Feedback for "On Accepting Criticism"

[Integrity]

I think I'm supposed to make one of these. Never done this before, but okay.

Oh yeah, is there supposed to be a link?

[Paperblade]

Fucking terrible.

0/10

would not read again

edit: hold on let me actually read it

[Parrhesia]

I HEARTILY CONCUR

This has the advantage over mine in that it didn't take like three minutes and is actually structured.

[Paperblade]

On actual read this is probably the best thing ever. I'm going to print this out and frame it on my wall. Or at least put it on the refrigerator.

[Life]

That was shit. You should be ashamed of yourself. I SAW TOO MANY COMMAS.

[Phoenix]

I liked it. Despite the absurd amount of humor I found a few gems in there I'm going to polish off and take with me for the rest of my days. You have my thanks.

[Original Alear]

It lets you see a good critic, and gives you the insight to latch yourself onto him - but not too closely, lest he become suspicious and shun you.

I frankly have no idea what the import of the latter part of this sentence is, and heretofore demand that it hastily be made clear for my undiscerning mind.

Just like in 17th century warfare, it's important to keep formation even when you're being shot at.

Actually, during the Revolutionary War Continental (admittedly 18th century warfare), soon to be American or dead, soldiers got out of formation when battling their British opponents and benefited from it. And if your unit is in a bad spot, breaking and running or lying down might be the best chance for your miserable, craven existence to go on a little longer. But hey, I admit to being no expert on 17th century warfare, and don't really have any strongly held convictions regarding whether the formations are important or not. Just suspicions.

There's even wisdom in the layman's critique, if you've a mind to look for it!

More like there might be wisdom and there might not be. Some people read something and just get confused about it, I suspect. It's up to you whether you want to make it your job to make things clear to them, and generally as clear as possible to the widest possible audience, or write to a more narrow audience - perhaps even primarily working on satisfying your own standards.

Respond positively to their good points and even take the first step towards forging friendships.

Why would I want to do anything like that over the internet?

The need to have three points in an essay is, I suspect, an arbitrary stipulation of our scholastic educations which really has no merit, and I see no reason why, in this essay, the first and third paragraphs were made separate like the heavens and the firmament or the waters of the red sea by the second. Simply combining the two and making a thicker single paragraph would make more sense to me. As it is I find the effect of reading this essay like coming back to a point I have already heard, rather than getting a firm elaboration on a point.

From the first paragraph:

Remember, little Broey, you've got to stay cool under fire.

Just like in 17th century warfare, it's important to keep formation even when you're being shot at.

Back to the point, one must keep calm and carry on.

There's even wisdom in the layman's critique, if you've a mind to look for it!

And from the third:

It's a frame of mind that lets you read the angry criticisms of the mob and think "I think there's actually a point here."

It also lets you read poorly written criticism without getting worked up over it.

It's your savvy, your inward coolness, that keeps you from getting riled up over nothing.

I think if you compare and contrast these quotes, one finds that what is being talked about in one set is much the same as the other. For instance, the second quote in the first paragraph and the third in the third, or the fourth from the first and the first from the third.