Let Me Ruin This for You: The Schadenfreude of Criticism

Yes, that's exactly how you would use it in German. The word itself actually consists of 'Schaden' (damage/harm) and 'Freude' (joy/pleasure/happiness). In case someone gets 'damaged', you'd feel joy and experience 'Schadenfreude'.

If your car-addicted neighbor annoying the whole neighborhood with his 400 HP engine would run over his own cat, you'd experience 'Schadenfreude'. You'd still feel sorry for the cat though ;)

Yeah, joy from inflicting harm is sadism. Author probably just wanted to use the word schadenfreude. It's a really fun word.

That's correct, and I should mention that Schadenfreude can sometimes even be used with a positive connotation, namely when a bad person suffers some misfortune due to his own wrongdoings.

Yep. Frankly the whole article felt like watching a little kid put on adult pants and try to convince the adults to take them seriously.

> There's no discussion possible without the confrontation of ideas

I agree. Ha! ;)

This borders on suggesting that all criticism is good and altruistic and beneficial to society. I think the vast majority of all criticism is ego driven, motivated by wanting to feel superior. Most of it doesn't produce progress or discussion. When it's hurtful, it's usually because it was intended to be hurtful which means it's more than critique.

> grownups are supposed to be able to cope with the fact that others don't share your ideas

There's a difference between evaluating ideas and looking only for faults. There's a difference between critique and criticism. It sounds like you are talking mostly about critique, except for this part about being grownups. While your statement is true, it's only half. Grownups also critique without criticizing, they can evaluate something without putting others down, without insulting or being mean.

http://abacus.bates.edu/~rrichar2/learn/ui/critique.html

While I think there are critics who attempt to provide a balanced critique, I know I have provided criticism with the intent to harm. The reason is one of self-defense of a sort.

For example, I'm proposing a fraud detection system of my own design to address tricky issues in our product. Higher-ups want to purchase an existing system from a third party, which means I don't get to work on my pet project. They ask me for my input. At this point, my primary interest is in exposing all the flaws in their proposed system which render it unfit for purpose. I'll probably acknowledge some strengths just to make my argument more tolerable to them, but my goal is to persuade them to take my preferred course of action.

Likewise, if I rant about Java, it's probably because I would like to take some of the "mindshare" Java enjoys and move it to my favored language(s).

There are probably other reasons to want to damage something through criticism, but that's how I find myself employing it.

I think it can be a tool to hurt others, and is often used that way by people who probe and learn our psychological weak points, but its proper role is to defend against ideas/culture that one doesn't like.

If some new idea or trend is painful or apparently harmful or even just mildly annoying then it's important to try to understand why and to articulate this in order to protect one's mental integrity. This can be done in private. If one is defending against the actions of another, it may or may not be necessary to communicate the criticism to that other person. Often it is sufficient to silently note why their actions are wrong. (And if one fails to accomplish this, perhaps the actions weren't bad after all. Thus a failed attempt at criticism has changed one's mind about something. This is useful and important.)

Sometimes the criticism must be communicated, perhaps even in the presence of witnesses. This can be hard.

Public criticism is a different matter. There one is trying to protect a subculture from some idea or work that one considers harmful. I'm not sure what are the proper conditions under which to give this or hear this kind of criticism. Perhaps one has the right to be heard only if one can advocate an alternative approach or artwork that is worthy of attention. Or if one has made significant personal contributions to the field.

Note that this comment is a criticism of criticism as it is generally understood and so it makes sense by its own terms. Most of us and most ideas have been the target of unjust criticism at one time or another.

The issue I always take with people's first reaction to "criticism" is it somehow should only be negative. I see people who only provide negative feedback being, at best, lacking in their ability to truly analize something critically. Positive feedback isn't touchy-feely niceties to save someone's feelings. A lot of brilliance can be absent-mindely lost or discarded if the author isn't made aware that it's brilliant.

If someone creates something and only gets feedback about what's wrong with it they could be lead to conclude the entire work is worthless and throw it out. However, if you say "this part right here, though, is great and for these reasons. Keep it and do more of that" you've actually helped someone's creative process a whole lot more than just "this sucks, get rid of it."

If anything it takes more critical thinking and analysis to point out what's good about something than just ripping apart what doesn't work. 100% negative feedback is about as helpful as someone telling you "Yeah, I liked the story. It had some spelling and grammar errors but other than that it was good!" Great, you didn't tell me at all what you liked about it but then continued to tell me what spell and grammar check already did.

The thing that gets me about criticism is that critics themselves often seem to think of it this way when it's aimed at them, when someone dares to take their work and subject it to the same kind of analysis and scrutiny they apply to the work of others. What seems to make it acceptable in the eyes of its worst perpetrators is that they're the ones applying it to others who they think of as inferior on some level.

I think it is a bit more complex than that.

I think words (or opinions or ideas or whatever you want to call it) don't hurt people. People are hurt by words. By this I mean that if and how much a person is hurt by a specific set of words is entirely subjective and may be controlled consciously.

If I stab two people in the neck, it's pretty much garanteed that I've caused them harm. Not exactly the same but probably similar harm. But with something I said I cause extreme distress in some person while it is completely insignificant to another.

I usually don't try to atribute malice to people. So I try not to believe critics (or anybody) intend to cause harm by saying what they say. But I don't deny some say extreme thing with the intent of causing a reaction or ever harming some set of people.

I understood the article a bit differently: if you rant about Java, don't pretend that this is only to educate other Devs and open their eyes to sad realities. There is another, less benevolent side to it, a destructive side, that on purpose does not attempt to weigh pros and cons, but focuses on the shortcomings only. Obviously, if your rant is well presented, lovers of Java will have a hard time keeping up their love. And knowing this might give you additional satisfaction. So criticism is not primarily a tool to hurt others, but recognizing the involved hurting aspect is essential to understand the whole dynamic of criticism, and its very personal nature.

When I have ranted about Java (thankfully, I don't do much Java development now, and we have Kotlin), I haven't intended to hurt anyone. I just want people to do better. Both in the sense of urging developers to be using better tools than Java, and also in the sense of urging the language designers to fix problems I perceive.

I tend to save my cruelty for those who have been actively trying to harm me. Which doesn't really happen, because I have a relatively placid life.

> The author is essentially saying that criticism is a tool to hurt others.

Interesting opinion. Criticism takes effort, something I am not willing to waste on those I don't consider worthy of my time. If I want to hurt someone, I ignore them. They get no feedback from me, no information on how to improve themselves.

I don't think it is about the people you're hurting (or more accurately, asserting superiority over), but the fact that you (or Tolstoy) are not one of them. The object of the schaudenfreud isn't the Java dev or Shakespeare fan specifically, but the dead-eyed hoi polloi, and if you enjoy Shakespeare/pit bull/Thomas Friedman you must be one of them.

I feel your pain. I was a Deadhead back in the day, and a lot of, well, shallow Deadheads couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that some shows were better than others, and some eras were better than others. Mid-late 1980s Grateful Dead performances could be mighty disappointing. (Although lately, I'm coming to appreciate the good ones.)

The world needs pessimists as much as it needs optimists.

I deal with this personally by arguing that artistic merit is effectively objective - that whether a work of art is "good" or "bad" is independent of personal tastes. There are lots of good works of art that I simply don't like (and frankly, lots of bad art that I love).

This is mostly as a counter to the common-as-dirt conceit of "I don't like this, therefore it sucks" that is many people's loud response to stuff that happens outside their own culture.

Not every site is equipped to handle HN.

"This site can’t be reached". Definitely ruined.