Criticism

 

I have a computer bridge game that criticizes my play. It tells me what I should have made but never how I was supposed to do that.

Criticism can be a good thing.  Helpful criticism can correct mistakes, improve things, bring in new ideas and lead to healthy debate.  But, like the computer game, it too frequently doesn’t add anything positive to the criticism.

You see this in a lot of newspaper op-ed opinion pieces.  The writer will rail away at his or her target but provide no alternative advice. A lot of columnists make a career out of this type of writing.  Instead of adding anything new to the discussion, the criticism just leaves you hanging.  This is not helpful nor constructive.  It’s no use telling everyone what’s wrong with something or somebody without telling them why it’s wrong.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”       - Malcolm Forbes

Another abuse of criticism is to avoid the topic and attack the messenger.  You frequently see this in the comments section of on-line news stories.  In the most ridiculous cases, one commentator will start attacking another commentator just because they don’t agree with the message.  In other uses, the commentator will blame everything on a business or political leader.  This is particularly evident in attacking our current Prime Minister.  Everything is his fault.  “I got Covid-19; it must be the PM’s fault.”  “The war in Ukraine must be the PM’s fault.”  “I have hay fever; it must be the PM’s fault.”  You would think that the poor man must stay up all night plotting these horrible things. 

Too many critics don’t understand the topic they are critiquing.  Critics of healthcare who don’t understand that provinces are the arbiters of this field.  Critics of military procurement who don’t understand how that system works or the parts played by different players, including the courts.  Critics of banks and money who have no idea how monetary policy and bank management work.  Just a few examples.

“Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.”

  - A. H. Weiler

 There are of course professional critics; theater critics, political columnists, and book reviewers (confession: I have reviewed books for specific-topic magazines, and sometimes got in trouble for it).  Too many of them make the same mistakes as I’ve outlined above.  Theater critics who knit pick every little fault of a production without analysing why.  Political columnists who are so obviously biased that it removes all objectivity from their remarks.  The list goes on. But good ones don’t make these mistakes.  They provide insightful and fair comment with no hint of their own bias.

“The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he really is very good, in spite of all the people who say he is very good.”
  - Robert Graves

 In my mind, a good critique is one that gives a balanced approach to the subject at hand, provides reasonable alternatives to the problem they find at fault, avoid attacking the messenger, and give no hint of the particular bias they may hold.  Just as important, it is really important that the critic know the field they are criticizing. And finally, any criticism must be honest.  To argue using untrue facts or examples must be the worst sin of all. 

“I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
  - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle