Home > Relationships > Providing Constructive Criticism

Providing Constructive Criticism

January 15, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

"Hey, they're not half bad." "Nope...they're all bad!" "HO-HO-HO-HO-HO!"

Providing constructive criticism is a gift to the person criticised. A wise person will accept such criticism, whereas a fool will reject it. If one gives criticism while angry, it is likely to be perceived as an attack and is highly likely not to be of any use. If one criticises someone else without the intent to help that person, one is also not being helpful. Criticising and then walking away betrays the intent of the critic as non-benevolent. If you truly care about the other person, you should be willing to help him correct himself, or at least to stand by him and allow him to learn from his own mistakes without you turning your back on him. Likewise, humiliating a person in public rather than admonishing him in private betrays a lack of benevolence toward that person.

All of this shows the importance of not being angry when you decide to open your mouth (or pick up your pen, or hit “submit”). When clouded by strong emotion, it is difficult to offer wise counsel and criticise constructively, which includes the willingness to help, whatever form that help takes. If we are given reproof with love, we are more likely to accept that reproof, but we can also be wise enough to accept criticism no matter the source, although we may not count a malevolent critic among our true friends. The truly wise learn from everyone, but this means sifting out the wheat from the chaff in their words; separating the emotion and even the intent from the valid criticisms.

The discomfort caused by criticism is an invitation to growth. It is possible even to come to like it, knowing that it is an opportunity, and we needn’t become defensive. One needs a thicker skin when it comes to criticism but also a deeper appreciation for honest, helpful criticism. Having a curiosity and willingness to learn and to see one’s self in an unfavourable light is essential and the effort required not to react (i.e. the knee-jerk emotional response) is worth it, because real learning and growth don’t generally come from pleasant experiences.

People often react and take offence to that which does not even apply to themselves, feeling the need to defend those who feel attacked and protect them from fair criticisms, which only helps them maintain their own delusions and so is not a charitable act. Telling a tone deaf child that he is musical is not going to serve that child well in life. Honesty, when coupled with the best interests of and love for the person, is much more charitable (though it may seem like the opposite to our modern, rather fragile sensibilities) than protecting someone by misguidedly defending and adding to his delusions.

And now, I await much criticism for this post!

  1. Suz
    January 15, 2012 at 10:30 am | #1

    No criticism from me – you’re dead on! I personally have a love/hate relationship with criticism. It’s a lot like a vaccination or a trip to the OB-GYN. I know it’s good for me; I know it’s a gift, but it ain’t fun.

  2. CL
    January 15, 2012 at 10:42 am | #2

    I should have mentioned that it also helps to say something good about what you are criticising before you offer your criticism. This not only helps the criticised be more receptive, but helps you to realise that this is a human being with good qualities as well as flaws (which we all have!)

    e.g. You’ve made some great points in this well-written piece, but you really screwed it up when you said “…”. Kind of like the way Dalrock did with Susan Walsh – that was fair criticism, not an attack, but it was taken as an attack. If someone takes fair criticism as an attack, the issue is inside themselves, not with the critic.

  3. January 15, 2012 at 12:16 pm | #3

    Also it is useful to remember that criticism is often not about what is said on the surface.

    Probe at the what is beneath the criticism without REACTING to the surface message. It is important to both consider the validity of the criticism and that it might be a projection of what is more applicable to the person doing the criticizing.

  4. CL
    January 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm | #4

    Further, it is advisable not to use the words “always” and “never” when criticising. One incident is much easier to deal with than lifelong character flaws, whether real or exaggerated.

  5. Lavazza
    January 15, 2012 at 2:00 pm | #5

    “Honesty, when coupled with the best interests of and love for the person, is much more charitable (though it may seem like the opposite to our modern, rather fragile sensibilities) than protecting someone by misguidedly defending and adding to his delusions.”

    That’s the tricky part. Critique should be based on knowledge and the best interests of the person critized. If a doctor knows that a patient is really sick and he knows an efficient remedy, he should not only prescribe the remedy, but check that the patient takes it and even force it down his throat, if he does not take it.

    But a lot of criticism is lazy, hypocritical and ineffecient. Not based on knowledge and love of the person critized, but administered to stroke the ego of the critizing person.

  6. January 17, 2012 at 10:47 am | #6

    The idea of defensiveness when you are not even the person a criticism applies to is one I see manifest all the time in women online. The “I’m not like that and don’t know anyone like that” banality is the norm.

    As we speak there is yet another thread on the site christianforums.com about obesity, and its truly amazing how women simply refuse to speak on it. Ask, “is obesity sin?” (set aside faith -or lack of-differences please) and no woman answers. Its all, “Well what’s obese on one frame is not on another, some people can’t help it,” etc.

    Is it fair to conclude that those writing that carry a coupla extra pounds?

  7. CL
    January 17, 2012 at 11:00 am | #7

    LOL “obese” is not a matter of frame!

  8. PT Barnum
    January 18, 2012 at 7:08 pm | #8

    This assumes that the person you are arguing with doesn’t already know he is wrong.

    So, I was mocking someone who was openly lying to others and refused to act with a single bit of shame when the absolute stupidity of his lies was shone.

    Presumably, you would be one of the retard bots trying to shut me up so the shameless liar can have his say.

    Good plan.

    I understand the whole not wanting to be fired/jailed/killed thing. It’s a fine point of view. But it would be nice if you could be silent.

  1. January 22, 2012 at 5:07 am | #1
  2. January 24, 2012 at 10:31 am | #2

Join the Peanut Gallery

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers