Or, as a realistic ideal, as little as you possibly can.
On the other other hand I ferociously criticise bad ideas.
People are not their ideas. Bad ideas are like mimetic parasites,
replicating through and infecting a host.
Some bad ideas are harmless opinions. Other bad ideas are a grave harm
to their host, and society around them.
While people jave every "right" to hold them, sometimes attacking bad
ideas seems like an attack on a person (ad hominem), which should be
consciously avoided. A person, qua soul, is seldom even responsible
for what they host and parrot [1]. But they are responsible for
spreading those ideas, which is why teachers, parents and trash social
media have much to answer for. And, I believe, it is a duty and
responsibility to help people be free of bad ideas, or if possible to
steer them away from them. By the same token I believe people who
spread bad ideas for profit and personal gain are the most damaged,
and damaging of all.
It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture where people
identify with their ideas that the reaction of some people is to
perceive an attack on them-self, as a person. Good criticusm of bad
ideas should always be welcome.
If someone has consistently bad ideas, you're not going to have a high opinion of their future ideas. If these are work ideas, they may also not be able to keep their job, which affects their livelihood. I don't know if we can get away with saying that taking away someone's job is not some kind of attack on their livelihood/self. So if you, the worker, are worried about having bad ideas that can affect your job, it isn't a stretch that the reaction to criticism can look like a reaction to a threat.
Now, criticizing hot takes and bad opinions on Twitter? Go for it, although that too can result in real consequences.
Part of who we are definitely involves the connections we make, and you can lose more shallow connections with bad ideas - good friends/deep connections tend to love you regardless. If you are trying to take your work seriously, but everyone ends up criticizing your ideas, it will also affect you.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have bad intentions but these days I seems more common to assume they do when they don't. Usually this is an indirect conclusion. "You're pro local business? You clearly hate others you racist". The 2nd does not follow from the first but the person judgin has assumed bad intentions
It really depends on what one considers bad and good. People against immigration and helping the poor or workers in general are going to be seen as having bad intentions by many, people for bodily autonomy are going to be seen as having bad intentions by American Christians, Catholics and others, then we have a growing population who just support outright wars of invasion, genocide and ethnic cleansing, so...
No, analysis of intentions are used to prevent effects. If someone says they want to kill al Jews, then we can actually stop them before they have any power to do such a thing.
As others have answered in this very thoughtful thread, it's a most
deep and puzzling question. As is the distinctions between ideas,
intentions, and actions - the basis of much jurisprudence - which is
examined here too.
However there is the truly horrifying idea in Henrik Ibsen's Peer
Gynt, which once you comprehend it is so dark that even those who call
themselves 'nihilists' recoil from it. And yet maybe we should
celebrate it because it's Kierkegaard through and through - that we
have 'no essential self'. If we are possessed by a soul it is as an
observer, a witness to a perfect drama involving other mind-bodies,
each equally devoid of a central "self". That can be a relief. But as
was discussed here recently with regard to mindfulness and Buddhism,
that "idea" can itself be dangerous, for some it's a license to be a
dick. Perhaps nature/evolution is clever in giving us all a little
anxious piece, a "self" that can be hurt, since that allows social
structures.
I'd argue that a person is their decisions. That encompasses actions - we generally decide whether and how to act.
This also rings true when you add "bad thoughts" alongside "bad ideas". Everyone has bad thoughts in addition to bad ideas. Part of what makes a good person is their ability to discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts. Part of what makes someone seem wise is their ability to discard (or decide to not act on) bad ideas.
>Part of what makes a good person is their ability to discard (or at least decide to not act on) bad thoughts.
I think this part is really key, and that the quality and characteristics of your "internal idea killer" ends up defining what kind of person you are, in almost all aspects of your life. For example, think of someone you may know that regularly just sticks with their first idea on any topic, or someone you have seen latch on to a mediocre idea for far too long. Now compare them to the person you know most likely to quickly discard ideas and come up with new ones, either instinctively all the time or at the first sign their previous ideas were not holding up to snuff.
I think every person entertains many ideas. Being receptive to possibilities does not define you, but it may incline you. 'Criticism' can play a valuable role in helping you see demerits in your inclinations before you misbehave.
People change over time. Just as a sick person can recover from illness, a person can shake off bad ideas. Similarly, a person may right their wrong actions. That’s why I think we should be careful not to forsake them.
I'd really question the idea that a person even "has" ideas rather than responds to the world ("internal" and "external") in specific patterns after specific experiences. But if you must, a person is a body, so it's the body that has the ideas and as far as anyone else cares, a body's appearance, actions and intentions are the only thing they could really care about.
When an employee consistently targets a teammate and continues to criticize his, but not criticize other teammate's shoddy work, what idea of his should I be criticizing?
When an employee consistently commits to doing work and then fails to later on, justifying it (post-hoc, after the deadline) with "I think we shouldn't go in that direction", what idea of his should I criticize?
I could say that I can criticize his failure to meet his commitments, but we're just mincing words. In common parlance, that's equivalent to criticizing him.
I disagree with this. If people are not their ideas, then why arrest people who join terrorist groups or write manifestos saying they want to harm people? If people are not their ideas, then why give people prizes for good ideas?
"Never."
Will you criticize a mass shooter? Or a person who wants to see animals harmed for their entertainment? Certain ideas are so dangerous and terrible that simply reasoning with the people holding them is not protection enough.
I disagree with it too but I don't think your argument is good enough. They're arrested for joining the terrorist group which not only signals intention but means and possibly opportunity to carry out actions.
Your questions are about an action and a desire (or intention), not about ideas. Your last sentence was acknowledged and addressed by their post I think...
>write manifestos saying they want to harm people?
Hopefully we don't arrest people for writing things. We should arrest people for actions, not thoughts. Arresting people for thoughts is .. thoughtcrime.
Yes, don't criticize individuals, but I'm not sure if criticizing 'bad ideas' is a good idea.
YCombinator literally don't get into providing a lot of advice on markets because it's just too difficult predict at the nascent stage.
Bad policy, bad operations, bad code, yes.
With ideas, there's so much that may need to be fleshed out, left uncommunicated. An idea is more of an 'inspiration' for something, not the thing itself.
The older I get the less critical I am in that area, and I often try to be my own devil's advocate i.e. 'how could I make that work'?
Sometimes you find yourself in adversarial scenarios where no nuance can exist, and the counterparty is disinterested in coming to consensus. You’re in a time box that doesn’t allow for philosophical discussion.
In short, sometimes you deal with assholes, and sometimes it’s productive to just call them assholes.
I'm wondering what's your success rate at _not_ having your criticism of bad ideas be taken anyway as a criticism of the person. In my experience, people are fragile, and have a tough time separating the rational from the emotional (if such a separation is even possible).
This is a learned skill, and it's on the listener to not take the criticism personally if it's not directed personally.
I had to do this at my last job, and let me tell you, once you get over the hump of criticizing ideas instead of the person, things get a lot more efficient.
Questions of curiosity to the person directly would be a useful way of drawing attention to the action/behavior in question.
The problem comes when the person is unaware that they do or behave in any particular way, which is entirely subjective and open to interpretation anyway, or they are unwilling to acknowledge the presence of a blind-spot. Which may or may not be considered by them as perfectly normal/okay - that's why it's subjective.
The real problem is when they see that action or behavior normal/okay for them to do/be towards others, but not when it happens the other way around.
A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt could be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you".
Although, this is still flawed as it is still open to interpretation, as again "do unto" is completely subjective from both parties.
What be the solution? Attemping to understand, and apply some form of reasoning to establish what middle ground may exist?
This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against. Ideally, it'll open up the person you're talking to, so they can join in your curiosity and better see in themselves what you are seeing, or at least create more mutual understanding.
Unfortunately, people that are immature and deal with their insecurities poorly this doesn't tend to work on.
At a certain point, people have to want to work on themselves and you have to not concern yourself too much with how they react to information that triggers their cognitive dissonance defenses as long as you are approaching them from a position of empathy and curiosity. It's easy to want to keep helping people no matter what but at this point they will just drag you down to their level as a form of self-protection.
So I think the "solution" (or maybe it's a cop-out?) is that you can nudge people certain ways and expose them to new information, but what they do with it is entirely their responsibility and you have to let go if you make a good effort to communicate and they just aren't receptive. We only have so much emotional energy and should use it wisely.
> This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying,
The way you phrased it: Yes, many will rightfully respond poorly to it.
Difficult Conversations is the first book I read on communications, and it has advice most such books have:
1. Don't act curious. Be curious. You have to set the tone, but it isn't sufficient.
2. Don't deliver messages. Be curious. If a tone of curiosity is just an avenue to delivering a message, then this will annoy people. People don't like leading questions masquerading as curiosity.
Likely this is not what you meant to say - I'm merely criticizing your phrasing of it.
> This. Striking a tone of curiosity helps soften what you're saying, versus creating an accusation that they feel they have to defend against.
Spelling it out for the empathetically challenges ... it is possible to go one step further and recast your entire mind in a curious frame for better results. The reason a curious tone gets good results is because a curious mind gets productive results and tone is a hint at mental state. There is a conversational technique here, but being genuine in curiosity is more powerful.
> A simple ideal that may be useful for each party to adopt could be - "do unto others as you would like done unto you".
The problem with the golden rule is that it is still self-centered. What I may like is not the same as what others may like. "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" is better. It makes one have to understand and anticipate others' desires, and update your understanding of others constantly. "As you would like done unto you" is only useful as a first approximation when you have exactly zero idea of what the other may desire.
That was introduced to me as the "platinum rule" and in such a way that stated that the "golden rule" was wrong. I'd say neither is wrong, and one is not better than the other. In fact, both are trying to help understand and communicate with each other effectively.
> That was introduced to me as the "platinum rule" and in such a way that stated that the "golden rule" was wrong.
Heh. I often refer to it as "the bronze rule" for similar reasons (as in gold, silver, bronze medals). It's a useful rule, but not the best rule.
The Golden Rule has gotten me into trouble way too often. At some point you realize that how you want to be treated is not how a significant portion of the population (perhaps the majority) want to be treated.
I'm a little confused - why does the existence of platinum cast gold as negative? Both are "positive" elements, but one may have greater value than the other.
That's easy enough to solve; simply conclude that the way you like to be treated is for other people to try and understand what you want and to take that into account. (Granted, yes, lacking direct information it makes sense to try and fill in with projection.)
2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive opposite of the criticism), catch them at it. Describe, in a matter of fact but appreciative way. Avoid evaluative language. Avoid the word "you." "I got that paper work well in advance today. Thanks."
3) When you need to give negative feedback, again use descriptive language instead of evaluative, give information (only what they reasonably may not know), avoid the word "you," and keep it short and private. "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day."
This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are. Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them.
Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to person and culture to culture.
In my experience and observation of those who handle these problems well, the majority of them follow OP's advice. They do it very smoothly that I never noticed it until I was taught the pattern and started seeing it everywhere.
What OP is saying is basically:
1. Focus on the action/problem and not the person. If there's a pattern, focus on the pattern, but have concrete examples ("You're frequently late" is not a concrete example). Using "You" here is fine.
2. Don't just focus on the action, but on the impact. Why was his behavior a problem? So what if he didn't complete the work by 10am? It is this that is phrased without "you", because you're trying to explain how it impacts you, not him.
Very consistently I've found people who really dislike this advice are also very poor at articulating the impact. They'll refuse to speak of the impact it has on them, and will often make their case based on principles ("One should...", "It is expected...", "It is a societal norm...", "A good employee/professional should know...", "It should be obvious why submitting the work after the deadline is a problem, I shouldn't have to speak to it ..."). Sorry to trigger anyone, but such people are poor communicators.
I should know - I was one of them. Changing my mindset from arguing on principles to arguing about impact was quite significant.
This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of things?
> Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them
Is this referring to how I presented the information?
Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct criticism is expected and welcomed.
The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean "Interesting, let's think about it."
This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because it's so hard to tell what people really mean.
It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up in politeness.
I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day." is indirect and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up". It's obvious to everyone involved that someone specific didn't deliver the paperwork. There is no need to obfuscate that fact by some vague abstraction. To me, that obfuscation is:
1). Implying that the guilty party is an idiot to make the speaker seem nicer. It's well known in marketing that when weak-minded people are given a reason (any reason) before a request, they are more likely to comply with a request*. However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize.
2a). Indirect, potentially manipulative - e.g. accusing while ostensibly appearing not to be; an attempt to be nice while calling someone out.
2c). I will go even further on point 2a - when you ACCUSE clearly, you become responsible for your words. When I say "Hey Ben, your code is garbage, can you try to make it less garbage" I out myself as someone who is being critical. I out that I expect better. I take on the burden of criticizing as defined by Korolev, specifically: “If you do not agree — criticize; if you criticize — offer a solution/alternative; if you offer a solution — work on implementing it; if you implement it — bear the responsibility for your actions”. When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork".
To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage?
Since I realize that I am not making a strong enough point, I will include a quote that partially guides me here:
"3. Active Voice: Use the active voice.
The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive: 'I shall always remember my first visit to Harvard.' This is much better
than: 'My first visit to Harvard will always be remembered by me.' The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. This rule does
not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary."
> and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up"
You can debate whether "you messed up." When I speak about what I know I experienced by describing things that happened from my own point of view, I'm giving a far less controversial and debatable account of events. Perhaps both parties are comfortable with conflict, in which case there's no issue. But in my experience, I've found that most people feel extremely uncomfortable with something like "you messed up."
> However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize.
I had mentioned how when giving information, you give "only what they reasonably may not know." In my example, I was thinking maybe they didn't know that 10am was the cutoff before there's a cost. If you know they already know, then yes I agree with you here.
> an attempt to be nice while calling someone out.
For many of us, our jobs require us to regularly coach others. I don't consider it as "calling someone out," and I see no reason to automatically consider it not "nice." It's a potentially uncomfortable interaction that we must do, so why not try to do it in an agreeable and effective way?
> When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork".
> To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage?
I did in fact use the active voice in my example. Although, I would consider that avoiding the word "you" is a good reason to use the passive voice. That said, using the first person as suggested makes using the active voice much easier. People may use it only to protect themselves from consequences, and if so I'd agree when you describe this framing as "weak." We ought to have a good enough reason to give feedback to stand by it, and if not, then we need to be able to admit that. That isn't why I suggest it, though. The reason I use this kind of language is to make the criticism easier to hear and to avoid unnecessary defensiveness.
That's why it takes about 3x the effort and money to make a smallish CRUD app than it did 25 years ago. Too many eToys to distract decision-making. Warren Buffett said one of his top "skills" is not being afraid to say "no" to dubious investments and ideas. Nobody is saying "no" to our bloated web stacks. When I complain about bloat, I'm often given the reply, "but look at all the wonderful things you can potentially do in the future!" YAGNI, KISS, and DRY have been shot bloody dead.
Yep. My experience as well (25+ years of experience). People are guided by emotions not logic. Logic is mostly used to defend the conclusion reached by emotions. Which is why high IQ people makes mistakes all the time but are more likely to get away with it because of their ability to explain it away.
This is overly simplistic. I think there is value in authenticity as well. That’s not an excuse to be an ass, but its very demotivating when obvious unacceptable behavior isn’t called out as such and criticized.
Constructive criticism is the word. You tell em what you liked and at which point they lost you and why. If they respond to that you talk about what could be done better.
Agreed. Criticism intended to effect positive change is akin to uninvited coaching or teaching. If no change is intended, or the recipient is unreceptive, then criticism is pointless and destructive.
Probably the way to ensure positive change is possible before you criticize is to feel out the recipient first. Are they genuinely interested in improving? If they show reluctance or opposition, speak no further. If they truly want to improve and they respect your opinion, they'll persist by asking your advice.
Another circumstance where criticism may have merit is where powerless subordinates discuss the demerits of a case. If they later agree that the case could benefit from improved tactics or by correcting errors, then the means to that end may be worth refining and then sharing with a super-ordinate who has the power to act on it. But if that prospect does not exist, then again, there's no point in being critical.
In context of work/study or any professional time, it depends on the person being criticized, whether the criticism will be taken as a good (constructive) or not. And it is better not to do it publicly.
But when it comes to criticizing a person for what he does in daily life or his behavior with others as long as we don't know him, here we have no right to do, it is simply a part of personal freedom: never judge people's actions until they hurt us...
It depends... professional MLB players, "heel" wrestlers and the like are paid good money to be publicly criticized.
Then there's people like my aunt, who just has no filter. Examples there are her talking to my sister "your children are just too fat". That went down well but was just having no filter or foresight and not overt malice.
But for regular people, you should never criticize unless it's something particularly selfish or thoughtless.
> and this is not to their faces but rather behind their back.
If it's not to their faces, don't do it. It's just gossip at that point. Realistically who is this benefitting? There's no way for the person you're criticizing to act on that feedback if you explicitly _never tell them to their face_.
There's a time and place to criticize people to their face in a positive and encouraging manner. But gossip has never helped anyone.
I criticize people all of the time. I feel it’s my duty because most people won’t do it. And, often, the people being criticized want and need the criticism. To them, it’s better to get the feedback directly and discretely than via gossip. This practice has the side-benefit of helping to repel people who can’t take criticism.
There is an art to delivering bad news without coming across as a jerk. I don't do it well despite many attempts. I've seen others do it well and I have to admire such a skill.
He was even punching down here. In fact the only legitimate criticism here is against JP. He certainly meets the threshold where he has gone too far and should be apologizing. If he doesn't we should be criticizing.
6. "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."
That's his own damned rule and he's clearly violating it. His sorry not sorry is that he blamed the toxicity of twitter. He's still in the wrong and we should criticize him.
It's bulling if you are a bully. But what if you are not and the rationale is justice? I feel blessed that all the people I work with are like this. There have been a few times it was necessary to be extremely clear pointing out my shortcomings with something. It was also clear as day they weren't getting any enjoyment out of being responsible for delivering the criticism as there was no emotional satisfaction in their voice and they didn't say a single word above and beyond what was necessary. (You can tell there are emotions thrown in when unnecessary threats or implied threats are added. Or, when they add language which belabors the point of how your actions negatively impacted or inconvenienced them - now enacting their 'emotional revenge' of sorts.)
Deserved means "rightfully earned because of something done or qualities shown; merited." And that's a perfect description of the faults I demonstrated. It might happen out of laziness for another worker, but in my case it was mixed fear/social anxiety that kept me from pushing the customer harder, as needed, to enable me to finish required work. Just an example.
Or, as a realistic ideal, as little as you possibly can.
On the other other hand I ferociously criticise bad ideas.
People are not their ideas. Bad ideas are like mimetic parasites, replicating through and infecting a host.
Some bad ideas are harmless opinions. Other bad ideas are a grave harm to their host, and society around them.
While people jave every "right" to hold them, sometimes attacking bad ideas seems like an attack on a person (ad hominem), which should be consciously avoided. A person, qua soul, is seldom even responsible for what they host and parrot [1]. But they are responsible for spreading those ideas, which is why teachers, parents and trash social media have much to answer for. And, I believe, it is a duty and responsibility to help people be free of bad ideas, or if possible to steer them away from them. By the same token I believe people who spread bad ideas for profit and personal gain are the most damaged, and damaging of all.
It is a shame in our presently over-defensive culture where people identify with their ideas that the reaction of some people is to perceive an attack on them-self, as a person. Good criticusm of bad ideas should always be welcome.
[1] https://genius.com/Smog-vessel-in-vain-lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoiNXDpDkok