Personally, I try to detach it from myself and think in term of process, even if they are just internal processes (as in processes I created for myself).

Why was this bug not prevented? Did I follow the processes? If yes, why did they fail, and how can I change them not to fail next time? If not, why did I not follow them? How can I ensure that this will not happen again?

Also, can I share my experience? Can I learn from someone else experience? I think it's very good to say "I did this and that, which I thought would be enough, but it wasn't, how do you guys do it?".

Not saying it's perfect, and I always feel bad whenever there's a bug in code I wrote, but I'd rather hear about it, if only just to try to reduce the amount of time this happens in the future.

This is all going to vary from workplace to workplace, but:

1. Proactively ask individuals for code review.

2. Thank people, visibly and publicly, when they point out mistakes or offer good suggestions.

3. Be an example when you leave critiques; accept that beyond some agreed-on code standards, some things are subjective. Just because you wouldn't write code in a certain way doesn't mean the way they've written it is wrong.

Just listen and try to steel man what they are saying as best you can before you start to consider how it might be wrong.

Try to get onto the path of thought that led them there, but let the questions that arise naturally for you hold off as long as you can.

To be clear this is like a policy, you will fail at it but it reminds you of the prinicals that you believe in.

I learn a lot doing this in more ways than i could explain in a book, never mind a comment.

You can see from the other comments that people like prescriptive actions that anybody can take. It's a lot harder to accept that you might have some behavioral or mental issues that you need to dig into which would then make all of these behaviors natural. Forcing yourself to be a steel man is pretending. Becoming a steel man is much harder but is possible for those who willingly seek treatment. If you're willing to ask this question it means you are a good candidate for treatment. Good luck.

I like to think of criticism as scientific peer review. The purpose of that is not to criticise the person, but to strengthen the validity of their research by eliminating any remaining errors they may have missed.

Your peers aren't harming you by finding fault, they're strengthening your position by doing so.

I personally hate it when a bug slips through to production, and I always profusely thank anyone that spots one before it does. Or after. Whatever, as long as it gets fixed...

Similar to people with ptsd, your amygdala may be overactive. You can try different methods of reducing your general level of stress.