decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Criticism vs Constructive Criticism | 186 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Criticism vs Constructive Criticism
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM EST

I have been the subject of numerous criticisms. Probably everyone has. Most of the time, my response is:

    I can see how that's a potential, perhaps you can outline what it is I've done to give you that impression.
And ironically I get:
    Well.... I can't point to something specific at the moment....
I'm sorry, but that's not constructive criticism. That's just plain criticism.

And a person can neither defend a situation nor change the behavior to better the same situation in the future with that kind of criticism. By "defend" I mean to outline their perspective on the situation as it occurred because there is the chance the outside observer (who offered the criticism) was not fully aware of everything that was really occurring and ended up with an assumption that was wrong. After all... those offering constructive criticisms are human too - and there is a possibility they are wrong with their criticsm.

This is why I asked the question:

    What is viewed as "shrill" and "less considered" in the article?
Not even old-timers have the right to just criticise. And I say that as an old-timer.

And frankly, if the person that said the author came across as "shrill" can not point to something to support even the basic tone.... then perhaps what the person thought as shrill was simply in themselves. They saw something there that wasn't really there.

Like when a guy is simply being polite and holding the door open for those behind him (man and woman alike) and one woman calls him a chauvinist. Obviously the insult was in her own mind - not the simple polite behavior presented.

So perhaps the next time you see a "less reasoned" response in P.J.s authoring you actually identify that instead of raising a general comment with nothing to point to.

See what I did there? I analysed what I viewed as the situation, and presented what I saw was an issue and offered what I viewed as constructive criticism - pointing to a specific example of behavior to support the criticism - and offered a suggestion of how it could be better presented in the future.

Obviously - I could be way off-base with my analysis of the basis of your opinion and so my criticism (whether viewed as constructive or otherwise) could still be wrong. I'm open to correction myself of course :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )