There’s an asymmetry when it comes to creating versus critiquing. That’s to say critiquing is more prevalent than creating. Because we can play both roles, we need to be aware of the power and tendencies of each one.
Critiquing is ubiquitous—it seems to be our default. Upon seeing a new product or witnessing someone perform, we rush to make a judgment. YouTube is full of reaction and review videos, and message boards contain vast threads of critiques. This behavior seems to be inherent to the human condition. Why is that? And what can we do about it?
The Incentives and Their Pitfalls
Being negative, a critic, a pessimist, is easy. And it can make you look intelligent. Matt Ridley expounds upon this notion in his book The Rational Optimist:
If you say the world has been getting better you may get away with being called naïve and insensitive. If you say the world is going to go on getting better, you are considered embarrassingly mad. If, on the other hand, you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect a McArthur genius award or even the Nobel Peace Prize.
So it’s easy and it makes us look smart. Both are alluring reasons to be critical. But being critical just for the sake of it is not worthwhile. Pointing out potential pitfalls is useful, but stopping there is lazy. We have to go further, devising solutions and alternative routes to success. But that requires vulnerability. You are putting yourself out there each time you propose an idea. The Disney film Ratatouille illustrates this when a restaurant critic reflects on the value he provides versus that of a chef (creator) he is reviewing. He says:
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over others who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
This phenomenon is also captured in a Substack article about commenting versus making where the author says:
The biggest change in my professional maturity came when I became Actually Responsible for things. . . . I gained a lot of appreciation for people who make things, and lost a lot of tolerance for people who only pontificate. I found myself especially frustrated with my past self, whose default was to complain and/or comment, then wonder why things didn’t magically get better.
Maturity. That is what is critical for personal and professional progress. Good leaders have it in spades. Pointing at things and saying, “wrong!” or, “that won’t work!” lacks maturity and is not constructive. Digging in to understand potential problems and developing solutions requires maturity. In doing so, we are embracing the nuance prevalent in almost all situations. We are embracing responsibility. And ultimately that will make us more effective people and lead to better outcomes.
Know Your Role
If we are not creating, we must be cognizant of our roles as critics. The highest purpose of a critic is to provide a feedback loop wherein desirable actions are reinforced while undesirable ones are discouraged. When we strive to be that type of critic, we help others grow. But it is so easy to slip into pontificating rather than constructively guiding when the ego takes over.
Moreover, we need to be aware of the circumstances under which we critique. If we are not specifically asked to provide feedback, we risk overstepping and being ignored if we try to forge ahead with our critiques. When others are specifically seeking input—or they are influenced to ascertain other viewpoints—they are much more likely to be receptive to what we have to say. Ultimately, that is the goal. If others are not receptive to what we are sharing, then we cannot create an effective feedback loop. If we can’t do that, then is saying anything at all worthwhile?
Besides the low probability of someone taking into consideration our unsolicited advice, we must also abstain from that which we do not know. In other words, we need to stick to our circle of competence. When we stray outside its boundaries, we are much more likely to be wrong. Our believability plummets. The Dunning-Kruger Effect can hinder us in this endeavor, so we must be aware of what we actually know versus what we think we know.
Social media has negatively impacted us when it comes to defining our circle of confidence. Contrary to what is prevalent on various social media platforms, we don’t need to have an opinion on everything. When we do, we become another talking head and our opinion is worth less because we have so many. Conversely, if we selectively share our opinions, each one carries more weight. With rarity comes value.
Speak only if what you have to say is more beautiful than the otherwise silence.
And for the creators, knowing what criticism is worth considering as opposed to random feedback is crucial not only to the success of our project but also to our mental health. For this, we have Theodore Roosevelt and his “Citizenship in a Republic” speech (more popularly known as “The Man in the Arena” speech) to thank.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
We cannot include that quote without mentioning Brené Brown’s line:
If you’re not in the arena also getting your ass kicked, I’m not interested in your feedback.
Conclusion
Critics play an important role in life, but it’s often overplayed. And because we are all critics, we all risk overplaying the role. Do not reside in that realm; visit it on occasion, then return to learning, exploring, creating, dreaming, connecting, and maintaining. It is this dexterity that rounds us out to be effective people.
Remember this: creating is much more difficult than critiquing. It requires vulnerability, which is uncomfortable, at least in the short term. But vulnerability is the gateway to numerous positive emotions and outcomes. So much of life is like that: embracing short-term discomfort for long-term gains.
