) and ultimately bring your social network to its knees?") or properly evaluate the likelihood of rare-but-deadly scenarios ("is it worth a million dollars to guard against the odds that our offsite backup's drive controller will fail just as an earthquake takes out our primary data center, or shall we just buy insurance?") the whole enterprise could fail catastrophically. Perhaps many engineers err on the side of too little Dale Carnegie. But it's telling that many of the great ones don't so much avoid criticism as get really, really good at selling criticism to you. Think of Steve Jobs, one of the most critical people in human history, who gets away with it by playing the role of a fanatically driven artist. Or Torvalds, who is really blunt but turns it into a joke: He makes fun of his own bluntness (he named his DVCS "git" -- look it up in the dictionary!), he's deliberately over the top, and he plays strictly to an audience of engineers, who are more likely to see the humor in lines like "CVS users are ugly and stupid" than the average person is. Try to moderate your criticism, but don't forget that ultimately it is your job. Don't lose focus on it.
danw 18y ago
Personal criticism is harsh and a bit rude. However criticism of code or architecture should be encouraged and seen as a constructive thing as it lets you discuss different approaches and why the current approach was taken and how it can be changed or improved. Criticism and debate in Math, Engineering and Science should be encouraged. Related: http://micromath.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/women-and-mathematics/ http://micromath.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/women-and-mathemat...
ahoyhere 18y ago
> How do you deal with coworkers doing/saying stupid things, especially in programming and science? I think the real question you have to answer for yourself is, who died and appointed you the arbiter of stupid? Why do you think you should go around and share your opinion on what other people want to do and say? The fundamental problem is not how you present criticism, as other commentors have suggested. That is a techie "hacks" approach to the issue. It's your attitude towards other people on the whole. You want to critize because of the way it makes you feel, not because you want to help them grow as human beings. I don't know you personally, but a lot of people with the kinds of criticizing problems you describe look at being correct as being righteous, and being incorrect as sinful, unvirtuous and contemptible. Just biting your tongue's not going to solve this underlying view. What you need to cultivate is respect and empathy for everyone's humanity and their complete otherness from you.(And some gentleness for yourself, too.) I'd recommend some vipashyana mediation. Note: I'm aware of the irony. But you asked.
- adbachman 18y ago
  > "who died and appointed you the arbiter of stupid" I think that's the key. We all are entitled to an opinion, but none of us is entitled to spit that opinion in the face of anyone else. > "It's your attitude towards other people on the whole. You want to criticize because of the way it makes you feel" > "Just biting your tongue's not going to solve this [negative] underlying view [of other people]." Strongly agree. Most peoples' criticism (mine especially included) isn't harsh because they use a bad method, it's harsh because they're mean, selfish people.
- critic 18y ago
  I think hating bad/incorrect is key to being good/correct: hating bad spelling is key to being motivated enough to learn to spell correctly. Learning to be indifferent to failure and mediocrity is not the right goal IMO.
  - ahoyhere 18y ago
    I firmly disagree. If you hate bad/incorrect, then you will have to hate yourself most of the time, because you are a fallible human just like everyone else. And hate is not a very good motivator. If you hate yourself when you are wrong, it is much easier to just not seek the truth in the first place. Accepting that mistakes are a huge part of life, and striving to get better every time, is a much better approach.
diN0bot 18y ago
> "doing/saying stupid things" if you think something is stupid slow down. stop. try and understand the other person's perspective and the root of their concerns. be respectful. i find this easier when i'm in a good mood and my mind is actually being respectful, rather than simply watching what i say. the latter is important, too, because emotions, stress and frustrations cannot always be avoided or ignored. 1. their perspective and concerns are likely valid, even if they don't have the background to properly express their concerns or come up with a smart solution. 2. no one is stupid, we just have different backgrounds and are in different places of development. sometimes it is appropriate (and useful) to teach or mentor others; other times the group needs to stick to a process that permits communication and specialized expertise.
lpgauth 18y ago
My girlfriend at that same resolution last year, I think it lasted a good 48 hours before she started talking in other people's back.
