Being a toxic critic is very easy. Doesn't take much effort. But, being a helpful critic is difficult.
A helpful critic:
- Points out flaws in your arguments
- Respectfully disagrees
- Puts forth his/her side of the argument neatly
- Adds value to the argument with expertise
A helpful critic:
- Points out flaws in your arguments
- Respectfully disagrees
- Puts forth his/her side of the argument neatly
- Adds value to the argument with expertise
It's easy to criticise from the sidelines that someone is wrong or that something is stupid.
It's 10x easier doing that anonymously.
It's 100x easier being a troll.
There's no skin in the game.
It's 10x easier doing that anonymously.
It's 100x easier being a troll.
There's no skin in the game.
For ex: If you have expertise in a subject, and you find someone make mistakes in what they share in your line of expertise, if you only troll that person - you're a toxic critic. If you hop on and help them improve what they share, or add to the discussion, you're a helpful one.
So, when it's utterly easy to be a toxic, hateful, and negative critic on this platform (or anywhere for that matter) and go unhinged, try and have some skin in the game, and be a helpful critic if you want to be one. Prioritize adding value before adding to negativity quotient.
By all means call out people preying on other people's weaknesses or naivete and swindling money. Call out charlatans who copyright someone else's content as their own.
But there's a fine line between criticising the idea vs attacking the person. Don't mix up the two.
But there's a fine line between criticising the idea vs attacking the person. Don't mix up the two.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
