10-12-2011, 06:04 AM
Evening friends,
I feel the need to make a new post here, since my last one wasn't all that helpful. So let's make something eerily similar, but in a completely different tone.
Sometimes I don't feel that I'm on the same page with everyone else as it pertains to criticism. Maybe I just take a different definition, or maybe I'm too optimistic. You could easily just tell me to take what I get if I'm to complain about a lack of feedback, but I can always be hopeful, eh?
With that being said, let's talk (or in your case read and or exit the tab) about criticism.
A simple way to go about describing my problem here is that there are a few kinds of critics, or at least styles in which the critiques are written. You may say each of these become more complex but I argue that's simply due to the merit (or lack thereof) of the critic themselves.
1. Being 'Blunt'
One of the most common perceptions is that of anger. This person has flaws and they should know about them! Don't skip around and hold hands or any of that sissy crap, be blunt! Be forceful! That'll make them listen!
Except this is not always the case.
I personally have always had a poor reaction to anger and what is generally called blunt speech in general. I would argue that many people try to use blunt in place of rude; which it isn't. Blunt is to the point, yes, but in no way does it require you to accentuate it in an offensive manner. It's honesty, but being blunt doesn't make you entitled to throwing some punches alongside what would otherwise be a valid complaint. This also includes the use of profanity, as it generally travels poorly through text and, despite what your intended message was, tends to charge it rather negatively.
The thing is that I personally take hostile criticism with a grain of salt, even if I'm not the explicit target. I have difficulty fully taking people seriously when they make posts like this, or for a better choice of words have my perception of them turned into them being comparably immature.
When you post something inflammatory (intentionally or not), it usually doesn't have the desired effect. Insulting someone while pointing out their flaws doesn't exactly inspire change, so much as it inspires them not to associate with the angry man shouting in their face. I touched on this in my post about arguments, but when attempting to inform or change the mind of someone anger usually only gets anger in return, and the person you're trying to help can harden against your criticism instead of accepting it.
Then again, there's the other end of the spectrum...
2. Pats on the Back
Just as it is bad to be too 'blunt', it's just as bad to be -too- generous in your criticism. Above all else don't try to discredit the opinions of others, or mask flaws you know exist; this isn't helping anyone, just lulling them into a false sense of security. While it isn't bad at all to give praise alongside your complaints, if you have complaints they should still be heard. Don't let your relationship with the person being critiqued color your response to them; while they may not like what you say there's a difference between that and disliking you.
Then again if they dislike you for some criticism then they're just a jerk. Probably. Not always.
It doesn't hurt to be nice, but it can be unfair to your friend to be too nice. Say what needs to be said, cushion the blow if you must, but in the end make sure they realize your concerns. Also refrain from trying to negate the comments of others; Don't try to interpret their criticism for your friend, allow them to do that.
3. Cryptic Criticism
This can come out of not knowing the person well, or more often out of a lack of time. When it comes to criticism it helps to cite certain occurrences to help the reviewed person think back to their actions during this time; some people don't do this though, and some people don't even feel the need to really say anything with their comments.
Short, explaining nothing. What am I good at? What's bad about me? These questions can eat a person up with confusion. It's better to elaborate and remove confusion whenever possible, since you can only improve in doing so.
As for some help with providing critique...
Be specific. It doesn't hurt to point out specific instances of your complaint, and in fact that can help the most.
Elaborate. The more constructive criticism you can provide on an issue, the better. It's helpful to have your issues more clearly defined, as interpretation of written text can vary easily.
Be objective. Don't say that this fault is excusable just because they're a friend, because there are plenty of people out there who aren't a friend of theirs. They won't be so kind; it's best to know from those closer to you than to find out the hard way.
Be respectful. Keep a good tone with the critique; it helps your voice be heard more, and will have more of an impact on the reader. This way your concern seems rational, not the result of anger.
-Give- feedback. People don't improve by magic, they can require guidance at times. You shouldn't expect flaws to disappear because you think they should.
All that being said, I would like to entreat you all once more for your thoughts on myself.
Which means yes. This was just another peer review thread. Let the stones fly.
Regardless, I hope this helped someone. I was in a bit of a rush; heading to class now!
I feel the need to make a new post here, since my last one wasn't all that helpful. So let's make something eerily similar, but in a completely different tone.
Sometimes I don't feel that I'm on the same page with everyone else as it pertains to criticism. Maybe I just take a different definition, or maybe I'm too optimistic. You could easily just tell me to take what I get if I'm to complain about a lack of feedback, but I can always be hopeful, eh?
With that being said, let's talk (or in your case read and or exit the tab) about criticism.
A simple way to go about describing my problem here is that there are a few kinds of critics, or at least styles in which the critiques are written. You may say each of these become more complex but I argue that's simply due to the merit (or lack thereof) of the critic themselves.
1. Being 'Blunt'
One of the most common perceptions is that of anger. This person has flaws and they should know about them! Don't skip around and hold hands or any of that sissy crap, be blunt! Be forceful! That'll make them listen!
Except this is not always the case.
I personally have always had a poor reaction to anger and what is generally called blunt speech in general. I would argue that many people try to use blunt in place of rude; which it isn't. Blunt is to the point, yes, but in no way does it require you to accentuate it in an offensive manner. It's honesty, but being blunt doesn't make you entitled to throwing some punches alongside what would otherwise be a valid complaint. This also includes the use of profanity, as it generally travels poorly through text and, despite what your intended message was, tends to charge it rather negatively.
Sir Strawman Wrote:I dislike you. You hardly do anything on this server, and when you're on your usually just sit around the OOC cavern. Stop wasting everyone's time and do something.
The thing is that I personally take hostile criticism with a grain of salt, even if I'm not the explicit target. I have difficulty fully taking people seriously when they make posts like this, or for a better choice of words have my perception of them turned into them being comparably immature.
When you post something inflammatory (intentionally or not), it usually doesn't have the desired effect. Insulting someone while pointing out their flaws doesn't exactly inspire change, so much as it inspires them not to associate with the angry man shouting in their face. I touched on this in my post about arguments, but when attempting to inform or change the mind of someone anger usually only gets anger in return, and the person you're trying to help can harden against your criticism instead of accepting it.
Then again, there's the other end of the spectrum...
2. Pats on the Back
Just as it is bad to be too 'blunt', it's just as bad to be -too- generous in your criticism. Above all else don't try to discredit the opinions of others, or mask flaws you know exist; this isn't helping anyone, just lulling them into a false sense of security. While it isn't bad at all to give praise alongside your complaints, if you have complaints they should still be heard. Don't let your relationship with the person being critiqued color your response to them; while they may not like what you say there's a difference between that and disliking you.
Then again if they dislike you for some criticism then they're just a jerk. Probably. Not always.
Sir Strawman Wrote:You may not be the most active, but you're a very approachable person. As someone who knows you well I can easily say you do a good job though, but don't let these other guys get you down!
It doesn't hurt to be nice, but it can be unfair to your friend to be too nice. Say what needs to be said, cushion the blow if you must, but in the end make sure they realize your concerns. Also refrain from trying to negate the comments of others; Don't try to interpret their criticism for your friend, allow them to do that.
3. Cryptic Criticism
This can come out of not knowing the person well, or more often out of a lack of time. When it comes to criticism it helps to cite certain occurrences to help the reviewed person think back to their actions during this time; some people don't do this though, and some people don't even feel the need to really say anything with their comments.
Sir Strawman Wrote:You're pretty alright, but you have some bad points. Keep up the good work!
Short, explaining nothing. What am I good at? What's bad about me? These questions can eat a person up with confusion. It's better to elaborate and remove confusion whenever possible, since you can only improve in doing so.
As for some help with providing critique...
Be specific. It doesn't hurt to point out specific instances of your complaint, and in fact that can help the most.
Elaborate. The more constructive criticism you can provide on an issue, the better. It's helpful to have your issues more clearly defined, as interpretation of written text can vary easily.
Be objective. Don't say that this fault is excusable just because they're a friend, because there are plenty of people out there who aren't a friend of theirs. They won't be so kind; it's best to know from those closer to you than to find out the hard way.
Be respectful. Keep a good tone with the critique; it helps your voice be heard more, and will have more of an impact on the reader. This way your concern seems rational, not the result of anger.
-Give- feedback. People don't improve by magic, they can require guidance at times. You shouldn't expect flaws to disappear because you think they should.
All that being said, I would like to entreat you all once more for your thoughts on myself.
Which means yes. This was just another peer review thread. Let the stones fly.
Regardless, I hope this helped someone. I was in a bit of a rush; heading to class now!