There are three kinds of criticism
Say no evil, hear no evil, see no evil?
To criticise and to face critique - in our daily life or in some special occasions - is not a branch of scientific research, engineering, erudition or art; nor is it an application of the academic examination of arguments called "critical thinking".
It is not theory, it is practice.
A critique is action - doing things with words, deeds, gesture or even with silence.
Well done critiquing, comment, remark, assessment, "feed-back" meant to be useful, should be mostly two-ways, ideally face to face, carefully protected by an appropriate level of privacy and mutual respect, a real conversation among discerning people able to speak sincerely and to collaborate, seeking improvement together. The givers and the receivers of advice should have their turn to speak and be listened to, with the aim to clarify, warn, correct and improve action, ideas or persons. This is readily achievable but perpetually neglected. Casual criticism goes and comes one-way, at some unwelcome time, with dissonant goals, without means or occasion to respond.
The context of real-life critique is as diverse as our life among people. Some of it takes place in a dialogue - when one comes forth confidentially by word of mouth, by phone or in writing, by exchange of mail. Some, or on the contrary, "takes the floor" (possibly unplanned or unexpected), in a gathering, or in writing, by by Press, nowadays somewhat negligently, by the variety of social networking on Internet and mobile phones.
My concern in this text is that the act of criticising is unavoidably an initiative between people, a relationship, a precious spring of change and also a critical situation – a sensitive, risk-taking event lived by the giving and the taking persons involved. It is one of the experiences people tend to remember.
Like hunting, the doing of critique may feel like a noble sport or an assassination; depends on which side of the gun you are.
When we give criticism in good faith we feel it is fair and needed but we are born to take criticism by others as surprise, stoning and humiliation. This innate defensiveness is quite undiscerning, it makes us weak and blind. In fact both giving and receiving corrective response is vital for society; most useful to find out what people think and how they judge us and priceless to help us improve or defend, instead of leaving things on an unfavourable course until it is too late. Yes, you can find value in any critique, even the worse, from foes, precious gems hidden in the mud.
To help understand the human side of it, I propose to discern three kinds of criticism:
I. friendly,
II. objective (factual or indifferent)
and
III. hostile,
each with its function. Do not confuse them. They have different aims and rules which you should keep in mind when you give critique and recognise when you take it.
*
How you criticise, counts at least as much as what you propose. How you respond, what you do with it, may count as much as - or more than what you hear.
Critique in all its forms, will not be received on merit or on its truth. It will not simply win by the truth of fact, by the force of argument and the crystal clarity of precision. Not at all! The business of critique is highly psychological, an encounter of persons which requires life-energy, a sense of usefulness and purpose, empathy, rhetoric and tact. Who speaks to whom, credibility of the critic, the right occasion, intentions and words clearly understood, are as important as content. Without meeting the human requirements, critique will confuse and it will be rejected. Or, it will do the opposite of what was intended. Sincerity and courage without good sense and politeness will misfire.
Criticise when you feel you have a right to do it and when it is also wise to do it.
Critiquing without asking yourself first for which cause you do it now and, even more, with which practical purpose, is a vicious bad habit. I found it to be a good precaution to jot down in advance the aim, examples and the main points of a critique I intend, instead of expressing it spontaneously; this forces me to know what I do.
When criticised, the urgent thing is to become aware that you are in this special life situation of being criticised, instead of just feeling something in your gut. Do not rush to argue with critique, it is not ping pong, handle it. Listen and ask yourself quickly which kind of it you face and why; Friendly? Objective? Hostile? You give or receive the three modes with a different mind.
In short; friendly criticism would end with help;
objective criticism must conclude in constructive solutions;
hostile criticism ends up intendedly in blame, rejection and other harm.
It is not theory, it is practice.
A critique is action - doing things with words, deeds, gesture or even with silence.
Well done critiquing, comment, remark, assessment, "feed-back" meant to be useful, should be mostly two-ways, ideally face to face, carefully protected by an appropriate level of privacy and mutual respect, a real conversation among discerning people able to speak sincerely and to collaborate, seeking improvement together. The givers and the receivers of advice should have their turn to speak and be listened to, with the aim to clarify, warn, correct and improve action, ideas or persons. This is readily achievable but perpetually neglected. Casual criticism goes and comes one-way, at some unwelcome time, with dissonant goals, without means or occasion to respond.
The context of real-life critique is as diverse as our life among people. Some of it takes place in a dialogue - when one comes forth confidentially by word of mouth, by phone or in writing, by exchange of mail. Some, or on the contrary, "takes the floor" (possibly unplanned or unexpected), in a gathering, or in writing, by by Press, nowadays somewhat negligently, by the variety of social networking on Internet and mobile phones.
My concern in this text is that the act of criticising is unavoidably an initiative between people, a relationship, a precious spring of change and also a critical situation – a sensitive, risk-taking event lived by the giving and the taking persons involved. It is one of the experiences people tend to remember.
Like hunting, the doing of critique may feel like a noble sport or an assassination; depends on which side of the gun you are.
When we give criticism in good faith we feel it is fair and needed but we are born to take criticism by others as surprise, stoning and humiliation. This innate defensiveness is quite undiscerning, it makes us weak and blind. In fact both giving and receiving corrective response is vital for society; most useful to find out what people think and how they judge us and priceless to help us improve or defend, instead of leaving things on an unfavourable course until it is too late. Yes, you can find value in any critique, even the worse, from foes, precious gems hidden in the mud.
To help understand the human side of it, I propose to discern three kinds of criticism:
I. friendly,
II. objective (factual or indifferent)
and
III. hostile,
each with its function. Do not confuse them. They have different aims and rules which you should keep in mind when you give critique and recognise when you take it.
*
How you criticise, counts at least as much as what you propose. How you respond, what you do with it, may count as much as - or more than what you hear.
Critique in all its forms, will not be received on merit or on its truth. It will not simply win by the truth of fact, by the force of argument and the crystal clarity of precision. Not at all! The business of critique is highly psychological, an encounter of persons which requires life-energy, a sense of usefulness and purpose, empathy, rhetoric and tact. Who speaks to whom, credibility of the critic, the right occasion, intentions and words clearly understood, are as important as content. Without meeting the human requirements, critique will confuse and it will be rejected. Or, it will do the opposite of what was intended. Sincerity and courage without good sense and politeness will misfire.
Criticise when you feel you have a right to do it and when it is also wise to do it.
Critiquing without asking yourself first for which cause you do it now and, even more, with which practical purpose, is a vicious bad habit. I found it to be a good precaution to jot down in advance the aim, examples and the main points of a critique I intend, instead of expressing it spontaneously; this forces me to know what I do.
When criticised, the urgent thing is to become aware that you are in this special life situation of being criticised, instead of just feeling something in your gut. Do not rush to argue with critique, it is not ping pong, handle it. Listen and ask yourself quickly which kind of it you face and why; Friendly? Objective? Hostile? You give or receive the three modes with a different mind.
In short; friendly criticism would end with help;
objective criticism must conclude in constructive solutions;
hostile criticism ends up intendedly in blame, rejection and other harm.
*
Liberi, Advice to the son
Friendly criticism observes, listens and gets involved. It is a gift of caring or a client-centred service intended to help and serve the one criticised.
Friendly criticism is willing to give caring advice not an X-ray. It is emotionally intelligent. The critique takes openly the side of the person; to forewarn, to protect, to improve, to encourage and to help succeed. You, the critic, “load for your listener to win”. For this you must come timely, doable and acceptable.
You do not analyse a friend just to show things as they are from an arm's length of criteria and values, you intervene and take risk with truth sometime unpleasant. The Greeks called this frank advice parrhesia*. Friendly criticism allows sincerity on both sides and counts on it. This also includes an obligation to tell the one you care for the important things nobody else would take the risk to say.
Helpful critique offers surprising ideas meant to wake one up and change the situation, maybe stop something or start something completely new. Instead of being non-involvedly objective, just seing things as they are, your critique makes understand otherwise and thus alters its subject and the person criticised; it may show or propose new meaning and unexpected consequences, wider perspective, new frame; the critic and the criticised seek together more choice and new possibilities; you give advice about what should be and what not; you counsel what to do or to stop doing and also how to do it; This is bespoke work for the wise.
*
When you observe that you receive friendly criticism wait and listen, do not be defensive. Care to understand that it is custom-made for you, it takes your side, it is expressed in your presence and normally in private. It works for you, it does not intend to judge you. It is a gift. It is a “success factor”. You start something, you face something new or you struggle to keep up. Friendly criticism is then a spring of courage, steering and energy. Without it you are in the dark. You feed on it to go on and keep on track. You count on it to find out what to expect, without bad surprises. The mirror held to you by trusted ones improves you life. Quality life is nourished with friendly criticism.
Friendly criticism is willing to give caring advice not an X-ray. It is emotionally intelligent. The critique takes openly the side of the person; to forewarn, to protect, to improve, to encourage and to help succeed. You, the critic, “load for your listener to win”. For this you must come timely, doable and acceptable.
You do not analyse a friend just to show things as they are from an arm's length of criteria and values, you intervene and take risk with truth sometime unpleasant. The Greeks called this frank advice parrhesia*. Friendly criticism allows sincerity on both sides and counts on it. This also includes an obligation to tell the one you care for the important things nobody else would take the risk to say.
Helpful critique offers surprising ideas meant to wake one up and change the situation, maybe stop something or start something completely new. Instead of being non-involvedly objective, just seing things as they are, your critique makes understand otherwise and thus alters its subject and the person criticised; it may show or propose new meaning and unexpected consequences, wider perspective, new frame; the critic and the criticised seek together more choice and new possibilities; you give advice about what should be and what not; you counsel what to do or to stop doing and also how to do it; This is bespoke work for the wise.
*
When you observe that you receive friendly criticism wait and listen, do not be defensive. Care to understand that it is custom-made for you, it takes your side, it is expressed in your presence and normally in private. It works for you, it does not intend to judge you. It is a gift. It is a “success factor”. You start something, you face something new or you struggle to keep up. Friendly criticism is then a spring of courage, steering and energy. Without it you are in the dark. You feed on it to go on and keep on track. You count on it to find out what to expect, without bad surprises. The mirror held to you by trusted ones improves you life. Quality life is nourished with friendly criticism.
Do not interrupt. Listen from the beginning to the end! Ask questions, more detail, but do not argue or defend yourself. Ask for advice and more explanation; that will not prevent you to decide. Pride is misplaced here. No need to be humble but at least try to be. Open your heart. Let show your doubts. If some observation surprises you, give it time to sink in. Thank for the advice and encourage it. Count with this precious resource and keep it alive. You need a friendly mirror as much as you need time, money or skill. Ask for more.
This is a friend, a parent who does not let you down, alone. Warning from friends is the best friend you will ever have. In your inner circle, is a necessity like the salt in your food, a condition of progress and mutual protection from harm. If those close to you cannot tell you when something is not right, trouble is near. Warning and counselling each other creates an environment of mutual trust and security, even if you feel uneasy at times.
Take the initiative. Try to invite such critique regularly, ask feedback instead of waiting for moments when your friends must decide to talk to you. Be ready to do generously the same for your friends. Sooner or later they will need your advice.
*
There is a number of inferior things you can do when you whenever you are criticised, but particularly when the critique comes from friends:
You can avoid listening and keep busy, evading the occasions when you expect critique.
You can reject criticism from the first words, saying in advance that you know it to be unjust, untimely or mistaken.
You can grow angry and show that you cannot bear critique; it makes you feel threatened and insecure - weak character.
You can attack the one criticising you, saying that they are to be criticised, not you. You can reproach them that they hurt you.
It is particularly pathetic to take critique personally when what is criticised is ideas, explanations and ways of doing things.
In such ways you can be certain to obtain nothing but irritation from critique; everybody will know which is your sore finger, enemies to better hit on it and friends to grow disgusted to pay the delicate service they do to you with being offended and loosing your trust. If you punish friendly critique, friends will give up criticising you.
*
This is a friend, a parent who does not let you down, alone. Warning from friends is the best friend you will ever have. In your inner circle, is a necessity like the salt in your food, a condition of progress and mutual protection from harm. If those close to you cannot tell you when something is not right, trouble is near. Warning and counselling each other creates an environment of mutual trust and security, even if you feel uneasy at times.
Take the initiative. Try to invite such critique regularly, ask feedback instead of waiting for moments when your friends must decide to talk to you. Be ready to do generously the same for your friends. Sooner or later they will need your advice.
*
There is a number of inferior things you can do when you whenever you are criticised, but particularly when the critique comes from friends:
You can avoid listening and keep busy, evading the occasions when you expect critique.
You can reject criticism from the first words, saying in advance that you know it to be unjust, untimely or mistaken.
You can grow angry and show that you cannot bear critique; it makes you feel threatened and insecure - weak character.
You can attack the one criticising you, saying that they are to be criticised, not you. You can reproach them that they hurt you.
It is particularly pathetic to take critique personally when what is criticised is ideas, explanations and ways of doing things.
In such ways you can be certain to obtain nothing but irritation from critique; everybody will know which is your sore finger, enemies to better hit on it and friends to grow disgusted to pay the delicate service they do to you with being offended and loosing your trust. If you punish friendly critique, friends will give up criticising you.
*
When you give friendly criticism give it to friends. (To someone who perceives you as a threat, who you are - an adversary - speaks so loud that they cannot hear your words). You are credible only if you are a recognised as having good will. Announce your advice as friendly, with warmth. Explain why you speak now and what you hope to acheive.
Do it in private, and – if it is serious - after thinking twice that it must be done.
Remember that the word "critical" implies the urgent and the important, both the good and the bad; show both. Friendly criticism is clarification, education, encouragement and counsel.
You must begin from the point of view of the person you help, not from some cold standard or "cause" or goal. You avoid to start in their dead angle, their blind spots or their hot spots. You speak in terms already familiar and acceptable now for the person and pull towards something best serving his or her interest.
With such a purpose the critic will test carefully for both strong and weak points (considering also the environment and the occasion with its threats and opportunities), then seek what to correct or better, towards some desirable goal or state. Friendly criticism is positive at least as much as negative; how to obtain what our "client" wants and how to avoid that which our friend would not want to have; how to grow the strength and to decrease the weakness. We catch a friend doing something good and praise it to increase that good. (Be careful to avoid encouragement turning into flattery, that is done to enemies). We project the consequence of the negative to warn and diminish it. We offer applicable counsel of personal improvement and personal success.
To help, your message must come alive: the criticised should listen without interruption but you need to create a dialogue. Avoid one-way discourse, ask questions, listen to objections, invite questions. Give or request concrete example; stress that which is could help, explain and illustrate the danger and the stakes and your own feeling. Chose that which the person can understand and could accept in the present situation. Do not flatter pride, but spare it.
Avoid judging and blaming things that cannot be repaired. That would be useless. Quality critique is about the future. Discuss what is doable, next; do not deliberate backwards about what should have been done in the past. Let me insist, deliberation is for what follows, not for what was.
Think strategy. Imagine opening more choice, not reducing the choices; more choice is more freedom. The view higher than what to do or not to do, is to find a choice of things to do. Give some new or wider perspective. We often need other people to take a distance and clarify the full or unintended meaning of what we do. The exception to finding more choice and taking reflective distance is urgency, when the person is lost and discouraged; then, simplify, advise one thing to do, to stop, or not to do right now, next.
Friendly counsel, worth more than chatter, must end in all cases with what is to do, now and later. Additionally, show how to turn your advice into action, what to consider as the next step.
Quality critique does not end with the words; it is action.
Friendly criticism is more than speech. You are not a detached diagnostician. Give your support and help, to complete your advice. Show how to proceed and put your hand to it.
Offer to be closely available for a while, to assist progress.
