>From the Wikipedia page on "Criticism":
Psychopathology of criticism
The psychopathology of criticism refers to the study of unhealthy forms of
criticism, and of unhealthy kinds of response to criticism. Psychologists often
associate these with particular categories of mental disorders, especially
personality disorders, as classified in the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders.
Low self-esteem: emotionally vulnerable individuals that are often excessively
sensitive to criticism, or to being defeated, they can't handle it.
Narcissistic personality disorder: although they may not show it outwardly,
criticism may "haunt" or leave them feeling humiliated, degraded, hollow, and
empty. They may react with disdain, narcissistic rage, or defiant narcissistic
personality disorder. Narcissists are extremely sensitive to personal criticism
and extremely critical of other people. They think they must be seen as perfect
or superior or infallible or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground.
Paranoid personality disorder: these people are often rigidly critical of
others, but have great difficulty accepting criticism themselves.
Avoidant personality disorder: these people are hypersensitive to criticism or
rejection. They build up a defensive shell. If the criticism seems to imply
something bad about them, a defensive shell immediately snaps into
place.Dependent personality disorder: individuals that will often apologize and
"self-correct" in response to criticism at the drop of a hat.
Hypercriticism: these people are often regarded as anal retentive or nitpickers
(see nagging). Nitpickers engage in minute, trivial, and unjustified
faultfinding to excess. Nagging means endless scolding, complaints, and
faultfinding.
Hypocriticism: these individuals are hypocrites who criticize and accuse others
about the vice that they are guilty of themselves. Hypocrisy contains some kind
of deception, and therefore involves a kind of lying.
Scholarly criticism:
Criticism is considered "scholarly" only if it conforms to scholarly standards.
A scholarly critic probes deeply into a problem, looking at all the relevant
evidence, the quality of reasoning involved, and the uses or purposes which are
at stake. When he considers a problem, a scholar usually familiarizes himself
thoroughly with the relevant background literature on the subject. He tries to
make sure that he cannot be accused of inconsistent reasoning, that his
argument is free from factual error, and that all the relevant aims, motives
and purposes are made clear. A scholar also conscientiously documents "who said
what and when" so that the sources of all the arguments are made clear. Thus,
the scholar tries to be as objective or evenhanded as he can in making a
criticism, and makes sure he has "done his homework".
In this way, his criticism is much more difficult to ignore or to refute. Most
often, a scholarly publication is refereed ("screened") by other knowledgeable
scholars, who critically examine the text to find possible faults, and possibly
suggest alterations. In this way, scholars always try to ensure the quality of
what is being said. A scholarly criticism is successful if it provides a proof
or refutation which nobody can rationally deny, and which is therefore accepted
by most people as definitive. Much scholarly criticism does not provide truly
spectacular proofs or refutations – this is difficult to do, if many bright
minds have worked or are working on the same issue – but it can nevertheless
"score a point" which is valuable and significant. To substantiate even a small
scholarly criticism and "make it stick", can take a lot of research work, and
can require a lot of perseverance and patience on the part of the scholar.
A scholarly critic aims primarily to improve the understanding of an issue, by
means of research and the criticism of research, irrespective of any prejudices
which there may be about the issue. Scholarly criticism does not mean
"impartiality" or "neutrality". Indeed, the very fact that a scholarly
criticism is being made, implies that a partisan position is being taken.
However, a scholar usually submits his own considerations and findings to a
public forum in which criticisms can be evaluated on their merits and faults,
with the explicit aim to make a contribution to the search for truth, and with
the attitude that he could be wrong. Thus, scholarly criticism always involves
the attitude that one is open to criticism, and does not close off the
possibility of criticism.
What exactly the applicable "scholarly standards" for criticism are, can be
open to debate as well. Nevertheless participants in different academic
disciplines or scientific specialisms usually operate with a reasonable amount
of consensus about what the standards are. In general terms, such things as
"lying, cheating, fraud, misinformation and misrepresentation" disqualify a
criticism from being "scholarly". Scholarly criticism requires the greatest
respect for truth, honesty in presenting a case, and a form of communication
acceptable to the scholarly community.
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:06:02 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [MD] A message for John Carl
>
> Hi John,
>
> Agreed, there is little intelligent criticism, and much virulent vitriol on
> MD.
>
> In fact I was tempted to respond to this from Arlo ....
>
> "...As I tell students I work with, the simplest progression is "A said B.
> A was wrong about B. This is why A was wrong about B. I propose C instead
> of B. Here's why C is better." Each step in this progression is subject to
> examination for accuracy, and you can't conflate criticism with one step as
> criticism for another (or all)."
>
> That this is the problem.
> It's all criticism, the cart before the horse.
> Nothing before the disagreement.
>
> Whereas, these are the rhetorical habits we should really aspire to:
>
> QUOTE
> This excerpt from neurologist-philosopher Daniel Dennett's new book
> Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking lays out a set of
> rhetorical habits that I immediately aspired to attain:
>
> How to compose a successful critical commentary:
>
> 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly
> and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of
> putting it that way."
>
> 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of
> general or widespread agreement).
>
> 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
>
> 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or
> criticism.
>
> And if that wasn't enough: "whenever you see a rhetorical question,
> try – silently, to yourself – to give it an unobvious answer. If you
> find a good one, surprise your interlocutor by answering the
> question." And then, "A good moral to draw from this observation is
> that when you want to criticise a field, a genre, a discipline, an art
> form …don't waste your time and ours hooting at the crap! Go after the
> good stuff or leave it alone."
> UNQUOTE
>
> Criticism is to be used very, very, very, very sparingly,
> and only after 1, 2 and 3 are established in the conversation.
> Regards
> Ian
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
