Some advice on how to CriticizeEffectively; based solely on personal experience. No, I don't have any citations to back any of this up, so take it all with a lump of salt.
CriticizeEffectively isn't an alternative criticism style (opposed to CriticizeBluntly, CriticizeGently?, etc); rather it's a union of styles, each applied when the circumstances are appropriate. Six different styles are offered as alternatives, along with advice on how and why to employ that style. Effective in this context assumes that the purpose of the criticism (and of the argument/discussion in general) is a GoodFaith effort to inform and/or persuade; if you are criticizing others for your own self-aggrandizement or entertainment, I have no advice to offer you.
The advice is offered in the context of this wiki; but many suggestions have merit beyond this site.
From gentlest to harshest, the styles are as follows:
- CriticizeNotAtAll?. If the subject is one you lack interest or expertese in, often times the best strategy is to do nothing. Your time and energy are valuable things, as is the intellectual capital which you bring to the site (and put at risk every time you post something with your name). There is no requirement that visitors to the wiki correct every (perceived) misconception that they encounter. If you find something which is an obvious error, but have reason to believe that it was unintentional, fix it--JustCorrectDontPoint.
- CriticizeStealthily?. The master will show the student the error of his ways without the student knowing that he has been reproached. Suggest alternatives; ask the other person to explore the consequences of their actions. Suggest readily-available literature for them to read. Lead them to discover the error on their own. Hit them with a ZenSlap. When done correctly, this is a particularly effective technique as the other party is at no time put on the defensive--a situation which can be a barrier to trust and further communication.
- maybe rename to CriticizeSubversively?, as stealth implies, that it doesn't work if discovered, whereas subversively implies that it works by using the students/opponents own weapons and is thus cannot be perceived as critique if done right.
- CriticizeGently?. Inform the other party that he in error (or you believe him to be); but do so politely. Some feel polite words and good manners detract from the essense and force of an argument; but 'tis true only when they replace the substance rather than augment it. Some persons, who may get offended by harsher, more pointed styles, will be effectively engaged by polite criticism.
- CriticizeBluntly. Don't beat around the bush; inform the other party in plain language of his error. Better yet, explain why--again, do so succinctly. No need for personal attacks, profanity, or other things which will put the other party on the defensive--just be blunt and succinct. Beware that some individuals invest their egos in their works and opinions; and that blunt criticism of their work will be perceived as criticism of them--another style might be more effective if you wish to educate such a person.
- CriticizeRudely. In this style, criticism is augmented with insults, rude remarks, and other ConversationalChaff. There are people (mental weaklings, mainly) for which this is an effective style; however few such individuals exist here on Wiki. This can be an effective technique if you wish to end communication--if the other party is judged to be a troll, a persistent HostileStudent, or is otherwise acting in bad faith. (But be careful in rushing to this judgment--sometimes it is hard to distinguish true trolling, an intellectual DenialOfService attack in which the troll seeks to disrupt effective communication, from passionate defense of a controversial position). Occasional doses of CriticizeRudely can also be effective when a ClueByFour is called for; a person who is normally genteel that strategically deploys CriticizeRudely will often get the other party's attention quickly. OTOH, a person who always employs CriticizeRudely will generally be written off as an asshole; no matter how sound his positions are otherwise.
- CriticizeNotAtAll?. And we come full circle. Yes, I listed this twice--it's a rhetorical device. (And yes, I can count to 6). :) Some commentary--obvious trolls, clear idiocy, inflammatory nonsense, vandalism,and such--is beneath contempt, and should not be held worthy of a response. The readers of wiki are intelligent FTMP, and have the mental capacity to recognize garbage when they see it, so you should not feel compelled to engage in debate with every troll and crackpot who happens along. Don't feed the trolls. Better yet--if you are absolutely certain that material is offered in bad faith (or is inflammatory), don't criticize it--just delete it. Or refactor out the junk if there is something worth saving. But don't feel an obligation to demonstrate your intellect to the rest of us by verbally abusing morons--to others, it may make you look like the moron instead.
CategoryCommunication
Criticize Effectively