Destructive criticism. Criticism and refutation

Marina Nikitin

The world is so arranged that all the actions of a person, the lifestyle is continuously evaluated by others and not always this assessment is positive. Negative opinion about someone else is called criticism.

Sooner or later, any of us is subjected to condemnation. And what stronger position The criticized personality than the brighter and its original way, the more negative he hears in his address.

How to react to a negative assessment of others? Is it worth listening to the opinion of people who do not share our views on life?

Benefit and harm criticism

How the criticism will be answered on the behavior of a person depends on his relationship to it: in some cases it will benefit, and another time will cause irreparable harm. People are adequate and not very. From someone, everything is like with a goose water: it is useless to criticize, there is enough hint to get upset. Criticism can also be different, depending on how it affects a person, which wears the message.

If the behavior of the criticized changes in best side, promotes it, does not injure the psyche, it automatically becomes useful, otherwise it is a constructive critic.

Her goal is the desire to help a person, discover the eyes of its own shortcomings, mistakes, correct the situation, and has the following characteristic signs:

Objectivity, justice and relevance - comments are expressed specifically in the case, in order to correct the situation, and the personality is not affected;
Argument and concreteness - the facts and evidence on which critic is based;
Goodwill - when the act itself is condemned, and not the one who committed it. Along with the negative moments, indicate positive sides, tone is respectful.

If the persecution of the victim's criticized by the victim is suppressed to humiliate his dignity, are expressed in an offensive aggressive form, then such criticism is called destructive. She destroys the identity, causes peace of mind with his victim, negatively reflects on reputation.

Destructive criticism expresses a purely subjective and negative attitude towards the persons criticized, there is no other purpose except to insult the personality, and has the following obvious signs:

Belief is a biased attitude based on personal hostility to a criticized, inadequate assessment of its behavior;
Vote - comments are taken out because the criticizing annoyed and he does not like everything, there are no clear reasoned justifications;
Potability - clinging to small things that do not affect the course of the case, and sometimes do not even have any relationship to him;
Cruelty - comments are copied in a humiliating tactless form or accompanied by rude insults to the accused, his feelings are not taken into account, the criticizing attacks his victim;
Transition to personality - not a deed, but a man himself

How to react to objective criticism

Objective criticism benefits, motivates, and, even if it takes destructive forms, it still can be benefited from it.

Competent, psychologically prepared person listens to her, separating the constructive remarks from, and will poison attention on what helps him develop further.

Thanks to this approach, the great celebrities made discoveries, brought the world a great benefit, made vertices and universal recognition. Therefore, it should be remembered: perceiving any comments in the bayonets, difficult.

A person who does not know how to recognize his own mistakes is not able to correct in a positive side. In addition to the destroying emotions, which will undermine his health, he risks to nourish himself an indispensable number of enemies, call and become a stubborn stubborn loser.

Direct all the forces in the track of hostility, instead of developing and improving, personality acts in harm, for which destructive criticism is calculated.

Learning to criticize constructively

By virtue of circumstances, we also have to become critics. Often, without thinking about the consequences, we succumb negative emotions, in the attack of anger and irritation offend expensive, close to the heart of people. And then, when we lose their trust, repent and blame yourself in all sins.

As a rule, their own children become victims of our criticism, and this is dangerous, because it forms them, destroys and cripples the psyche.

Emotional explosions occur, in most cases, uncontrollably and are the result of our own dissatisfaction, or explain to the inability to communicate.

Therefore, learn to criticize constructively, and for this, follow the basic rules:

criticize the affairs of a person without affecting his personality, for example: instead of the phrase "You're not suitable for anything," say: "Work is not good anywhere," then clearly indicate what you did not like it;
mark the positive aspects for whom the accusation has been collapsed, remember your drawbacks for example;
lead alone, public accusations hurt the pride of man, even if they are fair;
accent attention on the main disadvantages without failing to trifles;
tell me the problem solving options, perhaps your opponent simply does not know how to correct the situation;
control your own emotions, keeping a valid tone.

Showing condescension to people, making relevant fair comments in a friendly form, we help them see themselves from the part, contribute to improving them.

March 22, 2014.

Not every true statement may be strictly proven. In this sense, this is most characteristic of philosophy allegations, since the very nature of this science of its statement is very general. Therefore, their proofs are simply impossible.

The most common form of argument includes criticism of certain allegations.

Criticism is a logical operation aimed at destruction of the previously held process of argumentation.

By form of expression Criticism can be:

• but) implicit - This is a skeptic assessment of the positions of one of the parties participating in the argumentative process, without a specific analysis of the shortcomings and the exact indication on weak spots;
• b) explicit - An indication of the specific disadvantages identified in the opponent's arguments.

By direction Explicit criticism can be:

• but) destructive aimed at the destruction of the argumsntal process by criticizing the thesis, arguments or demonstration;
• b) constructive - the rationale for the opponent of his own thesis in order to refute alternative approval of the NR-understood;
• in) mixedcombining constructive and destructive approaches.

Destructive criticism and its types

In the dialogue, dispute, business conversation we defend our own views and at the same time refutate the position of the interlocutors. Without it can not be productive business communication. Therefore, it is necessary to be ready not only to justify the true positions, but also refute false.

1. Critica Tezisa Directed on the show of falsity or doubt: 1) by refutable by facts, 2) information to absurd, 3) through the proof of the antithesis - such a criticism is called a refutation.

Refutation - This is a logical reception, justifying the position of the extended position. It is aimed at destruction of evidence by establishing a false or unreasonableness of the previously advanced thesis.

Like the proof, the refutation structure has three elements: thesis of refutation, refutation arguments and demonstration.

Thesis of refutation - This is a judgment that you want to refute.

Refutation arguments - These are true judgments, with which the thesis is refuted.

Demonstration - This is a logical form of refutation.

Consider ways of refuting the thesis:

• 1) facts refutation (excess bases) - the most common way of refutation, when the thesis is directly questioned with the help of facts, events that take place in reality;
• 2) bearing absurd - this is the establishment of false (contradictory) of the consequences arising from the thesis;
• 3) proof of antitesisa (refutation from the contrary) - the way it is independently justified by a new antithesis, which is a judgment that contradict the refuted thesis. If in the process of consideration of the antithesis, it was established that it is faithful, then according to the law of the third, we conclude that the thesis is false.

The proof of the antithesis (indirect refutation) has the following structure:

• a) need to refute the thesis BUT;
• b) form an antithesis non- A. (reverse statement);
• c) directly prove the truth of the antithesis of non- A.;
• d) the truth of non- A. means falsehood A.As required to prove.

For example, it is necessary to refute the thesis that no innocent is convicted by the court. I put forward the antithesis: "Some innocent are convicted." Experience testifies that such facts took place. Tens of thousands of innocent citizens of Russia were convicted in Stalin's time and are rehabilitated subsequently. Consequently, the antithesis is true. In this case, the initial position that no innocent is convicted by the court, falsely.

2. Criticism arguments aims to show the insolvency of the arguments used by the opponent to justify the thesis. It is carried out in three ways: by direct or indirect refutation of arguments, through the law of a sufficient basis, through the indication of a dubious source of receipt of information.

Direct or indirect refutation of arguments - This is a show of their insolvency by appeal to experience, to the facts. For example, the thesis that Jupiter has satellites, you can try to prove by building a simple categorical syllogism: "All planets have satellites. Jupiter - Planet, therefore, Jupiter has satellites." Formally, deductive conclusion is made correctly. But actually a large package (all planets have satellites) is false, since Venus has no satellites, i.e. To justify the thesis (Jupiter has satellites) you need to attract other arguments.

False and doubtful arguments are often shown through law of sufficient foundation. This method is used when there is not enough arguments to proof the thesis, when the interlocutors apply dubious arguments, having a vague idea of \u200b\u200bthe arrangement of the dispute when the place remains for inappropriate issues of the type: so what?

