

Hypercritical - jseliger
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2009/05/hypercritical.ars

======
anigbrowl
I found this article deeply significant and easy to identify with. I was
particularly struck by the example of Steve Jobs, but don't know enough to
tell if it's an accurate characterization of the man or not. It would be nice
to hear about this from other HN readers, as it would any insights on how to
leverage this particular skillset. I dry up and wither on my own, but am very
good at refining something by gradually eliminating its flaws in pursuit of a
collective win.

The author's experience of being told by all and sundry that he was terribly
creative while being acutely aware of the flaws in his own work ring very true
for me. Indeed, this particular combination can be quite oppressive as people
form extremely unrealistic expectations and then express inordinate
disappointment when they go unmet...and meantime, one's real skill (which is
diagnostic and often therapeutic) is widely regarded as a form of negativity -
in extreme form, this manifests as anti-science claims founded on the idea
that doctors have a vested interest in keeping people sick, or the like.

------
cubicle67
I'd like to see someone clearly articulate the difference between critical
analysis of something and just plain bitching about it. Unfortunately the
internet I have here is permeated by the latter and contains very little of
the former.

For me, I think the difference is that good criticism acknowledges that every
decision is a compromise, and of course every time you compromise you're
giving up something in order to gain something else.

~~~
gabriel
In "The Intellectual Situation" front-matter of Issue #6 of _n+1_ magazine
about our "Book Review Nation" the following statement was written about the
modern literature critic:

"...what separates us from, say, Edmund Wilson? It is not taste; it is not
even erudition. The profounder difference is the ability to place the products
of literary work into a system of belief that appeals to something outside the
literary work and the literary culture that produced it. This--not the status
of the outlets for reviews, not their forum in newsprint or online--is what
marks distinction in reviewing."

I think there is a general truth in this statement.

------
CrLf
The ability to immediately see what's wrong with things can be useful, but can
also be dangerous. It's the stuff that obsessions are made of, if left
unchecked.

Where computers are concerned, I agree that people have a tendency to ignore
the flaws. And I guess that's because they find computers enough of a nuisance
already, if they started paying attention to what's wrong with them, they
would find that they cause more problems than they solve.

I have submitted countless bug reports, often in the first few days of usage.
And I have stopped using some software for the sole reason that their creators
didn't pay enough attention to fixing bugs.

I can certainly identify with the author's premise. But I think this is more
that just seeing what's wrong with stuff: it's more about knowing that
perfection can't be reached, but not because we didn't point out what needs to
be done to reach it.

------
stcredzero
Perhaps competition is good because it is a framework for criticism what tends
to encourage continued effort and refinement, rather than discourage it.

------
trezor
I know it's cliche by now, and definitely a minor nitpick, but mentioning
iTunes as the result of a perfectionist super-critic sounds like madness to
anyone who isn't on a Mac. I would argue the Windows-port is the worst (yet
successful) software ever engineered, and the only reason I have it, is
because I need it for my iPhone (which I agree is a fine product).

That said, the general idea conveyed trough the article is interesting. So far
people has accepted computers and programs as is with a "That's just how
computers work" defeatist mentality, but that seems to be changing rapidly
these days.

