How can you tell the difference between criticism and someone being an asshole?

[Freohr Datia]

Okay I don't really want to read through all of that text but one thing seems apparent to me...

Hoshi, there is constructive criticism and there is criticism.

Criticism is just plain judging, harsh or not.

Constructive criticism is judging, yet making it constructive, judging by offering helpful advice or details. If they don't do that, it loses its... constructiveness

Examples of just being insulting without being constructive about it just fall under plain criticism.

I can come up with examples in my head of constructive criticism that's somebody being plain rude about it which is probably where you're coming from, but not every rude criticism is constructive.

I hope that clears things up a bit...

Oh yeah and for example "that's terrible and you're wrong" is most definitely criticism. But how is it terrible? What about it makes them wrong? What can be done to fix it? Constructive criticism would offer this information. Plain criticism wouldn't, really (I guess unless criticism could be used as "criticism in general" it just wouldn't work the other way around, of course ^o^)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Freohr Datia

[HK Motendra]

From what it looks like, it seems you guys are blending the lines of criticism to having always be constructive, which is probably what Hoshi here is possibly(?) arguing, in regards to the topic. That being said, lines of criticizing and being a dick about critique aren't mutually exclusive either.

http://i.gyazo.com/ea8f2853d46a5607c8084bd010f169e5.png

http://i.gyazo.com/27dad6b5f544473a8ceffb05489c78bc.png

These definitions are not wrong, but the idea of constructive criticism is to indeed show criticism, which by that definition is disapproval, objective analyzing of faults etc, but in a way that the useful/helpful/positive points of what said criticism is saying is more easily understood, so that said artist can focus on making those improvements, instead of just being a factory recoil and having the artist/writer etc start all over again without any direction. Hence why it is worded as constructive-criticism: criticism via constructive methods

[spoiler=Live Example of Constructive Crit]

I go to another forum to gain advice and any critique on all of the signatures that I make. Each time, they word it in a way that doesn't come off as "I know better than you what is good and what is bad" (at least in my opinion). I'll even show you their exact wording, so you can see for yourself:

[spoiler=The actual sig she was critiquing]

I hope that clears the slate

EDIT: or Freohr can beat me to the punch.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Lord HK

[Freohr Datia]

Wow Hero-King same wavelength

[Sentacotus]

it's like pornography, you know it when you see it

Damn I know its FFtF but third post in and we're already mentioning porn. Not that I mind lol

But on a serious note its all about tact. You can tell when someone is trying to be constructive in how they word things like if they say "hey I see what you were going for here but did you think of x y and z" or even a more direct approach like "there's alot of flaws with this because..." Essentially making an honest effort to help the other person improve. Now the asshole will try to throw in snark either to be funny or get some personal fullfillment or enjoyment out of it by directly attacking the other person for the sake of attacking them with no benefit at all.

If in doubt I would just mention in the begining of whatever post (takes like 5 extra seconds) that you're just trying to be constructive because it can be harder to tell over the internet than in real life where you have tone body language etc.

Edited March 24, 2015 by LordTaco42

[Makaze]

http://i.gyazo.com/ea8f2853d46a5607c8084bd010f169e5.png

http://i.gyazo.com/27dad6b5f544473a8ceffb05489c78bc.png

that was a nice try at isolating a section my post to call the whole thing an example of not being crit....makaze was LITERALLY doing nothing but +1ing your post, and then i explained why it's wrong right after. to you. i'm not responding to makaze, i'm responding to you. you you you.

you repeated yourself with more words, albeit with your point a little cleaner this time, but i'll level with you...constructive criticism specifically is an explanation of something's faults or whatever, right. let's say not even labeling a whole statement, like "you're a bad artist because that drawing's eyes are terribly uneven as usual" and just highlighting the part about the eyes being uneven as the crit. why say something like "If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole."? when you say it like that, it totally implies that the hostility in any statement just invalidates the criticism...but it doesn't. it seems to me that the pure criticism in itself is very neutral. a positive phrase like "i love it" isn't part of the constructive criticism either.

but when you called it a "principle" this time, it made more sense, but when you say it as though "intent" makes or breaks the validity of a piece of criticism....you lost me idk what the frick you're talking about then. i didn't give my actual response to makaze i gave it to you, because these people agreeing with you are overlooking the same logic hole.

...unless you're trying to tell me that they added yet, another exception in the english language where when you have the 2 words together like that, you can't take the base definitions at face value anymore and it's just a synonym for "criticism that is constructive; nullified by any ill-mannered words or phrases"? i wouldn't count that out at this point because english has a ton of exceptions already, but if that's the deal then we can just call this a case of outdated information(on my part) but still just plain silly.