We encounter convincing confirmation of such a situation at A. P. Chekhov in the "letter to neighbor's scientist": "Why is the winter day short, and the night is long, and in summer, on the contrary? Winter day is short, which is similar to all other objects visible and invisible from the cold compressing And because the sun comes early, and at night, the remnants of the lamps and the lanterns expand, because it is warmed. " In this reasoning, the requirement of the law of a sufficient basis is violated, according to which any true thought should be justified by other thoughts, the truth of which has already been proven. There are also arguments that themselves need proof, and therefore they cannot be recognized as sufficient basis.

Sometimes the lack of arguments to justify this or that thesis are trying to overcome with the help of not always correct statements: "I am sure that this event took place"; "I do not have confidence in the existence of this fact"; "I think and think that I will agree with me" and others. Confidence itself does not mean the actual truth of the statement, as well as uncertainty speaks of his mistakes. The truth of the arguments is determined by the non-subjective sense of confidence and not the assurances of the speaker, but the objective indicators of their authenticity: preceding experience, scientific data, directly inspection of relevant judgments.

The refutation of the arguments can be carried out through the indication on dubious source of information - These include rumors, gossip, speculation, etc. They are generated by insufficient information and most often give a distorted reflection of the actual state of affairs. Such sources of information cannot be a reliable basis for obtaining true arguments. This is especially unacceptable, in disabilities in science.

With the refutation of the arguments, their falsity or deficiency is established for the proof of the thesis. It should be noted that the falsity of the arguments does not mean the feelings of the thesis, but indicates the incorrectness of the refutation operation.

3. Criticism demonstration Shows errors in the form of proof, notes the absence of the necessary logical connection between the proof theses and arguments. Since the refutation always passes in the form of deduction, induction or analogies, with the help of which the thesis is criticized, then it is necessary to carefully monitor that the rules of conclusion. If the thesis does not flow out of the arguments, then it is considered unreasonable.

The denial of the demonstration also does not mean the feelings of the thesis. However, it is obvious that the correctness of the demonstration affects the correctness of the refutation as a whole. In thinking, the value of the refutation is extremely large, since with the help of this logical operation it is possible to reduce the number of false statements and delusions.

Criticism is something that can be easily avoided, nothing to say, without doing anything and being anyone. So categorically expressed Aristotle even in its ancient times. That is, the criticism, she is like a policy - if you yourself do not criticize, then someone will criticize you. Every day, people face an expression of feelings and assessment of the result not only of their actions.

Criticism - what is it?

You can often hear - "I do not react criticism in my address" or "This critic with approval responded about the film." And many more other phrases in which the word critic appears from ancient Greek. Kritikos at the Greeks meant "Art of Disassemble". Criticism is:

1. Making judgments about the advantages of something.
2. Crowning, error search.
3. The art of analyzing and evaluating artwork.

Who is a critic?

The critic is not only a person who judges and appreciates, it is also a specialty. Professional critic analyzes artwork:

• literary;
• musical;
• theatrical;
• architectural;
• cinematographic.

It is for him to criticize it to weigh all aspects - to consider ways to transfer the material, to estimate the degree of how much the author has been able to achieve its goal, whether the selected funds are justified. Good critic owns the subject he disassets. A famous cultural critic was philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He wrote critical essays about religion, morality, contemporary art and science.

Criticism - Psychology

Criticism in psychology is a matter of great interest. Psychology explores cognitive and emotional criticism effects. Psychologists are interesting:

1. The intentions that people have for criticism.
2. The influence that criticism is on people.
3. How people react to criticism and how they cope with it.
4. Forms of criticism.
5. Denial criticism.

For psychologists, criticism is a form of protection of the ego. They found that people who are prone to constantly evaluate others, often criticized in childhood, when it is most of all. Children at the age of seven years in the phrase "You are a good boy, but it is bad behavior" see only the second part. Any criticism, even very soft, means for a child that he is bad and unworthy.

Criticism is good or bad?

Criticism is good if you have a positive attitude to it. This is an important life skill. Each person is criticized, sometimes - professional. Sometimes it is difficult to accept it, but it all depends on the reaction. You can use criticism:

• in a positive way, which leads to improvement;
• negative, which reduces self-esteem and causes stress, anger or even aggression.

What is the criticism?

There are many species of criticism. They differ in the sphere of use, the method of filing and perception, and the goals that are pursued. Criticism happens:

1. Aesthetic. About beauty and deformity, taste and miserable, style and fashion, sense and quality of the work.
2. Logical. About the idea, argument, action or situation that do not have rational meaning.
3. Actual. No sufficient number evidence.
4. Positive. On positive, but ignored aspects. Often people see only negative side something, therefore, it becomes necessary to allocate positive. Often used for self-defense and excuse.
5. Negative. That incorrectly and meaningless. Expresses disapproval, disagreement and emphasizes the shortcomings. Often interpreted as an attack.
6. Practical. About useful effect.
7. Theoretical. The meaning of ideas on which practice is based.

A lot of criticism - it is an integral part of almost all spheres of human life. But the most famous two types and destructive criticism. Indeed, how many options for criticism did not exist, all of them can be divided into these two "camps". The difference between constructive and destructive criticism lies in the method of filing judgment.

Constructive criticism

Constructive criticism is designed to identify errors and help, which, where and how to improve. It should be considered as useful feedback. When the criticism is constructive, it is usually easier to accept, even if she offends a little. It is important to remember that it can be used in its own interests. Therefore, holidaying criticism in someone's address is to think about what benefit it will bring. Rules of constructive criticism:

1. Follow the "Sandwich" method: first focus on strengths, then disadvantages, and at the end - repeat advantages and possible positive results after elimination of minuses.
2. Do focus on the situation, and not on.
3. Specify feedback.
4. Recommendations how to do better.
5. Avoid sarcasm.

Destructive critics

Destructive criticism hurts pride and negatively affects self-esteem, deprives sure. The destructive criticism is sometimes just a thoughtless effect of another person, but can also be deliberately angry, and in some cases lead to anger and aggression. Types of destructive criticism:

1. Bias. Criticizing does not allow that it can be wrong.
2. Nebula. The assessment is given without specifics.
3. Inappropriate. The arguments are not related to the case.
4. Contempt. Statement of judgment in a rough manner.
5. Vote. Without examples and justifications.
6. Outness. Rejection of alternative points of view.

How to criticize right?

There are two types of critical behavior:

1. A man objectively weighs the pros and cons, after - makes conclusion.
2. The criticizing issues judgments based on emotions.

The latter often conjugates cruelty. Criticism in this case stems from the inner sense of dissatisfaction and continuous effort to resist him. The person prone to "emotionally" to criticize is trying to increase self-esteem, denying the value of another person. Such a criticism is based on arrogance and is a "killer" of relations.

The golden rule, which psychologists recommend adhere to - "Respect a person. Focus criticism on behavior, which you need to change - on what people do and speak in fact. " In any case, whatever criticism does not fall, you need to remember that it can be extremely useful if you remember:

1. Criticism is a form of communication.Taking criticism, you get feedback, and with it the opportunity to correct for the better.
2. Feedback helps to become better. If you always think that you are right, not receiving feedback from anyone, how to find out what it really is?
3. Proper criticism gives an advantage. This is especially true of the professional sphere, if the client can tell what ideal product or service he needs.
4. You need to answer criticism correctly - the language is very important.It is better not to enter into a dispute.
5. No need to take criticism, even seemingly extremely unfair, close to heart.

Criticism

Along with the receptions of the justification of the thesis, the art of arguments also assumes mastering rational techniques critics .

Criticism - this is a logical operation aimed at the destruction of the previously held process of argumentation. .

In the form of an expression critic implicit and explicit .

Implicit critics- This is a skeptic assessment of the position of proponent without a specific analysis of deficiencies and accurate indication of weak points. Doubt in this case express in about this form: "Your ideas seem to me doubtful," "I treat your statements very skeptical", etc. The request for clarification and concretization of such criticism is usually left unanswered.

Explicit criticism- An indication of specific disadvantages identified in proponent arguments.

In the direction of explicit criticism can be three types: destructive, structural and mixed .

We will be destructive to call criticism aimed at the destruction of an argumentative process by criticizing the thesis, arguments or demonstration.

(1) Critica Tezisa - The operation is very effective for destructive power, the purpose of which is to show the failure of the thesis. Such criticism is called refutation of theses . Thesis is regarded as obviously false , if proponent knew about it in advance , but nevertheless defended him, creating the appearance of argument. An erroneous thesis will be if proponent borrowed regarding the actual logical status of its approval.

Consider direct refutation of theses , which is built in the form of reasoning, called « bearing absurd». The argument in this case occurs in the following form. At first they make an apagogic step, i.e. Condemally admit the truth of the proponent of the position and derived the consequences logically arising from it. It is reasonable to approximately like this: we assume that the proponent of rights and his thesis is true, but in this case such and such consequences flow out of it.

If, when comparing consequences with facts, it turns out that they contradict objective data, thereby they are recognized as insolvent. On this basis, they conclude the insolvency of the thesis itself, arguing on the principle: false investigations always testify to the falsity of their foundation .

The refutation by the "Information to Absurd" method can be submitted to the scheme where the following notation is introduced: T. - thesis of proponent; FROM - arising from theses of the investigation; F. - factual data:

As a result, "reduction to absurd" means the following: since the derived from T. Corollary FROM is in contradiction with the fact F.Thereby it is recognized as false - | S. On this basis, the thesis is also refuted - | T..

In the process of argument, direct refutation performs destructive , or destructive , function. FROM Its help demonstrate the inconsistency of the thesis of proponent, without putting forward any idea in return. Despite a purely critical function, the refutation of "note to absurdity" is often useful. In science, it serves as a means of checking on the reliability of various kinds of hypotheses and theories. In the course of the trial with its help, it is possible to show the inconsistency of the thesis nominated by the prosecutor.

(2). Criticism arguments . Since the argument is the justification of the thesis with the help of previously established provisions, then the arguments should be enjoyed, the truth of which is no doubt. If the opponent manages to show the doubtful or felt of the arguments, then the position of the proponent is substantially weakened, because such criticism shows the unreasonableness of his Tezisa .

The criticism of the arguments can be expressed in the fact that the opponent points to an inaccurate statement of facts, the ambiguity of the procedure for generalizing statistical data, expresses doubts about the authority of the expert, which is referenced by proponent, etc. With this kind of critical comments, proponent cannot but reckon. He must either confirm his arguments or refuse them.

Doubts in the correctness of the arguments are transferred to the thesis, which logically follows from the arguments and is also regarded as doubtful. In the event of a false argument, the thesis is unconditionally considered unreasonable and needs a new, independent confirmation. .

(3) Criticism demonstration - The third way of destructive criticism. In this case, it is shown that in the arguments of proponent there is no logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. If the thesis does not follow from the arguments, it is considered unreasonable . The initial and ending points of reasoning are out of logical connection with each other.

To create the visibility of a logical connection between the arguments and the thesis, sophisticated the demons in the aim of exposure to students in the public debate sometimes resort to language tricks like the following: "With all certainty, we can say that in this situation you can do only one conclusion ...", "Facts convincingly confirm the idea that ... ", etc.

Successful demonstration criticism implies a distinct idea of \u200b\u200bthe rules and errors of the corresponding conclusions: deduction, induction, analogies, in the form of which is justified by the thesis.

Both criticism of the arguments and the criticism of the demonstration themselves only destroy the argument and show the unreasonableness of the thesis. In this case, the thesis can be said that he does not rest on arguments or relies on poor-quality arguments and requires a new justification .

These methods of criticism are applied not only as independent operations, but also in different combinations. Thus, the direct refutation of the thesis can be supplemented with a critical analysis of the arguments; Along with errors in arguments, violations can be identified in the process of reasoning, etc.

