Criticism, Cheerleading, and Negativity

Great post. The only detail I disagree with is found in the following excerpt:

"That sucks" is negativity. "That sucks, here's why, and here's how to fix it" is criticism, and it comes from a place of love. That's the difference.

I agree with this in general, but sometimes I don't really know how to fix the thing that sucks. Yet I'm still passionate about the thing I'm criticizing and I'm not doing it as an expression of negativity. It's just that I can plainly identify and explain what is wrong, but the fix is beyond me.

Another way of putting it:

It all comes down to details. An effective critic can point out why something sucks, what parts of it suck, under what conditions it may suck, what other alternatives might not suck, and how to improve it so it doesn't suck any more.

A hater only knows that it sucks. A cheerleader only knows that it rocks. In both cases, their opinion is completely binary: it either sucks or it rocks. There's no room for nuance or shades of grey in that assessment.

I suspect that passion is correlated but not causative here. When you're passionate about something, you tend to notice the details. That's the same skill that makes you an effective critic. But you can remain an effective critic even when you're no longer passionate about something. Take Jamie Zawinski, for example. His opinion on software matters to a lot of people, even though he probably cares a lot more about nightclubs these days. That's because he spent 10-15 years being exceptionally passionate about software, and in the process accumulated the skills he needs to make informed, nuanced judgments.

I understand your point. I've work with people at both extremes:

- Negative people ruins ambiance and creates resentment. They think everything is doomed, and criticizes everything all the time. Their usual last words : "Anyway it won't work".

- Cheerleaders as you are calling them refuse to face the real problems, delaying the inevitable until it's too late.

None of these attitudes are productive, and they are not held by people who both care and grasp the situation. Sometimes cheerleaders care, they just don't understand what's happening (eg managers who don't understand anything about technology...).

By saying "here's why, and here's how to fix it", you show that you care, so you're definitely on the right path. The problem is that once you've said "That sucks" whoever you are talking to will stop listening. So it doesn't matter whether you say "That sucks, here's why, and here's how to fix it", or just "That sucks". It's pretty much the same.

And that's the hard point. How to make people understand that something is wrong without making them go defensive. A common "trick" is honest praise. Honest. It must absolutely be honest otherwise it will fail. Something positive. Just find something great, praise it, and only then you can throw your critic, in a humble way. A critic must never feel like a critic, but more like an encouragement.

It might sounds stupid, but it works. It's often easier to have people do a u-turn by pushing them forward.

And it will give much more weight to your words when you actually have to throw a "Well, if we continue like that, we're doomed.". If you are known are someone positive, that will make people think...

I criticize by creation, not by finding fault. - Michaelangelo

From this old but good HN thread on criticism: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=424699

Yup, this is a great point. Writing is an act that requires a lot of feedback. Unfortunately a lot of (poor) writers can't tell the difference between well meaning criticism and soul crushing negativity. I hate phrases like, "If you can't find something nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Criticism is an absolutely fantastic tool in entrepreneurship. Want an idea for a company? Try someone else's product and write down all the problems with it. After having to put up with the Common Application as provided by Hobsons.com I can't wait for someone to take a crack at putting them out of business.

Many indigenous cultures have evolved a natural distrust of people who smile too much.

It is true that cheerleaders when treated wrong will disappear and critics will weather the storm with you, it is with the caveat, in most context.

In the context of corporate culture and internal critics, I have seen numerous occasions when critics have left after weathering the storm when corporate bosses do not share the same passion towards users (employees and customers). In such scenarios critics have little to no control to implement fixes and are labelled negative under the definition of not meeting business goal (read: does not make the boss look good).

This may very well be because 'in American culture, that criticism and negativity go hand-in-hand', tho, I think this is unlikely.

Good post.

Two resultant things that bother me:

1) Many people avoid constructively criticizing others' work primarily because it is so frequently mistaken for negativity. Criticism is a necessary part of continuous improvement. I find myself frequently encouraging others to take no fear in criticizing my work, because I otherwise receive little valuable feedback. If it sucks, I need to know, and I need to know why.

2) The common desire for cheerleaders breeds "fake cheerleaders" looking for acceptance and praise. These people provide no value, and worse, can lull people into a false sense of success.

Criticism can be done with a positive or a negative twist. Agree with the author that showing approval or casting insults is independent of criticism.

Being passionate about something doesn't mean ignoring the nuances of social interaction. It means caring enough to learn how to best suggest positive changes. Also, if we accept the possibility that our assumptions are false it can lighten the severity of our criticism.

It's hard to listen to a loud mouth know it all, even if you know they're right. The social inclination is preference to crash and burn and drag them down with you.

The worst thing to happen to a critic is to have to talk to a person who complains about their problems but is mainly looking for comfort, not solutions. Advice in these instances is met with variations on "no, that's too difficult," or sometimes angrily: "stop bugging me, I don't want to change what I'm doing!"

At different times in our lives we come from both angles and sometimes it's hard to know which one the person is looking for.

Summary:

It’s not the easiest way to approach the world, but the cycle of passion, criticism, vulnerability, conflict, and resolution is perpetually educational.

From whom the critic comes from is also of value. "It sucks" from my mother, and "it sucks" from a professional designer often means two different things.

As a critic myself, I don't think someone that is a good critic will disable comments(critics) in his blog.

i don't think passion is the defining difference between criticism and negativity. if anything it is thoughtfulness or possibly respect.

And I celebrate my failures.

Unfortunately, Alex is making the exact mistake he outlines. In criticising the notion that criticism is associated with negativity, he tries to associate criticism with love. He says:

The reason a person is critical of a thing is because he is passionate about that thing. In order to have a critical opinion, you have to love something enough to understand it

Now you may say that you don't really care about something, unless you're critical of it, but saying you have to love it, because you are critical about it, is a bridge too far. That would have exactly the same kinds of problems as the association with negativity.