The default state of most people is that any criticism is a painful insult. I deliberately try to accept and learn from criticism, and have been told I take criticism unusually well. This pleases me.
That doesn’t mean I accept assholes. I used to accept them, but I learned to rid myself of them at the same time I learned to accept valid criticism.
Unfortunately I don’t know how to reliably give feedback that others find easy to accept. I wish to do better.
Most of the time you understand what their criticism is despite the foul language. So just respond to them as if they had made the nicest comment ever.
It's surprising how fast people go from rage to sage in these matters.
Meant for a reply to the adjacent Godel_unicode but the nesting limit (?) precludes that:
No, rude asshole criticism is extremely rude. Well-pitched constructive criticism is a gift, although you'd be right to say that when addressing strangers it's easy to come across as a demanding prick. So if you can provide that feedback for improvement along with sincere praise then criticize away.
I understand, and it's difficult to deal with criticism when it's both rude and correct. However, it's important to consider how something is said is just as important as what is said. Take my OP for instance: I still think they're correct, at least partially, but how they wrote the first half was perhaps too brash. (I don't know if that's how diminoten intended the statement to be interpreted.)
The reason I say this is because, quite frankly, if you hadn't taken what was said personally, internalizing it as thus, you would still be writing and none of this conversation would have taken place. You disagree, and I understand; however, recognize that as an outsider looking in, I think you're too dismissive of the impact this interaction had on your work (you stopped writing). It doesn't matter whether the person was right or wrong: The fact they said they didn't trust you because of a single mistake was demeaning.
For what it's worth, I still stand by what I said earlier: If someone isn't willing to write constructive criticism, preferring to resort to negative language or insults, then nothing they say matters. If they're right, they're right, but the best you can do is just ignore the negative sentiments and move on. It's not easy. You'll second guess yourself (as you're doing). And you know what? That's fine! You'll be more cautious next time, and you'll have the added confidence that you can deal with similar responses in the future (I'm serious).
To put it another way: It's not so much that the individual in question was correct that dinged your confidence--it's how they said it. I'm almost certain had it been written differently you'd have thought nothing more of it; e.g. "Hey, I think you meant to write 'certified' rather than 'certificated.' Just thought I'd let you know."
Think for a moment on that. If this were written instead, would you still feel your confidence had taken a hit? I'd wager not!
Chin up, my friend. If an asshole is right about something, it doesn't make them less of an asshole--they're just an asshole who happens to be right.
The helpfulness or otherwise of the criticism depends on whether it's valid, correct and/or constructive. It is possible to bash something in a constructive way. Socratic method and all that.
Look at the data behind the criticism and not the way it is delivered to you.
If the data is valid - then accept the data.
If not ask for data politely
You shouldn't dismiss a criticism just because it's delivered rudely. At the same time, why deliver a criticism rudely? What does that gain over delivering it politely?
Usually, if you're delivering a criticism, the intent is to inform the other party of some type of flaw that exists that you've observed or experienced. If you hope they fix that flaw, you're bound to get better results delivering the criticism politely than rudely ("you get more bees with honey than vinegar").
Sometimes you do have to deliver the information in a more abrasive fashion because you've painfully exhausted all polite approaches and the criticism has to be conveyed (usually because time sensitivity), but it should not be the first approach, it should be a last resort. Personally I argue that should only be done if there is a imminent danger of some sort (e.g. no, you're wrong the house will explode if we don't turn the gas off and put the fire out), otherwise you should simply agree to disagree before that point and try again another time or hope the other party may think about your argument more.
That thread has skepticism, but I didn't think any of it was rude or anything close to a personal attack. That's quite different from what the author of this post described.
The other side of the author's point is that you have to be careful not to take criticism of your work as criticism of you as a person.
reply