5 ms·
"I agree with the author on all points" is a much less interesting post to write than "I think the author is wrong because X." Indeed, even if I agree with an
by bloaf 14y ago
"I agree with the author on all points" is a much less interesting post to write than "I think the author is wrong because X." Indeed, even if I agree with an author, I will occasionally post some criticism, unconsidered edge case, or even try to defend an opposing/unpopular theory. I usually hope that by doing so, I get some criticism of my criticism; I'm really just interested in mentally exploring the topic.
If you asked me the question "When would I ever want to seek public comment?" I would answer "Whenever you want criticism." I will also add that the tone of your writing will be reflected in the responses. If you say to the internet: “Fuck you, bioinformatics. Eat shit and die.” Expect the general reaction to be "Fuck you too" regardless of how right you are.
- lotharbot 14y ago> "even if I agree with an author, I will occasionally post some criticism [etc]" I would classify that as positive or neutral. It seems the original author would also classify "substantive criticism" (his words) or "constructive criticism" that way. But he notes that none of the criticism he received was of value, consisting mostly of insults and straw men, which are rightly classified as negative. His tone may at least be partially to blame. But I've witnessed the larger pattern in plenty of circumstances where tone is not a problem -- it's easy to get insulting, empty criticism from strangers, but it's hard to find substantive criticism except in places that intentionally foster it.