In their cognitive function, destructive criticism serves as an effective means of identifying deficiencies in the arguments of proponents. In one case, this is a false or erroneous thesis, in another - unconvincingly or incorrectly selected arguments, in the third - slopeful or specially confusing demonstration.

At the same time, in the address of destructive criticism, which does not carry an explicit positive start, you can hear reproaches in one-sidedness, since the opponent only develops criticism and does not offer anything in return.

Such reproaches are appropriate to opponents that are limited to destructive criticism in the field of politics, business, ideology or culture. One-sided critical position can turn here to criticism.

However, there are such argumentative processes where destructive position turns out to be the only possible method Critics . An example of this may be criminal proceedings, which is based on a competing basis with the division of charges and protection functions. In the process of legal debate, the defender can only destructively criticize the position of the accusation. Installation on the discovery of positive ideas explaining the creature of the case is not included in the duties of the defender and is not practiced in legal proceedings.

Similar is the position of the opponent when discussing the dissertation for the competition scientific degree Either when protecting the graduation project. The opponent may occasionally critically analyze the provisions put forward in thesis or diploma, but it is not obliged to offer a positive solution to the issue.

Regular use of destructive criticism in politics, ideology and other areas is a clear indicator that the opposition side is on the path of destructive opposition.

Constructive criticism pursues the goal to achieve improvements. Her expression should lead to an increase in the results. Constructive criticism is not based on revenge. It cannot be used as a method for expressing discontent or anger.

One of the most dangerous behavior lines is destructive criticism. It contributes to a decrease in the self-assessment of a person whose address is expressed. In addition, such behavior significantly reduces the effectiveness of activities, overlays self-confidence. The person whom is criticized, begins to engage in self-esteem, is experiencing tension and begins to make mistakes in the area in which criticized. As a result, he can completely refuse his classes.

Of course, criticism is necessary. However, it should help, and not to hinder. Constructive criticism should not be directed to a person, but to actions. It is better not to condemn, but to offer an alternative.

One of the main for the head is the ability to be positive (constructively) to criticize your subordinates and colleagues, without being attached to the enemies and creating favorable psychological conditions in the team. This is important for managers of absolutely all ranks, different firms and enterprises.

Exist certain rules Critics.

1. To start with praise. Constructive criticism should include three parts. The first should be configured to a positive way, in some way to prepare a person. It should be started with the instructions on dignity, with their true recognition. The head who brought his subordinate to the conversation should be friendly to say hello to him and start a conversation about positive business and personal qualities invited. After that, you can move to the analysis of the violation committed. Then, making certain conclusions, the necessary sanctions apply. After that, the manager should say again about the advantages of the subordinate, expressing the hope that such miscalculations do not repeat. In accordance with the "Lawbire's law" in the memory of the invited will remain the first and last part of the conversation.

2. You should not immediately reject opinions that can go against their own. No need to say a person that he is mistaken. We should not forget that everyone has his own gaze to the surrounding, and everyone has the right to express one's own opinion.

3. Constructive criticism should relate not only to the actions of another person, but also to its own. It should be remembered about your shortcomings, recognize them. This position significantly mitigates perception, eliminates the opponent from the need to defend themselves.

4. The criticized should be able to save their own prestige.

5. You should create an impression during the conversation that errors are easily corrected.

6. The head should be done so that people be happy to make as they are offered.

7. Criticizing, you need to focus on the main thing, and not on trifles.

8. Do not remember past errors. Criticism should be on this and specific occasion.

9. The supervisor should accuse as much as possible. At the same time, the attention is necessary on constructive proposals.

10. If the opponent is emotionally excited, it is necessary to withstand psychological pauses, giving a man to cool.

11. Head should not forget that at his disposal only a minute to speak. After the opponent begins to look for arguments that justify him and reject comments. Therefore, in the first minute you need to try to say the most basic one.

12. Do not need to require immediate recognition of errors and consent with criticism. A person needs time to prepare psychologically to this.

13. Do not criticize (if possible) publicly.