"well said" but still wrong lol. but i'm not surprised.

^^^^^^^see that? there's an example that actually works as an example of not-crit and just being negative

good guess though

The definition that I gave can be inferred by combining those definitions. Note that the second definition of criticism is the one being used here. The formal definition.

constructive + criticism: "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work" [when] "serving a useful purpose; tending to build up"

The actual nuances of constructive criticism are deeper than a just a compound word. Sometimes when we combine two separate words to create a new concept the new concept is greater than the sum of its parts. In a way, constructive criticism is an example of the second definition of constructive: "derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit."

How can it be inferred? A piece of constructive criticism must fit the definitions of both words to be called that. See what fits the bill and what doesn't.

If a piece of criticism ends up not being useful, then it is not constructive. Therefore it must be well-reasoned and executed to be constructive criticism.

If it does not tend to build up, then it is not constructive. Therefore it must tend to build up to be constructive criticism.

If a constructive response does not analyse faults and merits, then it is not criticism. Therefore it must be analytical to be constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism must be useful to the recipient, have an innate tendency to improve the work of the recipient, and have an analytical bent.

Not only is the combination of all three of these things unlikely without good will from the speaker, it can be argued that a piece that is made out of spite or indifference will not tend to build up, but can only build up by happy accident, and cannot be constructive. Therefore constructive criticism is defined by intent as well.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze

[peener weener]

What if the intent is constructive but it is not perceived as such? (Defensive artist, assholery)

[Makaze]

What if the intent is constructive but it is not perceived as such? (Defensive artist, assholery)

That's debatable. I think if it would tend to build up when applied to other people, then it's constructive, but some might say it isn't constructive unless it actually helps in a practical sense.

[Thor Odinson]

I've known people who are simply just too bullheaded to change to the most well-worded CC in a situation where it's appropriate for people to give CC (works posted on spaces intended to generate discussion about a topic posted at hand in many cases I've seen)

And it's not the fault of the people who try to give the CC being ignored (some stuff are VERY helpful, with personalised references and such) if someone simply ignores all criticism of any form and only wants people to sing praise to their work regardless of actual quality

On the flip side, some well-meaning people intending CC don't actually know what they're talking about and can give faulty criticism which sometimes ignore all context for the piece of work at hand

Edited March 24, 2015 by Thor Odinson

[peener weener]

Thats pretty vague though. But i guess it makes sense? Like if a piece of criticism was riddled with insults but the artist took the advice anyway for some god forsaken reasok i guess you could say it was constructive. If the inverse happens, a polite critique is rejected, then it wasnt really constructive because it didnt serve its purpose of building up

[Makaze]

Intends to build up + Actually builds up is an acceptable definition in my book, though I wouldn't be that rigid personally.

This topic wouldn't exist if it weren't a thin line.

[Freohr Datia]

Thats pretty vague though. But i guess it makes sense? Like if a piece of criticism was riddled with insults but the artist took the advice anyway for some god forsaken reasok i guess you could say it was constructive.

Weeeeeell I've had some people be totally rude when offering me criticism on my spriting, but I took the advice anyway because I cared more about improving than I cared about people being considerate to me about it. Though idr if I had to ask for advice in order for them to make their criticism constructive or if they made it constructive to begin with, either way the point still stands that people will have reason to listen to criticism even if it was assholey and at least had some explaining on what was wrong and/or how to improve

[Makaze]

Freohr explained why criticism and being an asshole don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It's like eclipse said. What really makes the difference between constructive criticism and just plain criticism is the intent behind it. The recipient can take it however they want, but that doesn't mean the person who gave it was or wasn't being an asshole. Being an asshole comes from within.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze

[HK Motendra]

When it comes down to that,I'd like to believe that with criticism, construction doesn't have to include being nice about it

EDIT: Wow, everybody's a ninja, apparently

Edited March 24, 2015 by Lord HK

[Moira]

looks like something straight from rs 2001

[Makaze]

When it comes down to that,I'd like to believe that with criticism, construction doesn't have to include being nice about it

It doesn't necessarily mean being nice about it; it means intending to have a constructive outcome [and tending to get it]. It's possible to use reverse psychology with provocation to get a positive outcome. It's not that uncommon. I don't think it makes you an asshole if your insults are a means to a benevolent end. Whether you are effective or not is another matter; if you continually fail to be constructive but do not change your ways then you need to reassess who your posts are really for.

looks like something straight from rs 2001

That's because it is.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze

[Nightmare]

I don't think it makes you an asshole if your insults are a means to a benevolent end.

It does, but it just makes you an asshole with a golden heart.

[Freohr Datia]

Yeeeeaaaah it does kinda depend on the recipient how effective it is. But I figure most people would want advice given nicely though and would be most receptive to that~

That's why as long as I have enough control over myself, if I really want people to listen to me, then I try to learn to speak their language rather than my own. theartsofbeingmanipulative

Edited March 24, 2015 by Freohr Datia

[Moira]

That's because it is.

wow I didn't realize it was

what/who is it?

[Nightmare]

Yeeeeaaaah it does kinda depend on the recipient how effective it is. But I figure most people would want advice given nicely though and would be most receptive to that~

That's why as long as I have enough control over myself, if I really want people to listen to me, then I try to learn to speak their language rather than my own. theartsofbeingmanipulative

Dang, Freohr's PRETTY GOOD at this.

[Makaze]

wow I didn't realize it was

what/who is it?

Gnome child.

[Moira]

Gnome child.

amazing!

I never knew you were such a hardcore rs fan Makaze

[Makaze]

amazing!

I never knew you were such a hardcore rs fan Makaze

I'm not. He said it just a bit ago.

[Moira]

I'm not. He said it just a bit ago.

did i miss it silly me

yeah so I went back and apparently I missed 2 pages of this thread

Edited March 24, 2015 by Moiraine

[deleted35362]

no i did not skip over freohr datia's post but

The definition that I gave can be inferred by combining those definitions. Note that the second definition of criticism is the one being used here. The formal definition.
constructive + criticism: "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work" [when] "serving a useful purpose; tending to build up"
The actual nuances of constructive criticism are deeper than a just a compound word. Sometimes when we combine two separate words to create a new concept the new concept is greater than the sum of its parts. In a way, constructive criticism is an example of the second definition of constructive: "derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit."
How can it be inferred? A piece of constructive criticism must fit the definitions of both words to be called that. See what fits the bill and what doesn't.
If a piece of criticism ends up not being useful, then it is not constructive. Therefore it must be well-reasoned and executed to be constructive criticism.
If it does not tend to build up, then it is not constructive. Therefore it must tend to build up to be constructive criticism.
If a constructive response does not analyse faults and merits, then it is not criticism. Therefore it must be analytical to be constructive criticism.
Constructive criticism must be useful to the recipient, have an innate tendency to improve the work of the recipient, and have an analytical bent.
Not only is the combination of all three of these things unlikely without good will from the speaker, it can be argued that a piece that is made out of spite or indifference will not tend to build up, but can only build up by happy accident, and cannot be constructive. Therefore constructive criticism is defined by intent as well.

but i mean if we're only following the 2nd and "formal" definition of criticism, wouldn't that render all comments that only address flaws....no longer considered crit but just labelled as....addressing flaws? or would it not? because if it is this way, then wouldn't that make "constructive" a word you chuck in front of criticism for emphasis? i feel like intent is being given too much credit here, as opposed to valid factual info(rather than opinion of course)

I've known people who are simply just too bullheaded to change to the most well-worded CC in a situation where it's appropriate for people to give CC (works posted on spaces intended to generate discussion about a topic posted at hand in many cases I've seen)

And it's not the fault of the people who try to give the CC being ignored (some stuff are VERY helpful, with personalised references and such) if someone simply ignores all criticism of any form and only wants people to sing praise to their work regardless of actual quality

On the flip side, some well-meaning people intending CC don't actually know what they're talking about and can give faulty criticism which sometimes ignore all context for the piece of work at hand

Thats pretty vague though. But i guess it makes sense? Like if a piece of criticism was riddled with insults but the artist took the advice anyway for some god forsaken reasok i guess you could say it was constructive. If the inverse happens, a polite critique is rejected, then it wasnt really constructive because it didnt serve its purpose of building up

kinda like this. what if crit is based all around false info that doesn't help anybody? is it still constructive crit? i mean, if the intent is there, and both the positive and negative feedback is there...

[Makaze]

no i did not skip over freohr datia's post but

but i mean if we're only following the 2nd and "formal" definition of criticism, wouldn't that render all comments that only address flaws....no longer considered crit but just labelled as....addressing flaws? or would it not? because if it is this way, then wouldn't that make "constructive" a word you chuck in front of criticism for emphasis? i feel like intent is being given too much credit here, as opposed to valid factual info(rather than opinion of course)

kinda like this. what if crit is based all around false info that doesn't help anybody? is it still constructive crit? i mean, if the intent is there, and both the positive and negative feedback is there...

The second definition covers a critical analysis of either flaws or merits individually, or both. It also specifies that it has to be analytical in nature. The first definition limits it to only tearing things down with no requirement for analysis.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze