Some writing on productive criticism (feel free to add more in this thread!)
Some writing on productive criticism (feel free to add more in this thread!)
Criticism of your work can feel harsh or like an attempt to attack your work (instead of an attempt to help it), and the way in which it’s presented can help a lot.
Let’s collect tips for making this go better. I’m kicking things off with my list, which heavily draws[1] from Supportive scepticism in practice.[2]
Please leave your favorite suggestions for making criticism more productive in the comments! I’m also starting a comment thread to surface good writing on the topic.
I wrote this before the recent post by Omega was published. I’ll be writing more on productive criticism later, and comments here could help. I think this is an important topic because criticism can be extremely helpful — or quite harmful — depending on how we approach it. I’d be excited to see us help people engage with it in healthier ways. Thanks to everyone who’s already been writing about this!
To illustrate why this can be useful, consider the following things someone could send me about the Forum Digest:
I would personally find it easier to engage with the second option, which means I could more easily realize that the person reaching out has a good point, or I could ask some follow-up questions if those would help — without everything feeling pretty aversive.
Using the Digest example again:
The agreement or appreciation can be something that you think is normal or minor, as even acknowledging something like that can help. For instance:
I think you can do this as part of giving context for why you’re writing your criticism — often, this will be because you actually care about the general goals of the people whose work you’re criticizing.
Public criticism can be really important; it can hold people and organizations accountable, helps stress-test ideas and practices, shares lessons across different situations, etc. But some criticism would be better shared in private, especially when you (the critic) are less sure of what you’re saying and your main goal is to improve the work and help the people doing it to be more effective in the future. Private criticism is also often easier for the person/people being criticized to engage with.
Here are some reasons to criticize privately instead of publicly (this is not an exhaustive list):
(More.) Back to the Digest example:
(More.)
(More.) Using the Digest example again:
The people you’re criticizing might have already tried what you’re suggesting or have extra information that you don’t know about which means their approach is better than you think. (Obviously, it’s absolutely possible that this is not the case! But sometimes it will be.)
Using the Digest example again:
Using the Digest example again:
This isn’t an exhaustive list! I can sketch out more tips that seem helpful,[4] but I’d love for readers to share tips that you think are especially useful, potentially with an example or a note about why you think this is a useful tip.
My post doesn't add a ton on top of the original post, which I really appreciate (and recently shared as a classic in the Forum digest), but it was shared 8 years ago, so many people haven't seen it, and I think we can build on it.
You can also see other tips — not all about “productive” criticism specifically — in the resource for criticisms and red-teaming that I co-authored a while back. (These include notes on hitting up, focusing on important topics, and trying to be aware of previous work.)
This is something I was a bit sad about with the Criticism Contest; I think it encouraged people to view some things through the criticism lens, when those things were actually suggestions, research building on older research, or the like.
I think that one of the main things for criticism to be productive is to have some idea of why things are the way they are and explain why you disagree with this reason.