I listened to a clip of a podcast today that explained how women and men reacted to criticism differently, especially in a relationship.
For women, criticism is seen as catastrophic and dealt with as a failure, which they must address to survive. Whereas men do not change as a result of criticism, rather as a result of affirmation. It has something to do with a thicker protective layer or something along those lines. I found this interesting because of how relatable it was and how it also rang true for me.
It then got me thinking about the correlation between every other event in life influenced by our interpretation, it may be possible that we are looking at criticism all wrong or maybe not. We will find out in the course of this expose. Criticism is often addressed from the perspective of the critic, without much emphasis being laid on the participation of the recipient.
We often consider the profile of the critic, their intention, that is, constructive or derogatory, including the expansive knowledge or lack thereof of the recipient by the critic, ultimately, influencing the value and impact of the criticism in line with an objective point of view.
Eventually, we consider the disposition of the recipient, whether they are open to learning, if they have a tough skin, if they have capacity to a hit where necessary, if they are easily provoked, and if they have a good sense of humour, in some instances.
However, in the end, the impact of a criticism will always be influenced by the perspective of the recipient. Take, for instance, you mean to insult me and you in fact do, but I have no understanding of the language with which you communicate this insult, or possibly my use of the language is severely lacking, that I am unfamiliar with an important word that is packing the punch. What effect is the sting of that insult after it is delivered?
It therefore means to some extent that, for a criticism to hit the mark, it requires the meeting of the intention of the critic and the participation of the recipient through understanding. In essence, the basic rule of effective communication.
That’s one way to look at it; the other perspective, which is more succinct to what I aim to postulate, is the fact that the effectiveness of a criticism is directly correlative to the perception of the recipient. Take, for example, you do not mean to insult me, but I perceive what you have said as an insult. Does it matter if your aim was to be flattering? Suppose that the aim of a criticism was constructive, but I cannot identify the construct; rather, I see it from a derogatory viewpoint, then the intention becomes misaligned.
The posture of the recipient will always be vital to the impact of a criticism. In relationships, it may be a whole lot easier if, as a recipient, we take the position of help as opposed to being defensive.
Imagine you receive what seems to be a critic from your partner, and instead of already imagining the worst and posing for a rejoinder, you instead receive it as a gift (this is cracking me up even as I type this because I recognise how counterintuitive it is to act in this manner).
Further, imagine how helpful it’d be to deliver criticism in the language that the recipient understands as valuable. For example, as a woman practising affirmation to instigate change in your partner.
This is hard because, for me, I automatically switch to defend and attack mode once exposed to criticism. I try to filter, but on lock down mode. Eventually, I may be beaten to submission because my self-awareness will not permit me to lie to myself by omission or pretence that I have mastered that wish I struggle with. Nonetheless, acceptance doesn’t come without some form of resistance.
Another perspective is to not overestimate the importance of the critic simply because they seem to know.
A critic only gains validity from the audience and estimation. Hence, the more highly you place a person in your estimation, the easier it becomes to be guided or misguided by them. In the end, they may not be as valuable as you ascribe.
While this may seem like an encouragement not to rate anyone that highly, thus making you less susceptible to correction, that is missing the mark. It is not about being uncorrectable; it is about understanding the veracity of correction before the acceptance of it.
The goal of this post is to redirect and emphasise the recipient’s participation in receiving criticism; it is about reclaiming power and reframing the narrative of something that could be potentially damning or enlightening.
It is about understanding that you can be the ultimate critic of your actions, and that can be a powerful thing to harness when done correctly. More accurately, the efficacy of a critical appraisal is a two-edged sword that must double accuracy, clarity, validation, persuasion, and acceptance.
The thing about not taking your critics too seriously including yourself, is that you can always push boundaries of what has been construed as your imperfection.
It is both an act of faith and defiance.
I hope I take my own advice 😏
Xoxo,
Dcconoisseur.
Connoisseur of Memories 