- anewaccountname 18y ago
  You just did the same thing.
puns 18y ago
Just practice a softer delivery. Instead of saying "I don't like how this is..." or "This sucks because..." say: "This is good and it would be even better if ...". This way you're not saying anything negative at all, but at the same time voicing the things you believe should be improved.
msg 18y ago
That's a stupid resolution! 5 cents please. Seriously though, I prefer to go Socratic when I disagree on a technical question. I don't want to prove to myself or anyone else that I'm right. I do want to draw someone else into my way of thinking. If my partner in argument manages to answer the questions I thought were subtle and revealing, maybe my understanding was incomplete. In that case, I should have been asking questions all along anyway. Depending on how sarcastic your questions sound at the beginning, you can probably change stance from know-it-all to ignoramus without anyone noticing. If a problem has a settled answer in the public record, send a link. Not everyone considers the same sources authoritative, though.
pg 18y ago
While most people's behavior would be net improved by following Carnegie's recipe, I don't think it's optimal. There are cases when you want to criticize something, even if it doesn't make you liked.
- unalone 18y ago
  Do you think either approach - blunt criticism, or avoidance of such - is more optimal than the other? Many CEOs are famous for being colorful and blunt - Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher - and I find that very often, I gravitate towards services produced by such people. I don't know about many CEOs that practice the opposite approach, but that's because the opposite is less newsworthy. I guess what I'm asking is: would you say the net improvement is worth the loss of those exceptions in business relationships?
markessien 18y ago
What I've found after many years is this: If you have something negative to say, and don't have any idea what would be better, then just shut up. If you see an ugly flower, do you rip it up and leave nothing in it's place? If something sucks and you don't have any idea how it could be better, keep your mouth shut. If you have a better idea, then tell the person straightforward - I think this could be better like this, that could be better like that, then let the person take what he wants of your suggestions. Don't defend your points, don't argue it. Just give your opinion and leave. If your opinion is strong, and this particular part of the item affects you DIRECTLY, then first of all make it clear that you would like to argue a point, then make sure that the other person understands that this is not personal. Then lay out the points you dislike with suggestions on how they would be better, and then try to come to a middle ground on which items should go your way and which items should go the other way. Keep the primary rule in mind - finding an error and pointing it out does not show you are clever. If the thing you see is not relevant to you and you cannot play any difference in getting it fixed, then don't say anything. Just let it be.
foulmouthboy 18y ago
I'm an analyst and strategist, so the answer is yes. Otherwise, I'm not doing my job.
hs 18y ago
"Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds.” -G H Hardy, the opening lines of A Mathematician’s apology
steveplace 18y ago
What a dumb question
Eliezer 18y ago
Criticism from people I respect tends to have a large impact on me. Criticism that is clearly technically right can make me say "Oops" and correct it. Criticism that is vague and ad hominem gets flushed out the window. Just think of what kind of criticism you want to get and actually impacts you; make that the kind of criticism you deliver. That's if you want to help other people. To the extent you want to help yourself, flattery has always been a favored method.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
redrobot5050 18y ago
Go to reddit and just fight the trolls. Nobody feels bad about criticizing Mr. "It was an inside job" conspiracy nutbag.
bayareaguy 18y ago
It's unfortunate that TdR and others like him are remembered more for their internet comments and less for their contributions. Some of the lamest people I've ever worked with were the ones who were unable to criticize anything and some of the best and most effective people I've ever worked with were also the most critical (and sometimes the most obnoxious) and I've always preferred to work with the latter.
thingsilearned 18y ago
Strange when you get that realization isn't it? How could we (and so many others) go so long not realizing that criticism usually has opposite effects? Why do we continue to do so? I still don't know. Don't be hard on yourself that you haven't changed after just 6 days. Making a major change to your personality takes some time. I suggest re-reading the book every once in a while to keep the goal fresh in your thoughts. Also I recommend Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" which briefly discusses Carnegie's book and gives more of a "why" than a "how" on dealing with people.
11ren 18y ago
> it's like a drug I think criticizing is enticing because it gives a feeling of superiority, without the hard work and risk of mistakes... and risk of criticism. Even more insidiously drug-like is that habitual criticizing makes one more reluctant to take those risks oneself, because one is more self-critical, and one expects criticism. "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
I find that it's not the criticism that's the problem: it's the presentation. If instead of saying "this dialog box sucks," you say "the user might find it easier to use if you move this button over here" you accomplish the same thing, but with a much less negative impact.