# Critique vs Criticism



## jks9199

*Critique*: _evaluate in a detailed and analytical way_
*Criticize*: _find the faults with or about something
_
Please remember that there is a difference.  Many times, we find  ourselves criticizing posts and videos when they ask for a critique.   Critiques are generally factual and objective, though they may own  opinions within a critique.  If you want to stay on the right side of  the rules and friendly spirit hereabouts, review your post before you  hit send, and make sure that you're offering a critique rather than  finding fault.


----------



## geezer

jks9199 said:


> *Critique*: _evaluate in a detailed and analytical way_
> *Criticize*: _find the faults with or about something
> _
> Please remember that there is a difference.  Many times, we find  ourselves criticizing posts and videos when they ask for a critique.


 
Actually JKS, when we are offering a critique, we *are* engaging in criticism. In fact the words critique and criticise can be used synonymously. Please refer to the definition 1c as well as definitions 2 and 3 below taken from _Merriam Webster_ online:

*Full Definition of CRITICISM*
1
_a_*:* the act of criticizing usually unfavorably <seeking encouragement rather than _criticism_>
_b_*:* a critical observation or remark <an unfair _criticism_> 
_c_*:* critique
2
*:* the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; _also_*:* writings expressing such evaluation or analysis <an anthology of literary _criticism_>
3
*:* the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history
See criticism defined for English-language learners
See criticism defined for kids

Nevertheless (i.e. semantic  nit-picking aside),_ I totally agree with the point you are making_, namely that often a poster is asking for a helpful critique and useful criticism, and instead they are met with harsh and unhelpful negativity. It doesn't fit with our goal of creating a welcoming and "friendly" forum.


----------



## Transk53

Nice posts and I agree with both of you. Thing is though, and yes I am being negative to pose a point, do you really belive that threads are going to stop going south. Was pretty shocked to see a long term members post yesterday. Don't think there is a need for friendly warnings when a post was made in jest.


----------



## jks9199

As has been said many times, on-line communication has a huge potential for misunderstanding because so much of communication is nonverbal, and a forum is limited to text only.  We lose the nuance of tone of voice, facial expression, speech pace, and more.   Add in culture misunderstandings, and it only gets worse.  Emoticons and smileys help -- but even they can be misunderstood.  Even though two members may indeed understand that they are joking with each other, it's not always perceived that way by others and warnings are kind of equivalent to the security staff at an event "wandering by" to make sure that there isn't a problem.


----------



## geezer

Transk53 said:


> .... do you really belive that threads are going to stop going south. .


 
Yeah, some posts "go south", and sometimes even well-meant comments get misconstrued. In fact, I unintentionally upset a long time member and on-line friend just today. So I apologised. Honestly, if you want proof that attitude --and careful word choice-- makes a difference, check out the Wing Chun forum. It's well known that we WC people can't get along. Except _we do_ ...here on Martialtalk.


----------



## K-man

geezer said:


> Nevertheless (i.e. semantic  nit-picking aside),_ I totally agree with the point you are making_, namely that often a poster is asking for a helpful critique and useful criticism, and instead they are met with harsh and unhelpful negativity. It doesn't fit with our goal of creating a welcoming and "friendly" forum.


I feel it goes even further than this. Most posters are not asking for 'critique'. They are voicing an opinion and in posting are inviting open discussion. In the past this was one of the main features of MT, although on occassion the boundaries were tested.

Now we have a number of people with limited knowledge of training outside their own sphere tearing into members posting in their own area of expertise. These people don't ask questions to increase their understanding. They demand answers that support their own view. Rather than help create a friendly environment and a discussion from which we can all learn, we get head to head confrontation. If we are not careful we will end up as 'just another MA forum' like some of the others out there.


----------



## Steve

I appreciate that it's coming back up.  Thanks, jks9199 for expressing it, and to geezer for bringing it back to the top of the list for discussion. 

Truly, if we "attack the post and not the poster", if we discuss the posts and avoid judging the posters, we'd all be in better shape.  Threads wouldn't go south very often at all.  If a person has something to add, they should feel free to express it, whether they have been training for days, years, or decades.  I've seen some alarming ignorance in my life, personally and professionally, from people who have been at it for a very long time (whatever "it" might be).   i've also benefited from profound insight and brilliance by people who are relatively inexperienced.   

That said, personally, I don't think that the threads going South is entirely a courtesy or friendliness issue.  I think it's also a clique issue.  We have a few cliques, and no matter how friendly and courteous people are, cliques can be destructive.  One person says something, and someone else disagrees because of who said it, even if there's a lot of common ground.  Intent is misconstrued and sides are taken.  And if a person from one clique disagrees, it's not long before the rest of the gang joins in. 

My suggestion, for what it's worth (maybe not even 2 cents), is that we could all stand to be a little more tolerant.  Tolerant of ignorance and/or youthful enthusiasm for some (because, afterall, haven't we all been guilty of both in our lives?). Tolerance of a little crotchetiness and a curmedgeonliness for others.  And tolerance for ideas that are contrary to our own, regardless of how sensible and "educated" we may believe them.


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> Yeah, some posts "go south", and sometimes even well-meant comments get misconstrued. In fact, I unintentionally upset a long time member and on-line friend just today. So I apologised. Honestly, if you want proof that attitude --and careful word choice-- makes a difference, check out the Wing Chun forum. It's well known that we WC people can't get along. Except _we do_ ...here on Martialtalk.



I find it quite sad that Wing Chun practitioners cannot get along. It is prescribed condition!


----------



## Transk53

Steve said:


> I appreciate that it's coming back up.  Thanks, jks9199 for expressing it, and to geezer for bringing it back to the top of the list for discussion.
> 
> Truly, if we "attack the post and not the poster", if we discuss the posts and avoid judging the posters, we'd all be in better shape.  Threads wouldn't go south very often at all.  If a person has something to add, they should feel free to express it, whether they have been training for days, years, or decades.  I've seen some alarming ignorance in my life, personally and professionally, from people who have been at it for a very long time (whatever "it" might be).   i've also benefited from profound insight and brilliance by people who are relatively inexperienced.
> 
> That said, personally, I don't think that the threads going South is entirely a courtesy or friendliness issue.  I think it's also a clique issue.  We have a few cliques, and no matter how friendly and courteous people are, cliques can be destructive.  One person says something, and someone else disagrees because of who said it, even if there's a lot of common ground.  Intent is misconstrued and sides are taken.  And if a person from one clique disagrees, it's not long before the rest of the gang joins in.
> 
> My suggestion, for what it's worth (maybe not even 2 cents), is that we could all stand to be a little more tolerant.  Tolerant of ignorance and/or youthful enthusiasm for some (because, afterall, haven't we all been guilty of both in our lives?). Tolerance of a little crotchetiness and a curmedgeonliness for others.  And tolerance for ideas that are contrary to our own, regardless of how sensible and "educated" we may believe them.



That include my own?


----------



## Steve

Transk53 said:


> That include my own?


I don't know.   That might be pushing it.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Touch Of Death

The best way to critique, is to use the Oreo cookie effect. Hey, I like that, you could fix this part, but over all it was awesome.


----------



## Steve

Touch Of Death said:


> The best way to critique, is to use the Oreo cookie effect. Hey, I like that, you could fix this part, but over all it was awesome.


That only works if it's sincere and it can quickly erode trust.   I call it the hug, slap, hug method to my new supervisors, because that's often how employees feel after receiving this kind of feedback.  Hugged, slapped and overall a little confused.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> That only works if it's sincere and it can quickly erode trust.   I call it the hug, slap, hug method to my new supervisors, because that's often how employees feel after receiving this kind of feedback.  Hugged, slapped and overall a little confused.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


If they realize that you are just using a technique it can cause problems, but some people are better talkers than others. If you haven't already guessed I can be quite blunt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> attack the post and not the poster", if we discuss the posts and avoid judging the posters, we'd all be in better shape.


Agree!

We should not involve "YOU and I" in any discussion. IMO, instead of saying, "I want to ...", it's better to say, "you (general YOU) may want to ...".

When someone asks a general question, you may want to give your suggestion. After all, if the OP can ask his teacher, he won't need to ask here. When you do that, if others may not agree with your suggestion, you don't really need to respond to them. After all, it's the OP who is looking for suggestion. There will always be someone who does agree with your suggestion. To respond to those posts will definitely bring you into endless argument.

Here is an example and it had happened in the past.

A: What should I do if ...
B: you may try ...
C: What make you think that you are qualified to give any suggestion to A?
D: That's the worst suggestion that I have ever heard.
E: Are you stupid or something? You are totally clueless.
B: ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sometime you may not want to express your true opinion. Instead, you just ask questions and let others to draw their own conclusions. This technique may help you to avoid argument. But if you are not willing to express what in your mind, you are not fair to yourself. There is no shame to admit that you are either a liberal or a conservative. This way, people will know exactly where your opinion may come from.


----------



## Xue Sheng

jks9199 said:


> As has been said many times, on-line communication has a huge potential for misunderstanding because so much of communication is nonverbal, and a forum is limited to text only.  We lose the nuance of tone of voice, facial expression, speech pace, and more.   Add in culture misunderstandings, and it only gets worse.  Emoticons and smileys help -- but even they can be misunderstood.  Even though two members may indeed understand that they are joking with each other, it's not always perceived that way by others and warnings are kind of equivalent to the security staff at an event "wandering by" to make sure that there isn't a problem.



Yup, things that would not be any problem at all face to face can explode online if not careful



geezer said:


> Yeah, some posts "go south", and sometimes even well-meant comments get misconstrued. In fact, I unintentionally upset a long time member and on-line friend just today. So I apologised. Honestly, if you want proof that attitude --and careful word choice-- makes a difference, check out the Wing Chun forum. It's well known that we WC people can't get along. Except _we do_ ...here on Martialtalk.



Maybe Wing Chun people are ok but you have to watch those Xingyi/Taiji guys


----------



## Gnarlie

'Attack the post not the poster' as a guideline would be IMO fundamentally flawed in that the emphasis is still on 'attack'. Why do we need to attack? What's wrong with:

Your experience leads you to conclude x.
My experience leads me to conclude y because ABC. In the light of ABC, you may wish to reconsider your conclusion.

Part of the problem here is that both in the OP and the following discussion, people make statements that are based on their isolated experience and research, but stated as cold, hard fact.

People do things differently and understand things differently all over the world. Recognising this and tolerating it would go a long way towards promoting a sharing environment instead of a bitter, competitive one where we all have to prove ourselves right. Always having to win and be right comes at the cost of possibly missing a real truth when it is staring one in the face.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Gnarlie said:


> 'Attack the post not the poster' as a guideline would be IMO fundamentally flawed in that the emphasis is still on 'attack'. Why do we need to attack? What's wrong with:
> 
> Your experience leads you to conclude x.
> My experience leads me to conclude y because ABC. In the light of ABC, you may wish to reconsider your conclusion.
> 
> Part of the problem here is that both in the OP and the following discussion, people make statements that are based on their isolated experience and research, but stated as cold, hard fact.
> 
> People do things differently and understand things differently all over the world. Recognising this and tolerating it would go a long way towards promoting a sharing environment instead of a bitter, competitive one where we all have to prove ourselves right. Always having to win and be right comes at the cost of possibly missing a real truth when it is staring one in the face.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Great post.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Gnarlie said:


> 'Attack the post not the poster' as a guideline would be IMO fundamentally flawed in that the emphasis is still on 'attack'. Why do we need to attack? What's wrong with:
> 
> Your experience leads you to conclude x.
> My experience leads me to conclude y because ABC. In the light of ABC, you may wish to reconsider your conclusion.
> 
> Part of the problem here is that both in the OP and the following discussion, people make statements that are based on their isolated experience and research, but stated as cold, hard fact.
> 
> People do things differently and understand things differently all over the world. Recognising this and tolerating it would go a long way towards promoting a sharing environment instead of a bitter, competitive one where we all have to prove ourselves right. Always having to win and be right comes at the cost of possibly missing a real truth when it is staring one in the face.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



But...but... what if they have offended my family and they have offended the Shaolin Temple. 

Now to put my more serious hat on, I agree with this post, but there have been occasions, on MT in the CMA section where there were outright lying frauds (lineage claims) or those suggesting types of training that if done wrong are harmful or are harmful not matter how they are done..... how should one deal with that?


----------



## Gnarlie

By supplying evidence that casts doubt upon those claims and allowing people to draw their own conclusions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

Gnarlie said:


> By supplying evidence that casts doubt upon those claims and allowing people to draw their own conclusions.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



been there, done that and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it all depends on the tenacity of the one making false claims or suggesting dangerous training methods.

Thank you


----------



## Gnarlie

Xue Sheng said:


> been there, done that and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it all depends on the tenacity of the one making false claims or suggesting dangerous training methods.
> 
> Thank you



I have been there too and I agree, but, I would credit the readers of this forum with enough nous to decide for themselves...therefore it would be less important to 'win', and more important to supply enough information for the reader to form their own conclusions in support of your own. It is not necessary to 'convert' or 'break' the person making the claim, to have them capitulate and say 'okay dammit you are right'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Gnarlie said:


> 'Attack the post not the poster' as a guideline would be IMO fundamentally flawed in that the emphasis is still on 'attack'. Why do we need to attack? What's wrong with:
> 
> Your experience leads you to conclude x.
> My experience leads me to conclude y because ABC. In the light of ABC, you may wish to reconsider your conclusion.
> 
> Part of the problem here is that both in the OP and the following discussion, people make statements that are based on their isolated experience and research, but stated as cold, hard fact.
> 
> People do things differently and understand things differently all over the world. Recognising this and tolerating it would go a long way towards promoting a sharing environment instead of a bitter, competitive one where we all have to prove ourselves right. Always having to win and be right comes at the cost of possibly missing a real truth when it is staring one in the face.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



There's a lot of truth to what you say, when the subject under discussion is one of opinion or conclusion rather than fact.
If you say "meditation helps me feel more balanced and that makes me move more smoothly and faster", then ok, that is your experience, and it's reasonable for someone else to say 'my experience is different in this way...'

If you say " meditation allows me to levitate while causing all the car stereos in the neighborhood to blast the Jedi theme", then that is a factual matter, and it is reasonable for someone else to say 'what a load of hokum, do your meds need adjusted?'


----------



## Gnarlie

Dirty Dog said:


> There's a lot of truth to what you say, when the subject under discussion is one of opinion or conclusion rather than fact.
> If you say "meditation helps me feel more balanced and that makes me move more smoothly and faster", then ok, that is your experience, and it's reasonable for someone else to say 'my experience is different in this way...'
> 
> If you say " meditation allows me to levitate while causing all the car stereos in the neighborhood to blast the Jedi theme", then that is a factual matter, and it is reasonable for someone else to say 'what a load of hokum, do your meds need adjusted?'



It's reasonable for someone else to say 'there is no evidence to support your claim, in fact all evidence points to it being highly unlikely. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so please provide us with evidence that what you say is true, otherwise the readership here will likely come to the conclusion that what you claim is indeed false.'

It could however be considered mean-spirited and not in the spirit of a friendly forum to cast aspersions about the poster's mental health based on a post like that. Doesn't that stray into personal attack territory?


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> If you say " meditation allows me to levitate while causing all the car stereos in the neighborhood to blast the Jedi theme", then that is a factual matter, and it is reasonable for someone else to say 'what a load of hokum, do your meds need adjusted?'


Why not stop with, "What a load of hokum?"  I mean, there are more diplomatic ways to say that, but you really have two clauses in your sentence.  "What a load of hokum" is essentially challenging the claim.  "Do your meds need to be adjusted?" is an unnecessary and destructive personal attack.


----------



## Transk53

Steve said:


> Why not stop with, "What a load of hokum?"  I mean, there are more diplomatic ways to say that, but you really have two clauses in your sentence.  "What a load of hokum" is essentially challenging the claim.  "Do your meds need to be adjusted?" is an unnecessary and destructive personal attack.



Huh, an interesting reply!


----------



## Touch Of Death

Transk53 said:


> Huh, an interesting reply!


Maybe your medication makes it seem more interesting that it really was.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Gnarlie said:


> It is not necessary to 'convert' or 'break' the person making the claim,


Agree!

Instead of trying to point out the errors in someone's post as in the following example.

A: aaa bbb ccc ddd eee fff ...
B: aaa bbb  should be aax bbx.
B: ccc ddd should be ccx ddx,
B: eee fff should be eex ffx,
B: ...

Why not just express your own view instead of pointing out what can be wrong in someone's post.

Also there is no need to bring the "style" into any discussion. Judo guys like to "grab" and Taiji guys don't. It's better to discuss the PRO and CON of the "grab" instead of saying, "In Judo, we do ..." or "In Taiji, we do ...". The moment that "style" is what you are trying to defend, the discussion can be easily get into argument.

When someone starts a thread, "What MA style should I train?" That thread will soon get into "my style is better than your style" argument. Do we really need a thread like that to tear us apart instead of bring us together? Can we have general MA discussion without trying to drag "style" into it?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Unless of course someone says in Taiji we do not...... and we actually do


----------



## Steve

I don't know how successful we can be without ever bringing style into a discussion.  I'm a fan of being specific.  There's a middle ground between questioning or critiquing a style or a training model, and style bashing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> I don't know how successful we can be without ever bringing style into a discussion.  I'm a fan of being specific.  There's a middle ground between questioning or critiquing a style or a training model, and style bashing.


If we don't bring style into discussion, there will be no style bashing. Style means there are principles that you (general YOU) want to reference. Unfortunately when you only reference those set of principles, you may ignore principles used in other styles. Sometime, that will cause argument.

Of course if you don't cross train and you only train one style, your style will be your bible. But if you have cross trained, you may like to look at things from different angles and consider principles from all MA styles.

For example, if you only consider

- "defense your center from inside out", you may forget "defense your center from outside in".
- "keep your center within your base", you may forget "move your center outside your base and take advantage on the gravity".
- "body lead arm is more powerful", you may forget "arm lead body is faster".
- "when you grab, you will have less freedom", you may forget "when you grab, your opponent will have less freedom."
- ...

When style is not involved, we can look at things from all different angles and have a pleasant discussion. When someone said,

- "We don't do this in my style".
- "It's against our style principles".
- ...

The discussion will only be looked at from a certain angle and the discussion will start to become personal.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we don't bring style into discussion, there will be no style bashing. Style means there are principles that you (general YOU) want to reference. Unfortunately when you only reference those set of principles, you may ignore principles used in other styles. Sometime, that will cause argument.


I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense in a discussion about principles and such, but we aren't always talking about principles.  

In a discussion about a style, it's kind of hard to dance around references to that style.  There's a thread right now about tessenjutsu, which seems to be a style that is often rolled into many other styles.  Different styles seem to use the fans differently.  Avoiding any reference to style might actually cause more trouble than it resolves, as you could end up with two people saying contradictory things and both be completely correct.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I don't know how successful we can be without ever bringing style into a discussion.  I'm a fan of being specific.  There's a middle ground between questioning or critiquing a style or a training model, and style bashing.



You would also have to remove all the appeals to authority. Which brings your own style into the discussion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> as you could end up with two people saying contradictory things and both be completely correct.


That's the famous paradox theory.

1. My spear is so sharp that it can penetrate all shields on earth.
2. My shield is so strong that no spear on earth can penetrate it.

1. If you can't get a head lock on your opponent, you are not a good wrestler.
2. If someone can put a head lock on you, you are not a good wrestler.

1. If you can break my grip within 30 second, my grip is not strong enough.
2. If I can't break your grip within 1 second, my MA skill is not good enough.

I have 2 MA teachers in my life. One teacher told me that MA is cruelty, poison, kill. My other teacher told me that MA is patient, kind, peaceful. When your enemy kills your father and you want to apply patient, kind, peaceful, you are wrong. When someone just call your name and you want to apply cruelty, poison, kill, you are wrong too.

Sometime, both can be right. Everything in MA is "relative" and not "absolute". If you have 30 years of MA training and I only have 10 years of MA training, the normal logic may not apply between you and me.


----------



## Transk53

Touch Of Death said:


> Maybe your medication makes it seem more interesting that it really was.



I was being serious. I actually thought it was an interesting reply


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's the famous paradox theory.
> 
> 1. My spear is so sharp that it can penetrate all shields on earth.
> 2. My shield is so strong that no spear on earth can penetrate it.
> 
> 1. If you can't get a head lock on your opponent, you are not a good wrestler.
> 2. If someone can put a head lock on you, you are not a good wrestler.
> 
> 1. If you can break my grip within 30 second, my grip is not strong enough.
> 2. If I can't break your grip within 1 second, my MA skill is not good enough.
> 
> I have 2 MA teachers in my life. One teacher told me that MA is cruelty, poison, kill. My other teacher told me that MA is patient, kind, peaceful. When your enemy kills your father and you want to apply patient, kind, peaceful, you are wrong. When someone just call your name and you want to apply cruelty, poison, kill, you are wrong too.
> 
> Sometime, both can be right. Everything in MA is "relative" and not "absolute". If you have 30 years of MA training and I only have 10 years of MA training, the normal logic may not apply between you and me.


That's really interesting, but I wasn't referring to any kind of a paradox.  I was referring to stylistic differences.  In the example I mentioned, it appears that more than a few traditional styles teach tessenjitsu.  Some include no techniques that use the fan in an open position, and may teach that this is never done.  Others teach that there are a few specific applications for the fan in the open position.  They're both teaching tessenjitsu. 

Who is correct?  I'd say both, but you wouldn't know it if you didn't get specific and carefully reference the style.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I agree with Steve



Steve said:


> I don't know how successful we can be without ever bringing style into a discussion.  I'm a fan of being specific.  There's a middle ground between questioning or critiquing a style or a training model, and style bashing.



You can't be, you end up with a generic Martial Arts discussion and if you are posting in the general section maybe that is what you are after. But if you post in the Chinese martial arts section and you are discussing taijiquan, or Xingyiquan or Baguazhang or even Sanshou for that matter or BJJ, Wing Chun, Karate, Kali or JKD you have already brought a style into it and it IS part of the discussion. If you are having a discussion and attempting to justify your POV by talking about a Style then again, style is part of the discussion and should not be stripped out. I someone is making blanket statements about a style that is incorrect you should challenge that, not bash, not call them names, challenge, use examples to the contrary and debate the issue



Steve said:


> I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense in a discussion about principles and such, but we aren't always talking about principles.
> 
> In a discussion about a style, it's kind of hard to dance around references to that style.  There's a thread right now about tessenjutsu, which seems to be a style that is often rolled into many other styles.  Different styles seem to use the fans differently.  Avoiding any reference to style might actually cause more trouble than it resolves, as you could end up with two people saying contradictory things and both be completely correct.



If one is "only" discussing principles then it is principles, but if someone is discussing principles and throws in they only do this in this style and they never do that in that style...well...all bets are off...it is a style discussion. IMO avoiding or stripping out any reference to style is simply ridiculous and opening up MT to anyone who wants to come along and make ridiculous claims or talk about training that WILL hurt people .

We are a bunch of martial artists for crying out loud, we get knocked around, thrown, punched and beaten for fun.... so we can't take a little criticism or take being asked to back up a statement or take the hit on a webpage...please


----------



## Chris Parker

Transk53 said:


> Nice posts and I agree with both of you. Thing is though, and yes I am being negative to pose a point, do you really belive that threads are going to stop going south. Was pretty shocked to see a long term members post yesterday. Don't think there is a need for friendly warnings when a post was made in jest.



Hmm… it seems like you're referencing something familiar there…

Little peak behind the curtain with myself, then. Nothing I do or say is in isolation. In other words, I was not responding to a one-off comment, but looking at a pattern of behaviour and interaction, and offering a genuinely felt push towards a more useful and positive way to engage here. And believe me, it was very friendly.



Steve said:


> I appreciate that it's coming back up.  Thanks, jks9199 for expressing it, and to geezer for bringing it back to the top of the list for discussion.
> 
> Truly, if we "attack the post and not the poster", if we discuss the posts and avoid judging the posters, we'd all be in better shape.  Threads wouldn't go south very often at all.  If a person has something to add, they should feel free to express it, whether they have been training for days, years, or decades.  I've seen some alarming ignorance in my life, personally and professionally, from people who have been at it for a very long time (whatever "it" might be).   i've also benefited from profound insight and brilliance by people who are relatively inexperienced.



With regards to "attack the post, not the poster", in some cases it's simply not that easy to separate them… which is where that entire line of reasoning falls down. And the basic reality is that not everyone has something of value to offer… despite their beliefs. The idea that "everyone is entitled to their opinions" is often misconstrued to be "everyone is entitled to have their opinions heard and given equal weight with others". Simply, no. There are some examples coming up, actually… 



Steve said:


> That said, personally, I don't think that the threads going South is entirely a courtesy or friendliness issue.  I think it's also a clique issue.  We have a few cliques, and no matter how friendly and courteous people are, cliques can be destructive.  One person says something, and someone else disagrees because of who said it, even if there's a lot of common ground.  Intent is misconstrued and sides are taken.  And if a person from one clique disagrees, it's not long before the rest of the gang joins in.



I don't know that that's really the way things go in many cases (it certainly does in some, but I don't think that's the majority of cases). The real issue is more along the lines of "frogs in a well"… 



Steve said:


> My suggestion, for what it's worth (maybe not even 2 cents), is that we could all stand to be a little more tolerant.  Tolerant of ignorance and/or youthful enthusiasm for some (because, afterall, haven't we all been guilty of both in our lives?). Tolerance of a little crotchetiness and a curmedgeonliness for others.  And tolerance for ideas that are contrary to our own, regardless of how sensible and "educated" we may believe them.



I get where you're coming from, Steve, I really do… but honestly, I don't agree. I know, big surprise… 

The issue I see with "be more tolerant" is that, in many cases, it's simply not warranted. Tolerance, when taken to an extreme, is just enabling… it's enabling false beliefs… it's enabling bad ideas… it's allowing the bad to be given equal voice with the accurate and correct. And, in that view, tolerance leads to a lowering of positive communication.



Touch Of Death said:


> The best way to critique, is to use the Oreo cookie effect. Hey, I like that, you could fix this part, but over all it was awesome.



That only works if all parts are equally correct… giving "positive" critiques when you have to invent them, or stretch to find them, only serves to bolster the idea that the person has more positive to offer than perhaps they really do. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> We should not involve "YOU and I" in any discussion. IMO, instead of saying, "I want to ...", it's better to say, "you (general YOU) may want to …".



But… what if I'm, for example, directing my comments towards you? I mean… to be frank here, John, you have a tendency to try to enter into discussions of specific aspects of specific arts, ignore what's actually being asked, and give general "advice" on what you think all martial arts should have, or be about… in many cases, being completely out of your depth in regards to the art you're supposed to be discussing. In those instances, I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask you, specific and in particular, what you're talking about, and why you think what you're saying is even relevant.

To put it another way… you (generic "you") might want to stop and think if you actually understand what you're talking about, or have any understanding of the topic and subject before you tell people how they should do things. Oh, and that wasn't such a "generic you" there, by the way… 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone asks a general question, you may want to give your suggestion. After all, if the OP can ask his teacher, he won't need to ask here. When you do that, if others may not agree with your suggestion, you don't really need to respond to them. After all, it's the OP who is looking for suggestion. There will always be someone who does agree with your suggestion. To respond to those posts will definitely bring you into endless argument.



Or, by responding to those who disagree, you might be given the opportunity to solidify your beliefs, demonstrate why you're correct, or re-assess your understanding… 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example and it had happened in the past.
> 
> A: What should I do if ...
> B: you may try ...
> C: What make you think that you are qualified to give any suggestion to A?
> D: That's the worst suggestion that I have ever heard.
> E: Are you stupid or something? You are totally clueless.
> B: ...



Well, let's look at some such examples, yeah? You've entered into specific questions about specific training methods in judo forums (on another forum, for the record), ignored the fact that you don't know anything about the training method (or judo itself, for the record), give your (frankly, uninformed) views which not only ignore what was actually being asked, but in cases directly contradict what was being asked about… and then wonder why you're asked about your credentials and ability to answer such questions? Or we could look at a thread here, on self defence books… where the OP asked for specific recommendations on books covering self defence (which is not fighting, nor martial arts)… and your answer was "why would you want books? Martial arts are for doing! If you can do this (picture of a comic character punching through someone's head), why do you need books?"… again, completely ignoring the thread, the OP's request, their context, and everything else. Frankly, when you do that, I feel it's more than valid to pull apart your posts.



Xue Sheng said:


> But...but... what if they have offended my family and they have offended the Shaolin Temple.
> 
> Now to put my more serious hat on, I agree with this post, but there have been occasions, on MT in the CMA section where there were outright lying frauds (lineage claims) or those suggesting types of training that if done wrong are harmful or are harmful not matter how they are done..... how should one deal with that?



Good question.



Gnarlie said:


> By supplying evidence that casts doubt upon those claims and allowing people to draw their own conclusions.



Yeah… of course, when the original claimant continues with their claims, you need to keep supplying more and more evidence… repeating over and again what's been said. And, honestly, that gets old. And, again, we get back to the idea of frogs in wells… 



Gnarlie said:


> I have been there too and I agree, but, I would credit the readers of this forum with enough nous to decide for themselves...therefore it would be less important to 'win', and more important to supply enough information for the reader to form their own conclusions in support of your own. It is not necessary to 'convert' or 'break' the person making the claim, to have them capitulate and say 'okay dammit you are right'.



Yeah… not sure I'd agree that the readers have enough "nous" to decide for themselves… the problem is that, in many cases, these areas are highly specialised… if you don't already have a fairly thorough background, it can be very difficult to discern what's real from what isn't. In Koryu forums, it's not uncommon for people to put up examples of groups claiming to be "traditional, samurai martial arts" that have no real basis in anything of the kind… but, unless you know what you're looking at, it's not easy for people to see. I mean… in a lot of cases, it looks just like what people might expect.



Gnarlie said:


> It's reasonable for someone else to say 'there is no evidence to support your claim, in fact all evidence points to it being highly unlikely. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so please provide us with evidence that what you say is true, otherwise the readership here will likely come to the conclusion that what you claim is indeed false.'
> 
> It could however be considered mean-spirited and not in the spirit of a friendly forum to cast aspersions about the poster's mental health based on a post like that. Doesn't that stray into personal attack territory?



Possibly. But then again, possibly not. As in everything, context is king.



Steve said:


> Why not stop with, "What a load of hokum?"  I mean, there are more diplomatic ways to say that, but you really have two clauses in your sentence.  "What a load of hokum" is essentially challenging the claim.  "Do your meds need to be adjusted?" is an unnecessary and destructive personal attack.



Or it's an expression of cynical humour designed to underscore how far from the expected reality the original comment was. It emphasises and strengthens the conviction behind the first part ("What a load of hokum") without explicitly saying "you're a complete lunatic who has no idea what they're talking about. If you honestly believe what you're saying, then you have either been lied to and been too stupid to recognise it, or it's a conclusion you came up with yourself, in which case you're a gullible fool with no filter for garbage, and no sense of critical assessment and thinking. I feel you are a danger to yourself and society, and should be heavily medicated, and likely sectioned away from the general public… or, at the very least, your interaction in any sense of "teaching" should be limited to nothing at all.".

What it really comes down to, though, is the perception in the reading. Is it really an "unnecessary and destructive personal attack"? I don't think so… and I think that those who feel it is are far, far too overly sensitive about such things, or are looking for ways to interpret such comments in an overly negative fashion.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> Instead of trying to point out the errors in someone's post as in the following example.
> 
> A: aaa bbb ccc ddd eee fff ...
> B: aaa bbb  should be aax bbx.
> B: ccc ddd should be ccx ddx,
> B: eee fff should be eex ffx,
> B: ...
> 
> Why not just express your own view instead of pointing out what can be wrong in someone's post.



Because sometimes you really do need to simply correct errors. Frankly, if you're wrong, I will say you're wrong. And I will commonly demonstrate why. It's got nothing to do with "views", it's to do with correct or not.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Also there is no need to bring the "style" into any discussion. Judo guys like to "grab" and Taiji guys don't. It's better to discuss the PRO and CON of the "grab" instead of saying, "In Judo, we do ..." or "In Taiji, we do ...". The moment that "style" is what you are trying to defend, the discussion can be easily get into argument.



Garbage. When discussing different methods/approaches/systems, it's essential to bring "style" into it. That's the whole discussion. This bizarre idea of yours that you can keep it out of discussions is why you keep jumping into threads and forums concerning systems you don't have a clue on, and trying to discuss without any knowledge… which is why you get the responses you do (such as you listed earlier).



Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone starts a thread, "What MA style should I train?" That thread will soon get into "my style is better than your style" argument. Do we really need a thread like that to tear us apart instead of bring us together? Can we have general MA discussion without trying to drag "style" into it?



You know, I've been involved in these forums for a while now… and honestly, threads such as "What MA should I study" usually don't go anywhere near "my style is the best" at all. Most commonly, it's a series of questions about what the poster is after, what's around them, and some suggestions based on people's experience. These threads pretty much never "tear us apart"… bluntly, I don't know what threads you've been reading… but that doesn't happen here, or on MAP (where you're also a member).



Steve said:


> I don't know how successful we can be without ever bringing style into a discussion.  I'm a fan of being specific.  There's a middle ground between questioning or critiquing a style or a training model, and style bashing.



True.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we don't bring style into discussion, there will be no style bashing. Style means there are principles that you (general YOU) want to reference. Unfortunately when you only reference those set of principles, you may ignore principles used in other styles. Sometime, that will cause argument.



Again, garbage. Discussing within a style/system is done to, well, discuss within that system/style. Certain aspects will be highly specific… others will have some cross-over. It's got nothing to do with ignoring "other principles"… it's to do with having a common understanding. When discussing one systems approach within a larger framework/discussion, then you're talking about how that system does things… which again will reference the terminology/principles/concepts of that system. Without such specificity, there's not really anything to discuss.

Style bashing, on the other hand, commonly happens when people with no clue about the system try to criticise it from outside. But stylistic discussions are not automatically "style bashing".



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course if you don't cross train and you only train one style, your style will be your bible. But if you have cross trained, you may like to look at things from different angles and consider principles from all MA styles.



Which will only be applicable to some discussions, not to all of them. For some, stylistic specificity is required.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, if you only consider
> 
> - "defense your center from inside out", you may forget "defense your center from outside in".
> - "keep your center within your base", you may forget "move your center outside your base and take advantage on the gravity".
> - "body lead arm is more powerful", you may forget "arm lead body is faster".
> - "when you grab, you will have less freedom", you may forget "when you grab, your opponent will have less freedom."
> - ...
> 
> When style is not involved, we can look at things from all different angles and have a pleasant discussion. When someone said,
> 
> - "We don't do this in my style".
> - "It's against our style principles".
> - ...
> 
> The discussion will only be looked at from a certain angle and the discussion will start to become personal.



And, one more time, absolute garbage. 

Look, if we're discussing differing methodologies, tactical approaches, and so forth, looking at how different systems do things (not uncommon), then yeah, you kinda have to point out what is done or not, why and why not, in a particular system.



Steve said:


> I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense in a discussion about principles and such, but we aren't always talking about principles.



Yep. Even then, though, I'd say that what John is talking about is of limited genuine application.



Steve said:


> In a discussion about a style, it's kind of hard to dance around references to that style.  There's a thread right now about tessenjutsu, which seems to be a style that is often rolled into many other styles.  Different styles seem to use the fans differently.  Avoiding any reference to style might actually cause more trouble than it resolves, as you could end up with two people saying contradictory things and both be completely correct.



For reference, "tessenjutsu" isn't a style… it's a skill-set, a combative application of a particular weapon. There are "styles" of tessenjutsu, of course… but "tessenjutsu" isn't a style any more than "kicking" is a "style"….



drop bear said:


> You would also have to remove all the appeals to authority. Which brings your own style into the discussion.



I have no idea what you're talking about… what "appeals to authority"? And what do you mean by "your own style" being brought into the discussion?



Steve said:


> That's really interesting, but I wasn't referring to any kind of a paradox.  I was referring to stylistic differences.  In the example I mentioned, it appears that more than a few traditional styles teach tessenjitsu.  Some include no techniques that use the fan in an open position, and may teach that this is never done.  Others teach that there are a few specific applications for the fan in the open position.  They're both teaching tessenjitsu.



Psst… "jutsu"… not "jitsu"… wrong word there… 



Steve said:


> Who is correct?  I'd say both, but you wouldn't know it if you didn't get specific and carefully reference the style.



And here's what I was talking about earlier, in regards to people being able to make up their own minds. Bluntly, the simple lack of knowledge means that people like Steve here, who's an intelligent guy, can come to the conclusion that "both are correct"… or that, in traditional systems of tessenjutsu, some teach that the fan is never open, and some teach that it sometimes is… yet, when you look at the thread itself, the only people who have trained in anything like a genuinely traditional system incorporating tessen will tell you that it's always closed. The thread starter, training in a modern Korean form of karate, who have imported (created) a weaponry syllabus, doesn't train in a traditional (historical) system of tessen… most others saying it is used open qualify their statements by pointing out that they don't have experience in this area… and cited Chinese systems and anime, rather than anything Japanese… yet here we have Steve saying that he'd say "both (are correct)". No.


----------



## Transk53

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… it seems like you're referencing something familiar there…
> 
> Little peak behind the curtain with myself, then. Nothing I do or say is in isolation. In other words, I was not responding to a one-off comment, but looking at a pattern of behaviour and interaction, and offering a genuinely felt push towards a more useful and positive way to engage here. And believe me, it was very friendly.



Okay. Perhaps I viewed that post as being something more then. Yes it I was referencing yourself, but did want to appear I was accusing you. As I often have to say, I read things a little to black and white sometimes. For what it is worth, no personal offence was meant.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> With regards to "attack the post, not the poster", in some cases it's simply not that easy to separate them… which is where that entire line of reasoning falls down. And the basic reality is that not everyone has something of value to offer… despite their beliefs. The idea that "everyone is entitled to their opinions" is often misconstrued to be "everyone is entitled to have their opinions heard and given equal weight with others". Simply, no. There are some examples coming up, actually…


It's VERY easy to attack the post and not the poster.  It's a choice to do it or to not do it.   I presume you are self-aware, and so when you attack the poster, I am pretty sure you do it with intention.  You are making a choice to do it.  So, I absolutely believe that you have a reason (presumably what you would consider to be a very good reason) to attack the poster when you do it.  But it's simply about making the choice not to.

I think we can agree that there are some posters who have little to offer the forum.  I would bet, though, that my list would be fewer than 5 (and I can't think of any who haven't already been banned) while yours is much, much longer.  


> I get where you're coming from, Steve, I really do… but honestly, I don't agree. I know, big surprise…
> 
> The issue I see with "be more tolerant" is that, in many cases, it's simply not warranted. Tolerance, when taken to an extreme, is just enabling… it's enabling false beliefs… it's enabling bad ideas… it's allowing the bad to be given equal voice with the accurate and correct. And, in that view, tolerance leads to a lowering of positive communication.


Simple.  Don't take it to an extreme.  I'm certainly not suggesting that you do.  What I am suggesting is more tolerance, not absolute tolerance and anarchy.  





> Or it's an expression of cynical humour designed to underscore how far from the expected reality the original comment was. It emphasises and strengthens the conviction behind the first part ("What a load of hokum") without explicitly saying "you're a complete lunatic who has no idea what they're talking about. If you honestly believe what you're saying, then you have either been lied to and been too stupid to recognise it, or it's a conclusion you came up with yourself, in which case you're a gullible fool with no filter for garbage, and no sense of critical assessment and thinking. I feel you are a danger to yourself and society, and should be heavily medicated, and likely sectioned away from the general public… or, at the very least, your interaction in any sense of "teaching" should be limited to nothing at all.".


Ah, the, "Just kidding," approach.  You're a jerk... just kidding.  LOL.  Don't be so sensitive.  Personally.  I don't care for that approach.  It boils down to, "I disagree with you for these reasons, and you're a jerk."   More often than not, it's a clumsy approach at establishing a heirarchy.  It's usually irrelevant to the point, and it often weakens the message and clouds it in subjective judgement. 


> What it really comes down to, though, is the perception in the reading. Is it really an "unnecessary and destructive personal attack"? I don't think so… and I think that those who feel it is are far, far too overly sensitive about such things, or are looking for ways to interpret such comments in an overly negative fashion.


Fair enough.  You and I have different opinions on this matter, and I'm okay with that.  





> Because sometimes you really do need to simply correct errors. Frankly, if you're wrong, I will say you're wrong. And I will commonly demonstrate why. It's got nothing to do with "views", it's to do with correct or not.


If it's a fact, then it can be independently verified.  That doesn't mean that we now have to cite every source.  But it points to the distinction between fact and opinion, once again.  Facts can be verified.  Opinions are just that.  Now, is your opinion more credible than mine?  Well, how solidly grounded in facts is your opinion?  Are your facts independently verifiable? 

But, even the most credible opinion is still not a fact.  I remember a discussion we had regarding language a while back that comes to mind regarding how the Brazilians were spelling jiu-jitsu wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Steve said:


> Brazilians were spelling jiu-jitsu wrong.



Well they are...but we all know why...you BJJ guys are so enamored with us old School American Jiu-Jitsu guys that you adopted our spelling...because you want to be like us.... and who could blame you...based on our awesomeness, and attractiveness


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> If it's a fact, then it can be independently verified. That doesn't mean that we now have to cite every source. But it points to the distinction between fact and opinion, once again. Facts can be verified. Opinions are just that. Now, is your opinion more credible than mine? Well, how solidly grounded in facts is your opinion? Are your facts independently verifiable?
> 
> But, even the most credible opinion is still not a fact.



Factual assertion (easily verified): Jujutsu is the blanket term for a family of martial arts originating in Japan.

Factual assertion (verifiable with some work, but subject to the uncertainties of the historical record): Miura Ryu was founded by Miura Yojuiemon.

Opinion: Danzan Ryu (is/is not) a (legitimate/traditional) form of jujutsu. To reduce this to a verifiable question of fact, you must first precisely define what you mean by "legitimate" or "traditional." Since there is no consensus among the martial arts community (or even among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists) as to the meanings of these terms, you can't defer to authority. You have to explain what you mean by the terms in the current discussion. Even once you nail down your definitions, you will still have uncertainties regarding the underlying facts. (i.e. what exactly did Okizaki actually study besides Kodokan Judo?)

Opinion: The most important principles of judo are _Maximum efficiency with minimum effort_ and _Mutual Welfare and benefit_. Judo is practiced by millions of people with different goals and priorities and has evolved considerably over the 130+ years. What you consider to be the most important principles depends very much on who you are as a practitioner.

Factual assertion (easily verifiable): Jigaro Kano, the founder of judo, identified _Maximum efficiency with minimum effort_ and _Mutual Welfare and benefit_ as the highest goals of judo.

Opinion: The most effective way to execute a rear naked choke is _xyz_.

Factual assertion: In my 20+ years of grappling with non-compliant opponents, I have had a much higher rate of success executing the rear naked choke like _xyz_, as opposed to methods _abc_ or _123._


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Well they are...but we all know why...you BJJ guys are so enamored with us old School American Jiu-Jitsu guys that you adopted our spelling...because you want to be like us.... and who could blame you...based on our awesomeness, and attractiveness


Ha!  That must be it! 

Found the language discussion.  Pretty fun stuff.  I enjoyed reading through it again.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Chris Parker said:


> John, you have a tendency to … .


When 孟子(Meng Zi) said, "予岂好辩哉?予不得已也 (I don't like to argue, but sometime I just don't have any choice)." When he said that, he was arguing. Even ancient Chinese sage loved to argue, we normal human being should not expect us not to argue in our daily life.

But since this thread is trying to discuss "how to avoid argument", at least that what I think the subject is, I'm not going to respond to your post and start to "argue".


----------



## Transk53

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When 孟子(Meng Zi) said, "予岂好辩哉?予不得已也 (I don't like to argue, but sometime I just don't have any choice)." When he said that, he was arguing. Even ancient Chinese sage loved to argue, we normal human being should not expect us not to argue in our daily life.
> 
> But since this thread is trying to discuss "how to avoid argument", at least that what I think the subject is, I'm not going to respond to your post and start to "argue".



Hell why not, the reverse often counts.


----------



## Jake104

Transk53 said:


> I find it quite sad that Wing Chun practitioners cannot get along. It is prescribed condition!


We all get along. It's just an act. We pretend to disagree and argue to keep the rest of Martial talk entertained. I think we do a stellar job by the way. See, we had you fooled?


----------



## Transk53

Jake104 said:


> We all get along. It's just an act. We pretend to disagree and argue to keep the rest of Martial talk entertained. I think we do a stellar job by the way. See, we had you fooled?



Looking at that should have been *"is it"* Yeah I see what you are saying and probably most would be a little combative in a friendly way  Thing is though, I kind of sit there in front  of a screen and taking bets with myself as to whom will pull the trigger first  I wouldn't say anything is wrong though, just maybe somethings should be a little more measured. Like one post is outstanding with the conveyed content and ideas, only for another to be just as stellar, but bloody well confusing because it alludes to the opposite. Sometimes seems like there are a million types and a million ways to do Wing Chun kind of thing.


----------



## dvcochran

jks9199 said:


> As has been said many times, on-line communication has a huge potential for misunderstanding because so much of communication is nonverbal, and a forum is limited to text only.  We lose the nuance of tone of voice, facial expression, speech pace, and more.   Add in culture misunderstandings, and it only gets worse.  Emoticons and smileys help -- but even they can be misunderstood.  Even though two members may indeed understand that they are joking with each other, it's not always perceived that way by others and warnings are kind of equivalent to the security staff at an event "wandering by" to make sure that there isn't a problem.



Very well said. Verbal gesture's and expressions cannot be understated. Something impossible to replace or equal with written and certainly not with emoji's. I cannot feel the passion a person has about a topic reading it off the screen. Remembering how important the visual queue's are in conversation should help all of us be more thoughtful in what we write for all to see.


----------



## Buka

Critique.....that's what you hear when you're single.

Criticize.....well, you know.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Critique.....that's what you hear when you're single.
> 
> Criticize.....well, you know.


This thread makes me laugh.  @Chris Parker was in rare form.  Thanks for dredging it up, @Buka.


----------



## Buka

GordonnotRamsay said:


> True. I have been very careful about my reactions and wording online when I don't know the origins of the person I'm talking to. There were times when my joke was taken out of context as it seemed aggressive or offensive.



Welcome to Martial Talk, Gordon.


----------



## ThatOneCanadian

Critique: Your stance is too short. Push that knee over the toe.
Criticism: You have very bad basics.

Critique is when you point out specific problems and tell the person how to fix them.
Criticism is when you make a broad, negative statement and provide no elaboration or advice.


----------



## JerryL

Simon Cowell is one of the best judges on [whatever the name of the show he is/was on]. 

The reason is because he provides useful and specific feedback. It's not "I like it" or "I don't like it", but "you are doing this wrong, you should change it this way". 

As someone who has occasionally had DI's giving instruction; I'll take crass but specific over polite but useless... and I'm *far* more interested in being told what I have wrong than some sort of feel-good feedback.


----------



## kfman

I have criticized people in my style and they get all bent out of shape. Some people can't take it.


----------



## Balrog

jks9199 said:


> *Critique*: _evaluate in a detailed and analytical way_
> *Criticize*: _find the faults with or about something_
> 
> Please remember that there is a difference.  Many times, we find  ourselves criticizing posts and videos when they ask for a critique.   Critiques are generally factual and objective, though they may own  opinions within a critique.  If you want to stay on the right side of  the rules and friendly spirit hereabouts, review your post before you  hit send, and make sure that you're offering a critique rather than  finding fault.


In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise.  Find something positive to say about what they did.  Show them one thing they can do to improve it.  Praise them when they do that thing.


----------



## drop bear

The rule of thumb is to sandwich one bad thing in two good things or something.


----------



## Buka

People learn in different ways. People take criticism or even critique differently as well. It's always good to know how students react to things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The rule of thumb is to sandwich one bad thing in two good things or something.


Which is a usable concept (without worrying about the numbers), but only if the good things are real and as specific as the thing that needs to improve. Saying, "You did good. That kick sucked, though - not nearly high enough and your balance was off. But your movement was solid." won't work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> Which is a usable concept (without worrying about the numbers), but only if the good things are real and as specific as the thing that needs to improve. Saying, "You did good. That kick sucked, though - not nearly high enough and your balance was off. But your movement was solid." won't work.


Yup. Better option is "Your footwork leading into the kick was good, but when you actually kicked it seemed like your balance was off and that effected your kick height. It's great that you were able to keep your guard up throughout it though, you've really improved on that!" Ideally with a follow-up then on how to improve balance, rather than leaving them to figure it out on their own (unless it's something that you want them to figure out). 

Also, in reality, I've found that as long as the complement is sincere and related, and it's clear the critique is being offered in a helpful/productive manner, that you don't actually need to sandwich anything. One complement is normally enough, and depending on the person/your relationship, you may not need any. I do agree that the better option is to start off with a sandwich until you get to know the person better though.


----------



## geezer

Balrog said:


> In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise.  Find something positive to say about what they did.  Show them one thing they can do to improve it.  Praise them when they do that thing.


In my day job I'm a high school art teacher. This is exactly how I introduce students to doing critiques. Kids at that age can be really insecure, so I begin with informal _self-critiques. _

I ask them to begin by identifying at least one positive aspect of their project. Then they need to discuss something they would have liked to do better and finally conclude by considering how they might use this information to get even better results on their next project.

The two answers that are not acceptable are 1. "My project is perfect exactly as it is and I wouldn't change a thing." and 2. "It totally sucks and there isn't anything good I can say about it."

The error of #1 is pretty self-evident, and for #2, I point out that if you look hard enough, there is something useful to be gained ....even from what you think is a total failure. After all, even poop is good for fertilizer.  

....So it's really more than the "oreo" technique of  just sandwiching criticism inside layers of praise. It's examining the good and the bad, and considering how you can use knowledge of _both_ to improve. In other words, _what you said._


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise.  Find something positive to say about what they did.  Show them one thing they can do to improve it.  Praise them when they do that thing.


I call that the "hug, slap, hug" method, and I think it's a pretty terrible technique.  It muddies the waters.  Either the recipient of the feedback never hears the constructive feedback because it's so well hidden between praise, or they learn to distrust your praise waiting for the shoe to drop.  When someone is doing something you want them to keep doing, just give the positive feedback and stop.  If they are doing something you want them to stop doing, give them the constructive feedback and stop.   

At the very least, make sure you finish with the takeaway.  So, if you want to start with a bit of fluffing, "Nice job, overall, Bob. You have a lot of enthusiasm."  Finish with some specific positive or negative takeaway.  "I notice you are doing X.  Focus instead on doing Y."  Or, "I can see that you're really focusing on doing Y.  Nice job."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> In my day job I'm a high school art teacher. This is exactly how I introduce students to doing critiques. Kids at that age can be really insecure, so I begin with informal _self-critiques. _
> 
> I ask them to begin by identifying at least one positive aspect of their project. Then they need to discuss something they would have liked to do better and finally conclude by considering how they might use this information to get even better results on their next project.
> 
> The two answers that are not acceptable are 1. "My project is perfect exactly as it is and I wouldn't change a thing." and 2. "It totally sucks and there isn't anything good I can say about it."
> 
> The error of #1 is pretty self-evident, and for #2, I point out that if you look hard enough, there is something useful to be gained ....even from what you think is a total failure. After all, even poop is good for fertilizer.
> 
> ....So it's really more than the "oreo" technique of  just sandwiching criticism inside layers of praise. It's examining the good and the bad, and considering how you can use knowledge of _both_ to improve. In other words, _what you said._


One of the training companies I've done work for teaches a similar approach (so contract trainers can help each other out). They call it "LBs and NTs". You talk about what you *liked best *(including what you're planning to steal from them), then what they could do to be even better *next time.* As with your approach, when this is used to prep new trainers, the new trainer gives their own LBs and NTs first.

I think the focus on "next time" or "next project" puts the focus on moving forward. What they just did is what it is, now what can we use from that to do better in the future?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I call that the "hug, slap, hug" method, and I think it's a pretty terrible technique.  It muddies the waters.  Either the recipient of the feedback never hears the constructive feedback because it's so well hidden between praise, or they learn to distrust your praise waiting for the shoe to drop.  When someone is doing something you want them to keep doing, just give the positive feedback and stop.  If they are doing something you want them to stop doing, give them the constructive feedback and stop.
> 
> At the very least, make sure you finish with the takeaway.  So, if you want to start with a bit of fluffing, "Nice job, overall, Bob. You have a lot of enthusiasm."  Finish with some specific positive or negative takeaway.  "I notice you are doing X.  Focus instead on doing Y."  Or, "I can see that you're really focusing on doing Y.  Nice job."


I think the problem often is in how people try to implement the concept. Firstly, they often get over-focused on the exact formula (when the concept is really about making sure they know it wasn't all bad). Secondly, the "compliments" are often added as a softener for the constructive feedback. If the praise is genuine, then it should be automatic. And if the issue isn't part of something they did well, then adding some irrelevant or insincere praise just makes it all worse.

I suspect this approach was really designed to get managers to give some danged praise. It's easy in some situations to get focused on fixing things, and only giving feedback when something is wrong, which can lead to the folks getting the feedback feeling like you don't really appreciate them. If you routinely give positive feedback when things go well, that part is accomplished without needing this as a crutch.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think the problem often is in how people try to implement the concept. Firstly, they often get over-focused on the exact formula (when the concept is really about making sure they know it wasn't all bad). Secondly, the "compliments" are often added as a softener for the constructive feedback. If the praise is genuine, then it should be automatic. And if the issue isn't part of something they did well, then adding some irrelevant or insincere praise just makes it all worse.
> 
> I suspect this approach was really designed to get managers to give some danged praise. It's easy in some situations to get focused on fixing things, and only giving feedback when something is wrong, which can lead to the folks getting the feedback feeling like you don't really appreciate them. If you routinely give positive feedback when things go well, that part is accomplished without needing this as a crutch.



When I was in the USAF decades ago, there was a saying that one "awshit" cancels out a dozen "attaboys."  In sales, a similar rule of thumb is that people are likely to share outstanding service with one other person, but share bad service with 10.  I don't know if there's any actual science to either of these, but they were widely shared pearls of wisdom.  

In management, this same concept is that you should be looking for things that people do right and praising them for it as often as possible.  I don't know if there's a ratio that makes sense, but I will say if the constructive feedback is more than 10% of your overall feedback to an employee, they will get the impression they aren't doing a good job.  If they really aren't, great... sometimes, that's the look you're going for.  However, if they are doing just fine, messing up the balance of good to bad can send great employees into a tailspin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> When I was in the USAF decades ago, there was a saying that one "awshit" cancels out a dozen "attaboys."  In sales, a similar rule of thumb is that people are likely to share outstanding service with one other person, but share bad service with 10.  I don't know if there's any actual science to either of these, but they were widely shared pearls of wisdom.
> 
> In management, this same concept is that you should be looking for things that people do right and praising them for it as often as possible.  I don't know if there's a ratio that makes sense, but I will say if the constructive feedback is more than 10% of your overall feedback to an employee, they will get the impression they aren't doing a good job.  If they really aren't, great... sometimes, that's the look you're going for.  However, if they are doing just fine, messing up the balance of good to bad can send great employees into a tailspin.


I agree those ratios are probably more conceptual than anything. My experience (and what I know of basic studies that seem to relate) supports the concept that most people need more positive feedback than most of us give without thought, and more positive feedback than constructive (possibly because we, as a culture, don't get enough of the former in other areas). As with anything, there are people who are exceptions - both in what they need as recipients, and in what recipients seem to need from them. And they are just that: exceptions.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I agree those ratios are probably more conceptual than anything. My experience (and what I know of basic studies that seem to relate) supports the concept that most people need more positive feedback than most of us give without thought, and more positive feedback than constructive (possibly because we, as a culture, don't get enough of the former in other areas). As with anything, there are people who are exceptions - both in what they need as recipients, and in what recipients seem to need from them. And they are just that: exceptions.



I never know around here, but I think we're saying the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I never know around here, but I think we're saying the same thing.


I'm a bit sleep-deprived, so I may be babbling a bit.


----------



## Diagen

Are there real examples you can cite.


----------

