Pro-tip: Not all "honest critique" is honest.
How do you know the difference? Honest critics are honest with themselves first. They hold themselves to standards of honesty & decency before critiquing others.
How do you know the difference? Honest critics are honest with themselves first. They hold themselves to standards of honesty & decency before critiquing others.
Here's the thing: I've never been surprised when a person's ulterior motives have been revealed. I may not have known what exactly was driving him or her, but a posture was on display for years before the details came out.
People talk about how you can't police "tone" & how we shouldn't worry if someone is brash, dismissive, or condescending in their communication. But I believe the medium is the message & form follows function.
Brash, dismissive, condescending speech stems from a brash, dismissive, condescending heart. The words aren't the problem; what they reveal about the heart is.
So a word to the wise, don't waste your own credibility defending folks who don't pass the "honest critic" test. Honest critics are the first to admit their own weakness, the first to learn, the first seek understanding.
The honest critic is the one who knows he or she still has so much to learn. The honest critic debates in order to improve & better ideas for the sake of everyone. The honest critic will engage in conflict but does not seek it.
We must not shy away from dissenting opinions & free exchange of ideas. We must not silence good-faith critique. But we *must* learn the difference btwn honest critics & critics intent on destruction.
