Don’t be a hater: on criticism and negotation

Finally, I have a hater. A recent comment by “Steven” on my post about a recent Pizza Bar debacle left me pondering the utility of the ad hominem attack. “You need to grow up,” he wrote. “Your behavior was childish, and your blog post underscores your immaturity.”

Sandwiched in between that high praise was Steven’s point: that my gripe was ill-founded for x and y reason. I can agree with Steven’s point, but I do wonder what his real purpose was. If he wanted to change my mind, his method was curious. If he just wanted to make me feel bad, he should probably find a better hobby.

I used to be a somewhat insulting person. I didn’t realize it, but I would pepper my conversation with little snarky comments and put downs. I didn’t mean anything by it; it was just my way of communicating after growing up with a lot of lively and often cutthroat discussion around the dinner table. Little put downs were really just love taps, like the stupid things boys say to each other (”What’s up retard?”) before they realize that positive displays of emotion aren’t emasculative.

At some point in college, I got the message that sarcasm and put downs have their place, but should be delicately salted into conversation when necessary, or avoided altogether. I also dated a girl who couldn’t stand sarcasm, and so these days, several years later, I’m a lot less critical-sounding than I once was.

I’ve lost some edge, and my conversations at cocktail parties never seem to be as much fun as when I used to debate people just for the hell of it, but the advantages of being nicer and more constructive in criticism have been numerous.

Also, like someone who goes on a particular diet (as when avoiding salt or sugar), I’ve increased my sensitivity to the presence of unconstructive criticism. Oddly, it doesn’t bother me, but provokes curiosity. Why be negative when it almost never gets the outcome one would like?

Negotiation experts point out that there are three potential outcomes to any argument or negotiation (win-win, lose-lose, and win-lose) and the worst of these is when one party’s argument overwhelmingly carries the day. Because in life, outside of war and litigation, there is typically no judge to decide the outcome of a negotiation, and so an argument that leaves one party feeling bruised has done nothing to improve discourse, change someone’s opinions or further the search for truth.

Outside of children’s books, where mean characters are a cautionary tale, meanness has little place in civilized discourse. In real life, meanness is just plain unproductive.