Friendly criticism is not a one-time message but following along as needed.
Friendly criticism is a relationship. Friendly criticism is friendship.
Best critique is on-going coaching; in this way the critique itself keeps adapting "live" to the evolution of the matter, steering course to fit the moving reality, to find ceaselessly new ways, until desired result is obtained. Things keep changing, your critique must match that change. It is only a bad enemy you would push into one, inflexible direction without choice and then leave him alone.
*
Friendly criticism can become a strategy of midwifing and design:
When I am really keen to help someone improve and succeed, after I explain what I do and why, I ask the person to explain the present situation and what she or he thinks that will happen or what they plan to do; from what they say, I see where their mind is and accordingly, from where to start my advice.
After having listened and reflected, I sum up and inspect carefully what was done, the situation, the strength and weaknesses, the perspectives, the seeming choice of scenarios to plan. Then, I offer my shower of critiques meant to strengthen the preferable plan and prepare - as I like to put it - against, for, and the, surprise.
My stile is to propose a forest of critique to pass, a cascade of objections, a dry run for the moment when hope will hit the road for real.
I ask many questions. (Questions instead of ready-made answers make people feel they found the solutions themselves). Each question knocks on some weak or blind spot and seeks the way to put it right. Each question investigates another point of view worth considering, making my protégé aware that there is more than one. When one objection is resolved, I come with another one, and another and yet another. My aim is not to be right, but to test a reasonable number of options, several possible scenarios and situations, to count with surprise. The needed skill while doing all this, is of course not to flood or confuse the one I help. I encourage debate; in a friendly relationship, contradictory debate, even from obviously false angles, with poor arguments, helps us think. If dialogue takes place, I know that the friendly critique is received and works. There is no interest for the friendly critic to win the debate or have the last word. The interest is to help out of a problem and to coach success.
*
Pharmacy gaper taking the pill
Factual criticism analyses and evaluates. Objective (or Indifferent towards the person) as I chose to call it, it is insensitive to persons: It serves some discipline placed above persons, a wider, higher and abstract ideal or practical goal – truth, beauty, religion or justice, profit, excellence, perfection... so that it has no friends...
In philosophic terms an objective critique of truth is meant to evaluate the consistency of a content and its truth to hard fact. In practice, a multitude of "objective" critiques are meant to assess, to correct, to perfect, to redress and bring to task, to do everything towards various criteria of precision, beauty, excellence, usefulness, profit or success. Those criteria are taken for granted and "objective". With that given purpose they are supposed to see and show things as they are, with no fantasy or bias. Impersonal, such feedback and comment is supposed to be rational and sincere. It is, as Kant defined critique " a free and public examination" **
Such objective, businesslike critique does what is needed, nothing personal. But it is not excused from following civilized rules of relationship and concluding in useful solutions, less you are justified to question how "objective" its purpose actually is.
A clear sign to differentiate objective criticism from hostile criticism is this: useful critique proposes some actionable plan of improvement; hostile comment points at something wrong and leaves things there.
Impartiality proves often precious but it turns inhuman at times. Hostile people love to pervert "objectivity" and to masquerade their destructive attacks and politics as "objective" analysis and "fair" evaluation done for the sake of truth and justice or the public good.
Not everything objective is good.
Worst “objective” criticism comes as sterile fault-finding for the sake of itself, the means becoming an end, forgetting to be useful. Much of it comes from those who pick on everything because they believe that they are entitled to do it, as they are at the service of perfection, truth, precision, orthodoxy ... or “the way we do things here.” Some nobodies feel obliged to criticize everything and feel to be owners of objective truth because of a commanding position they occupy. The worst kind comes from “impartial” and virtuous barbarians with a bad digestion and corresponding bad disposition. Try to be absent for these, find something urgent to do elsewhere. If you cannot avoid the bullying consider it hostile criticism.
Place, context and occasion are often deciding whether impartial criticism is actually helpful or friendly fire or even hostile manoeuvre. The finding of error, of imprecision, deviation, imperfection, fault, are valuable, fair and useful but not without exception. Irrelevant or untimely feedback may harm more than error itself. Additionally, inadequate precision may mystify as much as ignorance.
To be objective with your critique is to know what you are doing.
*
In philosophic terms an objective critique of truth is meant to evaluate the consistency of a content and its truth to hard fact. In practice, a multitude of "objective" critiques are meant to assess, to correct, to perfect, to redress and bring to task, to do everything towards various criteria of precision, beauty, excellence, usefulness, profit or success. Those criteria are taken for granted and "objective". With that given purpose they are supposed to see and show things as they are, with no fantasy or bias. Impersonal, such feedback and comment is supposed to be rational and sincere. It is, as Kant defined critique " a free and public examination" **
Such objective, businesslike critique does what is needed, nothing personal. But it is not excused from following civilized rules of relationship and concluding in useful solutions, less you are justified to question how "objective" its purpose actually is.
A clear sign to differentiate objective criticism from hostile criticism is this: useful critique proposes some actionable plan of improvement; hostile comment points at something wrong and leaves things there.
Impartiality proves often precious but it turns inhuman at times. Hostile people love to pervert "objectivity" and to masquerade their destructive attacks and politics as "objective" analysis and "fair" evaluation done for the sake of truth and justice or the public good.
Not everything objective is good.
Worst “objective” criticism comes as sterile fault-finding for the sake of itself, the means becoming an end, forgetting to be useful. Much of it comes from those who pick on everything because they believe that they are entitled to do it, as they are at the service of perfection, truth, precision, orthodoxy ... or “the way we do things here.” Some nobodies feel obliged to criticize everything and feel to be owners of objective truth because of a commanding position they occupy. The worst kind comes from “impartial” and virtuous barbarians with a bad digestion and corresponding bad disposition. Try to be absent for these, find something urgent to do elsewhere. If you cannot avoid the bullying consider it hostile criticism.
Place, context and occasion are often deciding whether impartial criticism is actually helpful or friendly fire or even hostile manoeuvre. The finding of error, of imprecision, deviation, imperfection, fault, are valuable, fair and useful but not without exception. Irrelevant or untimely feedback may harm more than error itself. Additionally, inadequate precision may mystify as much as ignorance.
To be objective with your critique is to know what you are doing.
*
Request objective criticism to be formal, to follow clear rules. Establish from the start what is the cause of the analysis done, by whom and what is intended to be obtained in the end.
Both parties must play the game of reason and improvement, selfless and unbiased. For this, the facts considered and the criteria used need to be clarified, words and measurements must be defined to mean the same thing for everyone, and a constructive commonsense aim announced. What is said must be not only well argued but also grounded by fact and needs to include some proposal of amelioration.
Since “critique” is supposed to be impersonal, interest is never mentioned, as if it all happened in heavens. Keep aware of your own interest, however; and of other interests or points of view involved. If needed make them explicit. Additionally, qualified objective critics must have credentials of competence and impartiality. "Objective" as it may be, who speaks counts.
Make certain that the discussion is about the subject announced, not about you. This difference is easy to observe.
Do not accept critique to become a trial concluded by a sentence instead of being examination followed by improvement. A trial proceeds by very different rules.
The receiver’s etiquette is simple:
Come prepared; if you are surprised, ask for a planned occasion so that you can prepare facts. Watch who takes part in the session.
Listen calmly with no interruption. Avoid being or looking defensive. Keep eye contact.
Take notes, visibly (and keep them for ulterior reference). Yous show that you care and listen... and more.
Ask for (more) detail, clarification and example.
If you have meaningful counter facts and arguments mention them after listening the critics; try to have them on record. Connect the counter facts to the respective critiques.
Acknowledge and sum up in the end what you understood, explain what you find important to learn and confirm that you will consider and do something about it. When a critique is right accept it with courage.
Try to establish a plan of solutions and of improvements, ideally some clear criteria that will prove that progress was made. Ask for help when that is adequate. Do not let yourself be left alone with oversized improvement to achieve without means or support.
Thank for the critique when it is polite. Good manners are essential with “impersonal” criticism. As philosopher D’Alembert wrote: « If the critique is fair and polite, you owe for it thanks and deference, if it is fair without tact, it merits deference without thanks ; if it is offensive and unjust, keep silent and forget it.” [1]
*
Both parties must play the game of reason and improvement, selfless and unbiased. For this, the facts considered and the criteria used need to be clarified, words and measurements must be defined to mean the same thing for everyone, and a constructive commonsense aim announced. What is said must be not only well argued but also grounded by fact and needs to include some proposal of amelioration.
Since “critique” is supposed to be impersonal, interest is never mentioned, as if it all happened in heavens. Keep aware of your own interest, however; and of other interests or points of view involved. If needed make them explicit. Additionally, qualified objective critics must have credentials of competence and impartiality. "Objective" as it may be, who speaks counts.
Make certain that the discussion is about the subject announced, not about you. This difference is easy to observe.
Do not accept critique to become a trial concluded by a sentence instead of being examination followed by improvement. A trial proceeds by very different rules.
The receiver’s etiquette is simple:
Come prepared; if you are surprised, ask for a planned occasion so that you can prepare facts. Watch who takes part in the session.
Listen calmly with no interruption. Avoid being or looking defensive. Keep eye contact.
Take notes, visibly (and keep them for ulterior reference). Yous show that you care and listen... and more.
Ask for (more) detail, clarification and example.
If you have meaningful counter facts and arguments mention them after listening the critics; try to have them on record. Connect the counter facts to the respective critiques.
Acknowledge and sum up in the end what you understood, explain what you find important to learn and confirm that you will consider and do something about it. When a critique is right accept it with courage.
Try to establish a plan of solutions and of improvements, ideally some clear criteria that will prove that progress was made. Ask for help when that is adequate. Do not let yourself be left alone with oversized improvement to achieve without means or support.
Thank for the critique when it is polite. Good manners are essential with “impersonal” criticism. As philosopher D’Alembert wrote: « If the critique is fair and polite, you owe for it thanks and deference, if it is fair without tact, it merits deference without thanks ; if it is offensive and unjust, keep silent and forget it.” [1]
*
Perform objective criticism as you would like to receive it, by the rules of "critical thinking" factual, sound, coherent and rational. Do not forget to make it timely and useful too. In appropriate occasions and places abstain and wait for the right time.
Remember that objective critique is normative, businesslike, “nothing personal”. If you rise the voice it signals that you are far from objectivity.
You criticize an object, a result, a way of doing, a method, an argument, the truth of an idea, maybe behaviour, but you keep away from feigning objective judgment of opinions or about how the person is. You would never miss separating fact from person. Ideally you avoid moral judgment, excepting of course when ethic is the issue discussed.
Keep with the subject criticized and never ignore it to affirm instead something else disguised as a “critique” – that creates a dialogue of the deaf.
Clarify the point of view, your source of information, remind your competence if needed, and affirm what makes the critique necessary and impartial and unbiased. Quote sources, examples, facts. Show benefits. It is useful to stress in what way your advice is constructive, towards what aim. Quote properly the facts observed and the measured, describe consequences, explain methods used.
Above all, while serving the truth of what is and the ideal of what should be, keep in mind that the end of a discussion among humans should be learning and agreeing some useful conclusion, ideally some practical solution.
Conclude point by point, end with something to do next and put things on record for reference.
Excuse politely the possible displeasure.
*
Remember that objective critique is normative, businesslike, “nothing personal”. If you rise the voice it signals that you are far from objectivity.
You criticize an object, a result, a way of doing, a method, an argument, the truth of an idea, maybe behaviour, but you keep away from feigning objective judgment of opinions or about how the person is. You would never miss separating fact from person. Ideally you avoid moral judgment, excepting of course when ethic is the issue discussed.
Keep with the subject criticized and never ignore it to affirm instead something else disguised as a “critique” – that creates a dialogue of the deaf.
Clarify the point of view, your source of information, remind your competence if needed, and affirm what makes the critique necessary and impartial and unbiased. Quote sources, examples, facts. Show benefits. It is useful to stress in what way your advice is constructive, towards what aim. Quote properly the facts observed and the measured, describe consequences, explain methods used.
Above all, while serving the truth of what is and the ideal of what should be, keep in mind that the end of a discussion among humans should be learning and agreeing some useful conclusion, ideally some practical solution.
Conclude point by point, end with something to do next and put things on record for reference.
Excuse politely the possible displeasure.
*
Stoning Of Saint Emerantiana
Hostile criticism is aimed at unwanted projects, adversary ideas and enemies; it attacks, finds defect or invents fault. Among persons it is to the person; not to repair or improve, but to defend something or to strike, to reject, to blame, to undermine or to destroy.
Unfavourable and definitely not constructive, it works to contain, unsettle and make things hard for the target and certainly not to do the wrong thing right.
It is aimed at "asymmetric" enemies perceived as dangerous, whom the critic cannot face as equals or respect with candid opinion and fair negotiation. You act hostile to punish a wrong while defending some hopefully legitimate interest. Hostile criticism tries to stop, to block, to confuse or to discredit and ridicule. It could be a sincere outburst of aversion but, most of the time, such criticism is subversive, in presence of unequal force.
What hostile criticism wants to avoid is being of any help.
*
Unfavourable and definitely not constructive, it works to contain, unsettle and make things hard for the target and certainly not to do the wrong thing right.
It is aimed at "asymmetric" enemies perceived as dangerous, whom the critic cannot face as equals or respect with candid opinion and fair negotiation. You act hostile to punish a wrong while defending some hopefully legitimate interest. Hostile criticism tries to stop, to block, to confuse or to discredit and ridicule. It could be a sincere outburst of aversion but, most of the time, such criticism is subversive, in presence of unequal force.
What hostile criticism wants to avoid is being of any help.
*
Handle hostile criticism received with cool firm hands in appropriate gloves. Paradoxically, you can profit from it. As Baltasar Gracian says so well “Enemies are of more use to the wise man than friends are to the fool. Malice is wont to level mountains of difficulties, upon the scaling of which goodwill would hesitate to embark. Many owe their greatness to their malicious critics." [2]
An unpleasant sarcastic remark may warn you of weakness or fear being present among your critics. Therefore, listen attentively, with ears risen and eyes open, from beginning to end. Use the event to detect vulnerability; yours and the adversary's. You could do something about those soft spots, weaknesses and fears.
Hostile criticism can be very useful to the receiver; in spite of its unfriendly intention, rebuke may be vital to you in pointing at your vulnerable spot, signalling errors and gaffes your friends would never mention and most of all it helps you to adjust your aim swiftly. You can also learn how to prepare and act better next time. If the fault-finders knew this they would keep silent. Some of them actually do. Saying nothing when something is expected or something relevant should be said is an important form of hostile criticism; such absences of response keep you in the dark and drown you in silence; or freeze you with their indifference. Non response discourages the things well done and leaves errors grow.
Remember then: the first hostile criticism is silence. No feedback is bad feedback. When people "vote with their feet" and leave, it may be hostile criticism.
To some vocal attacks you can at your turn respond in kind, with no answer; quite often hostile outbursts come from mere bad disposition and you should not fuel and kindle them by engaging in dispute; keep silent if your judgement allows it, let the flame consume itself.
A treacherous brand of hostile criticism is flattery, not reticent but deceitful, encouraging you to keep going astray, to blow up your errors until you burst like the frog in the fable. For many of us it is difficult to conceive that a smiling, admiring face pleasing you with good words is of an enemy, but exercise will teach you. Even worse than this is the collective flattery inciting you to go on when you should reconsider. Only tyrants deserve the punishment by flattery.
A variant deceiving scheme is for manipulators to throw at you something outrageous, provocative, that would spur you to do or say something stupid; or to tell you something absolutely silly and unsustainable so that you jump in proudly to correct a mistake and so give away some wanted information, or declare something that will be used against you. Instead of open critique you are lured with a slippery slope.
The aggressive step in hostile critique is some form of direct attack, conveniently disguised as objective critique or analysis, claiming that your main assumptions and achievements are unsustainable. As an option, justified disapproval, and argumentation is replaced by mere emotional apostrophe and invective.
Hostile criticism does not care for being grounded or reasonable or fair; anything goes as long as it passes. Remember this: truth is of no concern for those intended to harm and they do not feel bound by rules - everything goes. In fact, slanderers know too well that defence against barefaced attack with totally invented, imaginary blame is more difficult than defence against the attack with real issues where you could bring your proof.
Silence and oblivion are the wisest response to hostile outbursts - when you can afford it. Patience is the rule with all this vermin but, on occasion, you may have to reject formally and clarify things with a loud voice, offhand – even without listening all the way - particularly when the critique is manifestly slander, trying to institute in haste some “claim” for the record, to take advantage of you.
Keep a plain face though, do not show where it hurts. Remember the Aesopic fable of the fox who took refuge in a hole and who would keep mum whenever hit with a stick and scream at each mistaken poke.
Of course, at times, hostile criticism is real stoning starting actual aggression and war and then the rules of war apply. You may need a lawyer.
When you practice hostile criticism I assume that you are justified to do such a nasty thing fit for the weaker and the unfree, because of facing an asymmetric, overbearing, oppressive force. You must defend something legitimate that is threatened and punish evil, cross iron with a bad foe stronger than you. War may justify hostile critique and lying to the enemy, as it involves all kinds of aggression and cheating. It is ugly business. In such a war you use the Arts of War.
The worst thing would be to do such critique irresponsibly or mindlessly, for trifles. You must know what you do. Remember that a gentleman is someone who would never offend someone by mistake [3]. Remember also that soon, you become what you do.
The first rule I found useful in practising hostile criticism in a corrupt environment is never to underestimate or despise your enemy; to vanquish you gain advantage when you first observe and respect, understand and identify with the mind and feeling of the foe. Hate and fury are feeble dispositions for effective fight. Exposing the wicked is a plate to prepare with care and to serve cold. It must also be done with proportionate measure and mercy, with some dignity, lest you will come out soiled and depraved.
*
Let me stress the essential, you do not want to educate a bad enemy by your critique.
Take care not to help a harmful adversary adjust his aim by means of your feedback, nor prevent him to persist in error. As Napoleon seems to have said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Only a fool would teach his enemy and thus make him stronger. Instead, incite to more of the bad thing . In order to punish, it may be sufficient to keep silent and appear discouraged. Silence is, as I explained, a deadly kind of criticism: “no feedback!” Let the bad person in the dark! In your mind you seek the weaknesses of the adversary but you would not draw his attention to them, you would rather use them.
Alternatively, flattery is also hostile criticism, ironic as I explained. Tyrants who punish truth telling deserve shameless flattery. You do not owe sincerity to an oppressor. Let hubris swell until it bursts.
When you blame, be sudden, to surprise and to confuse. Attack where there is nothing to improve, only harm and reproach. Do not signal the precise error to fix, point a finger to failure, loss and the unacceptable. Remember also how easy it is to find fault and how time consuming to fix it. Give proofs that things go bad but avoid edifying examples, just show how hopeless things are, with no practical advice; or worse, with totally unpractical advice, grand empty theory and principles.
Other form of disapproval, when you have the means to cause action, is to push back directly, to contain or sanction or prevent. You shame, pressure, diminish credibility, mock, institute proofs for later judgement. A long list of bad things one can do... I hesitate to make this too complete... it could fall in wrong hands.
My own elegant preference of hostile critique is to wait patiently by the riverside until bad enemies fall by themselves and their dead bodies float downstream...They often do. This is the critique of wise old people who hope to live long enough...
Taking a higher view, I prefer to de-construct the edifice of adversary thinking, beliefs and organisation, meaning that I consider carefully its basic assumptions, their origins and discrepancies and find out their deep weaknesses and faults - the possible sources of their undoing... But this is the subtler critique of the professional consultant, a subject difficult to resume in a few words...
© 2011, 2012 Ioan Tenner & Daniel Tenner
An unpleasant sarcastic remark may warn you of weakness or fear being present among your critics. Therefore, listen attentively, with ears risen and eyes open, from beginning to end. Use the event to detect vulnerability; yours and the adversary's. You could do something about those soft spots, weaknesses and fears.
Hostile criticism can be very useful to the receiver; in spite of its unfriendly intention, rebuke may be vital to you in pointing at your vulnerable spot, signalling errors and gaffes your friends would never mention and most of all it helps you to adjust your aim swiftly. You can also learn how to prepare and act better next time. If the fault-finders knew this they would keep silent. Some of them actually do. Saying nothing when something is expected or something relevant should be said is an important form of hostile criticism; such absences of response keep you in the dark and drown you in silence; or freeze you with their indifference. Non response discourages the things well done and leaves errors grow.
Remember then: the first hostile criticism is silence. No feedback is bad feedback. When people "vote with their feet" and leave, it may be hostile criticism.
To some vocal attacks you can at your turn respond in kind, with no answer; quite often hostile outbursts come from mere bad disposition and you should not fuel and kindle them by engaging in dispute; keep silent if your judgement allows it, let the flame consume itself.
A treacherous brand of hostile criticism is flattery, not reticent but deceitful, encouraging you to keep going astray, to blow up your errors until you burst like the frog in the fable. For many of us it is difficult to conceive that a smiling, admiring face pleasing you with good words is of an enemy, but exercise will teach you. Even worse than this is the collective flattery inciting you to go on when you should reconsider. Only tyrants deserve the punishment by flattery.
A variant deceiving scheme is for manipulators to throw at you something outrageous, provocative, that would spur you to do or say something stupid; or to tell you something absolutely silly and unsustainable so that you jump in proudly to correct a mistake and so give away some wanted information, or declare something that will be used against you. Instead of open critique you are lured with a slippery slope.
The aggressive step in hostile critique is some form of direct attack, conveniently disguised as objective critique or analysis, claiming that your main assumptions and achievements are unsustainable. As an option, justified disapproval, and argumentation is replaced by mere emotional apostrophe and invective.
Hostile criticism does not care for being grounded or reasonable or fair; anything goes as long as it passes. Remember this: truth is of no concern for those intended to harm and they do not feel bound by rules - everything goes. In fact, slanderers know too well that defence against barefaced attack with totally invented, imaginary blame is more difficult than defence against the attack with real issues where you could bring your proof.
Silence and oblivion are the wisest response to hostile outbursts - when you can afford it. Patience is the rule with all this vermin but, on occasion, you may have to reject formally and clarify things with a loud voice, offhand – even without listening all the way - particularly when the critique is manifestly slander, trying to institute in haste some “claim” for the record, to take advantage of you.
Keep a plain face though, do not show where it hurts. Remember the Aesopic fable of the fox who took refuge in a hole and who would keep mum whenever hit with a stick and scream at each mistaken poke.
Of course, at times, hostile criticism is real stoning starting actual aggression and war and then the rules of war apply. You may need a lawyer.
When you practice hostile criticism I assume that you are justified to do such a nasty thing fit for the weaker and the unfree, because of facing an asymmetric, overbearing, oppressive force. You must defend something legitimate that is threatened and punish evil, cross iron with a bad foe stronger than you. War may justify hostile critique and lying to the enemy, as it involves all kinds of aggression and cheating. It is ugly business. In such a war you use the Arts of War.
The worst thing would be to do such critique irresponsibly or mindlessly, for trifles. You must know what you do. Remember that a gentleman is someone who would never offend someone by mistake [3]. Remember also that soon, you become what you do.
The first rule I found useful in practising hostile criticism in a corrupt environment is never to underestimate or despise your enemy; to vanquish you gain advantage when you first observe and respect, understand and identify with the mind and feeling of the foe. Hate and fury are feeble dispositions for effective fight. Exposing the wicked is a plate to prepare with care and to serve cold. It must also be done with proportionate measure and mercy, with some dignity, lest you will come out soiled and depraved.
*
Let me stress the essential, you do not want to educate a bad enemy by your critique.
Take care not to help a harmful adversary adjust his aim by means of your feedback, nor prevent him to persist in error. As Napoleon seems to have said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Only a fool would teach his enemy and thus make him stronger. Instead, incite to more of the bad thing . In order to punish, it may be sufficient to keep silent and appear discouraged. Silence is, as I explained, a deadly kind of criticism: “no feedback!” Let the bad person in the dark! In your mind you seek the weaknesses of the adversary but you would not draw his attention to them, you would rather use them.
Alternatively, flattery is also hostile criticism, ironic as I explained. Tyrants who punish truth telling deserve shameless flattery. You do not owe sincerity to an oppressor. Let hubris swell until it bursts.
When you blame, be sudden, to surprise and to confuse. Attack where there is nothing to improve, only harm and reproach. Do not signal the precise error to fix, point a finger to failure, loss and the unacceptable. Remember also how easy it is to find fault and how time consuming to fix it. Give proofs that things go bad but avoid edifying examples, just show how hopeless things are, with no practical advice; or worse, with totally unpractical advice, grand empty theory and principles.
Other form of disapproval, when you have the means to cause action, is to push back directly, to contain or sanction or prevent. You shame, pressure, diminish credibility, mock, institute proofs for later judgement. A long list of bad things one can do... I hesitate to make this too complete... it could fall in wrong hands.
My own elegant preference of hostile critique is to wait patiently by the riverside until bad enemies fall by themselves and their dead bodies float downstream...They often do. This is the critique of wise old people who hope to live long enough...
Taking a higher view, I prefer to de-construct the edifice of adversary thinking, beliefs and organisation, meaning that I consider carefully its basic assumptions, their origins and discrepancies and find out their deep weaknesses and faults - the possible sources of their undoing... But this is the subtler critique of the professional consultant, a subject difficult to resume in a few words...
© 2011, 2012 Ioan Tenner & Daniel Tenner
____________________________________________________________
References
* cf Foucault, Michel, Discourse and Truth - The Problematization of Parrhesia, Berkeley, 1983
** Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, Ist ed Introduction: "eine freie und öffentliche Prüfung"
[1] « Si la critique est juste et pleine d'égards, vous lui devez des remercîments et de la déférence ; si elle est juste sans égards, de la déférence sans remercîments ; si elle est outrageante et injuste, le silence et l'oubli » D'Alembert. Apologie de l'étude, Œuvres, t. IV, p. 224, cf. LITTRE.
[2] Max 84, The Oracle, A Manual of the Art of Discretion, Baltasar Gracian, Translated by Walton L.B. J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1953
[3] Oscar Wilde: “A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.” The Routledge dictionary of quotations, Robert Andrews, Routledge, 1987
References
* cf Foucault, Michel, Discourse and Truth - The Problematization of Parrhesia, Berkeley, 1983
** Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, Ist ed Introduction: "eine freie und öffentliche Prüfung"
[1] « Si la critique est juste et pleine d'égards, vous lui devez des remercîments et de la déférence ; si elle est juste sans égards, de la déférence sans remercîments ; si elle est outrageante et injuste, le silence et l'oubli » D'Alembert. Apologie de l'étude, Œuvres, t. IV, p. 224, cf. LITTRE.
[2] Max 84, The Oracle, A Manual of the Art of Discretion, Baltasar Gracian, Translated by Walton L.B. J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1953
[3] Oscar Wilde: “A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.” The Routledge dictionary of quotations, Robert Andrews, Routledge, 1987
Critical thinking is disobedient, not correct
Caravaggio, Doubting Thomas
Critical thinking is private judgement that takes place inside your head. It should not be confused with criticism addressed publicly or one-to-one to other people. Sociable, polite rules of criticism do not apply to this naked work of the mind.
Critical thinking should disobey before being reasonable. It is the constant questioning and defying of complacency, conformity and face value. The freedom of questioning everything - reason included - and the defying of received opinion must be unfettered.
Those who profess that critical thinking is nothing but correct, well disciplined thinking reduced to discerning of logical errors and search of science-based proof put a yoke on their own neck and then preach "freedom of thinking".
In fact, the reverse of critical thinking is not so much making errors or bad thinking but credulity and lack of independent judgement. The opposite of being gullible and servile is the disobedient mind, the critical spirit that examines everything, including its own basic rules; with or without method.
Your own critical thinking is the real-life criticism that takes place in our mind, intimately.
Besides analysing your own and other people's arguments and reasons to judge whether they are justified and logical, we must have, for a start, our own initiatives and ideas, not only questioned but questioning. Our private, inner practice of criticism, be it friendly, objective or hostile, doubts and challenges everything, no holds barred. Feelings, interests and personal preferences are inevitably present and legitimate as long as the critical flow stays in the mind.
Critical thinking carries inevitably a grain of rebellion against authority and conformity. The critical thinker respects authority only on merit and accepts received knowledge only after understanding it. True, to understand, it is desirable to use the best knowledge and the best expertise but while we do not have them yet we are entitled to use our common sense.
The root of our critical thinking is a spur from our critical sense - an attitude, a disposition, an instinct. Critical sense roams as orderly as storm. It takes liberty to approve or reject, and proceeds to undo or to support, rationally or irrationally, often because so we please or itch. It may rise against justified belief, repeal what everybody admires or defend that which everyone around us disapproves. We have a right to differ. We own the right to select out as we select in, to shun or prefer, to contest and to dream away. We have the mental right to depart from what is; even when the present is faultless. You can be disapproving without being right or proving that you are right. This defiance is a reaction of life, of the “me”, not a syllogism.
Live critical thinking uses two measures “deux poids, deux mesures” [1], not one: besides testing, sooner or later, against reality, standards and other people’s views, it is also testing things against us: our interests, our preferences, our understanding and even the most obscure of our feelings.
*
First disobedient, next reasonable
Something else, liberation, our own point of view, fairness, new truth, diversity, life – not just copies of copies - comes from restlessness or discontent, first intuitive or irrational and later, hopefully, justified. Creation is undoing, changing, replacing. It is asking: “Why so?” and “Why not otherwise?” It often needs to demolish - mentally - the given and requires an anarchic disorder space to turn; at least here in your mind, where your freedom to swing your fist does not meet someone else’s nose.
Your critical thinking is personal and unique, with no need of model. It follows your interest and intentions and is grounded by your understanding, the image in your mind, not someone else’s. It is a core part of your freedom to consider any choices, to be an autonomous agent initiating new beginnings, a person. It is not neutral. We have the right to feel and to say no in our mind, long before we ground our opposition by strict argument and justify criticism expressed with valid proofs. That will come later. Any creation, any thought of change says “no!” to what is. Or, it says “yes” to something else which is not. Not yet.
To make this simple, critical thinking is the one by which you have the courage, at any time needed, to draw a line and say: “Now I will think for myself, with as little as I know, and I will decide what is true for me and what not, what is good for me and what is bad, what to refrain from and what to do.”
Your critical thinking is a mixture of free dreaming and reasoning. It happens informally, hidden in your mind, not publicly. This is why it should know no inhibition and no mercy. It has the right to be as wild and iconoclastic as Nietzsche shows it to be (unfortunately he spills it carelessly into the open public space). Nothing should be impossible in the mind when there are no rules and material limitations; there is no guilt in harbouring any thought that may arise, without censure, moral or logical. You should not kill your baby-thoughts because they are born wild.
*
However, if we are not mad, we become accountable, morally and logically, for the conclusions we make ours to keep and when thoughts come out in words and deeds. When we cast our criticism among people we must be reasonable, moderate and constructive as persistently as we were anarchic inside the crucible of our mind. To paraphrase the common place of the notorious Dr Johnson, We may follow Fancy for our guide but must take Reason as our companion. [2]
*
A critical temper questions everything, ceaselessly: to understand, to help or to fight. It has a habit to test everything from all sides; to judge things sound after it knocks on them. It is taking the freedom to see what is inside things, underneath at their root and behind them; not to submit instead to dominant opinion like mouton. There is nothing wrong in this urge to see things with our own eyes, touch them like Thomas the Unbeliever, and judge them with our intuition or common sense, as modest and fallible as they may be.
Critical thinking is, as I claim, a common sense method of the person. When I consider my own habits of criticism I observe a constant preference, a style to challenge and test things on all sides, with insistence, to check whether or not they sound empty. When useful, I take this method outside my head and use it explicitly, with other people. This, in all sympathy and even when I have little doubt about the truth or the correctness of the matter at hand. I feel that submitting ideas to showers of contrary arguments and challenges is useful, valuable and constructive among friends. My method is to start by advancing one critique, confronting it with the proposed idea and advancing until the argument or the idea “wins or loses” and convinces me. Then, I signal victory of one critique or concede defeat, with no hard feelings, it is “de bonne guerre”. After this I advance the next objection and follow the same cycle, and so on. I could do this for a long time, undisturbed by the fall of my successive arguments. I am pleased when my arguments fall. It means that the subject improved. The aim is to test and to improve resilience, to strengthen by the vaccine of critique, not to win, not to have the last word or to destroy. Interesting to see that such a functioning of the mind appears as unbearable and even dishonest to some people. Too bad for them!
*
Critical thinking is also a key part of good judgement: it is a phase in the flow of personal understanding.
Before reasoning, your critical thinking sets the ground on which you will judge; it finds meaning or even gives meaning, clarifies what things are for you, points at the essential you pursue. It chooses your rules. It elaborates your truth, the beliefs based on which you will judge. Ahead of applying properly prescribed criteria your critical sense will choose what criteria to apply. (Later it will probably be inevitable to justify all this in dialogue with other people).
In my experience, most of the things I understood that did not work, were not detected by formal rules, they were intuitions of what things really meant, what was really important, what rules were adequate, of what felt not right or guessing that the proposed choices were a wrong choice, other choices of choices being possible.
*
False critical thinking is a school of submission to other minds.
If you begin your thinking in submission, even to healthy logical rules, instead of starting divergent and unfettered, you are doomed to only find in the end what was known already. You will have to grow old before you earn the right to think. And even then, the experts will still explain you that you did not understand.
Many good books on “critical thinking”, by explaining and prescribing what is good and bad argument, also tell you what must happen in your head. They are full of procedures, skills, logical rules and examples of fallacies, very useful, valuable, true, important to learn from, but, if you just follow the literal rules, your thinking will be utterly uncritical.
Is then critical thinking a mere inspection or arguments and detection of faults? Advancing by the book? Censoring your own thinking as you censor somebody else's arguments? This is misleading. Where is the method to challenge things, the world? Sometimes I wonder if the authors ever questioned in good faith what they want to achieve.
*
I hope not to be misunderstood: good, reasonable judgement follows necessarily after the anarchic choices of criticism in the mind. However, even then it is still not by the book; if your judgement is to be good, it embraces complex, contradictory, incomplete knowledge, human imperfection and social context the one we have in our real life. The point of view of practical good judgement is not objective precision but relevance to objectives, occasions and persons. What counts finally for good judgement are preferences, norms and values of the human persons not of scientific truth or logic which constrain them. Certainly, ideas should follow and be consistent but the aim is in the good sense of the content and practice, not the perfection of the form.
*
Critical thinking starts in uprising but it should not end in rebellion.
Self examining comes next, to make you master, not slave, of your own critical reaction. Now, to free your deliberation and not to be blinded by passion or wishful thinking you need to rise above yourself, above your critical drive, to become well aware, from above, which is your point of view [3], what moved you to be critical, and if you speak, why you speak and what you want to achieve; otherwise, your mental criticism is like the buzzing of flies.
Now, when you come forth to formulate arguments and speak, there is usage and canons of criticism - friendly, objective or hostile - to respect [4]. Now you censor. It is insane to practice all we imagine and feel and it is boorish to punish people with our freedom to think; politeness and prudence preserve from harm!
My view of critical thinking values and includes as you can observe reality check, logic and good scientific method, all the good advice of the "critical thinking" books, but without being reduced to them. It is much larger in scope.
You may not need to be logical when you start thinking, but you do when you conclude. That is the moment to read the many books, some excellent, about “critical thinking” . Critique expressed must be consistent inside and fit outside into the limits of accepted reality and of accepted opinion. That is the stage when the proper flow of logic rules and the awareness of fallacies, formal and informal, preserves you from ridicule and defeat. If you cannot cope with this, better keep your mouth shut.
*
PS: Of course, a flaw weakens my view presented here; it is not foolproof.
Critical thinking is dangerous anarchy in the head, not for kindergarten. The fool will understand that anything goes. The fool will confuse the birth of ideas with the growth, the verification and the communication of ideas. The convergent thinker will also be confused. He prefers disciplined ideas reflecting reality, not shots in the dark.
Who likes chaos? But we need this dark starry space of the critical spirit to conceive the newness which we later analyse and prove and, maybe, make come true. Where there is nothing born and no sign of pregnancy even the midwifery of Socrates will educate nothing.
_____________________________________
[1] Deuteronomy. 25:13-14 and Proverbs 20:10
[2] The original said “We may take Fancy for a companion, but must follow Reason as our guide.” —DR. SAMUEL JOHNSON, letter to James Boswell in: Boswell James, The life of Samuel Johnson..., vol. 1, Carter, Hendee and Co, Boston, 1832
[3] Gert J. J. Biesta and Geert Jan J.M. Stams, Critical Thinking and the Question of Critique..., Studies in Philosophy and Education 20: 57–74, 2001, Kluwer Academic Publishers
[4] McInerny, D. Q., Being Logical. A Guide to Good Thinking,
Random House, New York, 2004
Critical thinking should disobey before being reasonable. It is the constant questioning and defying of complacency, conformity and face value. The freedom of questioning everything - reason included - and the defying of received opinion must be unfettered.
Those who profess that critical thinking is nothing but correct, well disciplined thinking reduced to discerning of logical errors and search of science-based proof put a yoke on their own neck and then preach "freedom of thinking".
In fact, the reverse of critical thinking is not so much making errors or bad thinking but credulity and lack of independent judgement. The opposite of being gullible and servile is the disobedient mind, the critical spirit that examines everything, including its own basic rules; with or without method.
Your own critical thinking is the real-life criticism that takes place in our mind, intimately.
Besides analysing your own and other people's arguments and reasons to judge whether they are justified and logical, we must have, for a start, our own initiatives and ideas, not only questioned but questioning. Our private, inner practice of criticism, be it friendly, objective or hostile, doubts and challenges everything, no holds barred. Feelings, interests and personal preferences are inevitably present and legitimate as long as the critical flow stays in the mind.
Critical thinking carries inevitably a grain of rebellion against authority and conformity. The critical thinker respects authority only on merit and accepts received knowledge only after understanding it. True, to understand, it is desirable to use the best knowledge and the best expertise but while we do not have them yet we are entitled to use our common sense.
The root of our critical thinking is a spur from our critical sense - an attitude, a disposition, an instinct. Critical sense roams as orderly as storm. It takes liberty to approve or reject, and proceeds to undo or to support, rationally or irrationally, often because so we please or itch. It may rise against justified belief, repeal what everybody admires or defend that which everyone around us disapproves. We have a right to differ. We own the right to select out as we select in, to shun or prefer, to contest and to dream away. We have the mental right to depart from what is; even when the present is faultless. You can be disapproving without being right or proving that you are right. This defiance is a reaction of life, of the “me”, not a syllogism.
Live critical thinking uses two measures “deux poids, deux mesures” [1], not one: besides testing, sooner or later, against reality, standards and other people’s views, it is also testing things against us: our interests, our preferences, our understanding and even the most obscure of our feelings.
*
First disobedient, next reasonable
Something else, liberation, our own point of view, fairness, new truth, diversity, life – not just copies of copies - comes from restlessness or discontent, first intuitive or irrational and later, hopefully, justified. Creation is undoing, changing, replacing. It is asking: “Why so?” and “Why not otherwise?” It often needs to demolish - mentally - the given and requires an anarchic disorder space to turn; at least here in your mind, where your freedom to swing your fist does not meet someone else’s nose.
Your critical thinking is personal and unique, with no need of model. It follows your interest and intentions and is grounded by your understanding, the image in your mind, not someone else’s. It is a core part of your freedom to consider any choices, to be an autonomous agent initiating new beginnings, a person. It is not neutral. We have the right to feel and to say no in our mind, long before we ground our opposition by strict argument and justify criticism expressed with valid proofs. That will come later. Any creation, any thought of change says “no!” to what is. Or, it says “yes” to something else which is not. Not yet.
To make this simple, critical thinking is the one by which you have the courage, at any time needed, to draw a line and say: “Now I will think for myself, with as little as I know, and I will decide what is true for me and what not, what is good for me and what is bad, what to refrain from and what to do.”
Your critical thinking is a mixture of free dreaming and reasoning. It happens informally, hidden in your mind, not publicly. This is why it should know no inhibition and no mercy. It has the right to be as wild and iconoclastic as Nietzsche shows it to be (unfortunately he spills it carelessly into the open public space). Nothing should be impossible in the mind when there are no rules and material limitations; there is no guilt in harbouring any thought that may arise, without censure, moral or logical. You should not kill your baby-thoughts because they are born wild.
*
However, if we are not mad, we become accountable, morally and logically, for the conclusions we make ours to keep and when thoughts come out in words and deeds. When we cast our criticism among people we must be reasonable, moderate and constructive as persistently as we were anarchic inside the crucible of our mind. To paraphrase the common place of the notorious Dr Johnson, We may follow Fancy for our guide but must take Reason as our companion. [2]
*
A critical temper questions everything, ceaselessly: to understand, to help or to fight. It has a habit to test everything from all sides; to judge things sound after it knocks on them. It is taking the freedom to see what is inside things, underneath at their root and behind them; not to submit instead to dominant opinion like mouton. There is nothing wrong in this urge to see things with our own eyes, touch them like Thomas the Unbeliever, and judge them with our intuition or common sense, as modest and fallible as they may be.
Critical thinking is, as I claim, a common sense method of the person. When I consider my own habits of criticism I observe a constant preference, a style to challenge and test things on all sides, with insistence, to check whether or not they sound empty. When useful, I take this method outside my head and use it explicitly, with other people. This, in all sympathy and even when I have little doubt about the truth or the correctness of the matter at hand. I feel that submitting ideas to showers of contrary arguments and challenges is useful, valuable and constructive among friends. My method is to start by advancing one critique, confronting it with the proposed idea and advancing until the argument or the idea “wins or loses” and convinces me. Then, I signal victory of one critique or concede defeat, with no hard feelings, it is “de bonne guerre”. After this I advance the next objection and follow the same cycle, and so on. I could do this for a long time, undisturbed by the fall of my successive arguments. I am pleased when my arguments fall. It means that the subject improved. The aim is to test and to improve resilience, to strengthen by the vaccine of critique, not to win, not to have the last word or to destroy. Interesting to see that such a functioning of the mind appears as unbearable and even dishonest to some people. Too bad for them!
*
Critical thinking is also a key part of good judgement: it is a phase in the flow of personal understanding.
Before reasoning, your critical thinking sets the ground on which you will judge; it finds meaning or even gives meaning, clarifies what things are for you, points at the essential you pursue. It chooses your rules. It elaborates your truth, the beliefs based on which you will judge. Ahead of applying properly prescribed criteria your critical sense will choose what criteria to apply. (Later it will probably be inevitable to justify all this in dialogue with other people).
In my experience, most of the things I understood that did not work, were not detected by formal rules, they were intuitions of what things really meant, what was really important, what rules were adequate, of what felt not right or guessing that the proposed choices were a wrong choice, other choices of choices being possible.
*
False critical thinking is a school of submission to other minds.
If you begin your thinking in submission, even to healthy logical rules, instead of starting divergent and unfettered, you are doomed to only find in the end what was known already. You will have to grow old before you earn the right to think. And even then, the experts will still explain you that you did not understand.
Many good books on “critical thinking”, by explaining and prescribing what is good and bad argument, also tell you what must happen in your head. They are full of procedures, skills, logical rules and examples of fallacies, very useful, valuable, true, important to learn from, but, if you just follow the literal rules, your thinking will be utterly uncritical.
Is then critical thinking a mere inspection or arguments and detection of faults? Advancing by the book? Censoring your own thinking as you censor somebody else's arguments? This is misleading. Where is the method to challenge things, the world? Sometimes I wonder if the authors ever questioned in good faith what they want to achieve.
*
I hope not to be misunderstood: good, reasonable judgement follows necessarily after the anarchic choices of criticism in the mind. However, even then it is still not by the book; if your judgement is to be good, it embraces complex, contradictory, incomplete knowledge, human imperfection and social context the one we have in our real life. The point of view of practical good judgement is not objective precision but relevance to objectives, occasions and persons. What counts finally for good judgement are preferences, norms and values of the human persons not of scientific truth or logic which constrain them. Certainly, ideas should follow and be consistent but the aim is in the good sense of the content and practice, not the perfection of the form.
*
Critical thinking starts in uprising but it should not end in rebellion.
Self examining comes next, to make you master, not slave, of your own critical reaction. Now, to free your deliberation and not to be blinded by passion or wishful thinking you need to rise above yourself, above your critical drive, to become well aware, from above, which is your point of view [3], what moved you to be critical, and if you speak, why you speak and what you want to achieve; otherwise, your mental criticism is like the buzzing of flies.
Now, when you come forth to formulate arguments and speak, there is usage and canons of criticism - friendly, objective or hostile - to respect [4]. Now you censor. It is insane to practice all we imagine and feel and it is boorish to punish people with our freedom to think; politeness and prudence preserve from harm!
My view of critical thinking values and includes as you can observe reality check, logic and good scientific method, all the good advice of the "critical thinking" books, but without being reduced to them. It is much larger in scope.
You may not need to be logical when you start thinking, but you do when you conclude. That is the moment to read the many books, some excellent, about “critical thinking” . Critique expressed must be consistent inside and fit outside into the limits of accepted reality and of accepted opinion. That is the stage when the proper flow of logic rules and the awareness of fallacies, formal and informal, preserves you from ridicule and defeat. If you cannot cope with this, better keep your mouth shut.
*
PS: Of course, a flaw weakens my view presented here; it is not foolproof.
Critical thinking is dangerous anarchy in the head, not for kindergarten. The fool will understand that anything goes. The fool will confuse the birth of ideas with the growth, the verification and the communication of ideas. The convergent thinker will also be confused. He prefers disciplined ideas reflecting reality, not shots in the dark.
Who likes chaos? But we need this dark starry space of the critical spirit to conceive the newness which we later analyse and prove and, maybe, make come true. Where there is nothing born and no sign of pregnancy even the midwifery of Socrates will educate nothing.
_____________________________________
[1] Deuteronomy. 25:13-14 and Proverbs 20:10
[2] The original said “We may take Fancy for a companion, but must follow Reason as our guide.” —DR. SAMUEL JOHNSON, letter to James Boswell in: Boswell James, The life of Samuel Johnson..., vol. 1, Carter, Hendee and Co, Boston, 1832
[3] Gert J. J. Biesta and Geert Jan J.M. Stams, Critical Thinking and the Question of Critique..., Studies in Philosophy and Education 20: 57–74, 2001, Kluwer Academic Publishers
[4] McInerny, D. Q., Being Logical. A Guide to Good Thinking,
Random House, New York, 2004