We Should Be More Critical of Our Criticisms

[Reynard]

I am an engineer now, but long ago in another life I got a degree in English Literature. Once of things that I have always carried forward from that education was the idea that it is important -- required, even -- to think about what you think about things. When conducting analysis or criticism, it is insufficient to just say how you feel about a thing. You need to interrogate why you feel that way, and determine if it is a function of the thing, or something of yourself.

In looking at how we discuss things (not just here, but broadly, and especially online), the thing that seems to be missing is introspection and analysis of our impressions and feelings. We like that movie or dislike that game or love that song or whatever -- but very rarely do we really consider WHY we feel those things about those works. Moreover, it is fairly common to get defensive or disengage when pushed, rather than take a challenge as an opportunity to really reflect on the opinion we just expressed.

I know not every piece of art needs a dissertation every time we express an opinion, but it would be nice if we would sometimes spend more time asking ourselves why we reacted to a work the way we did.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I know not every piece of art needs a dissertation every time we express an opinion ...

....why didn't someone tell me that years ago?????

sobs

WHAT HAVE I DONE WITH MY LIFE?

 

[Umbran]

Moreover, it is fairly common to get defensive or disengage when pushed, rather than take a challenge as an opportunity to really reflect on the opinion we just expressed.

The dynamics of internet discussion loom large as an issue here.

 

[Reynard]

The dynamics of internet discussion loom large as an issue here.

Sure, but especially on a "classic style" message board like this one, we have the time and room to take that deep dive. And don't get me wrong, many people do. But it seems less and less common.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It's also fascinating to look at yourself and see how you think. We are creatures of patterns and habits. We react much more than we act. And once you look at it, it's really difficult to unsee how we react or hold certain opinions out of psychological shortcuts more than anything.

 

[Desdichado]

In looking at how we discuss things (not just here, but broadly, and especially online), the thing that seems to be missing is introspection and analysis of our impressions and feelings. We like that movie or dislike that game or love that song or whatever -- but very rarely do we really consider WHY we feel those things about those works. Moreover, it is fairly common to get defensive or disengage when pushed, rather than take a challenge as an opportunity to really reflect on the opinion we just expressed.

I know not every piece of art needs a dissertation every time we express an opinion, but it would be nice if we would sometimes spend more time asking ourselves why we reacted to a work the way we did.

Yes, but also no. I mean, ideally people would do that for themselves, but we shouldn't ever expect anyone to do that. Preferences are what they are, people are entitled to have them, and we cannot demand that people justify them. That's why people get defensive or disengage; because it's honestly not appropriate to demand that people justify their preferences. The dynamic goes both ways.

On the other hand, I personally like to examine why I like something. If I like a certain rule or have a certain playstyle preference in a game, for instance, I'd like to understand about myself what I'm hoping to accomplish, what I want the game to be like, therefore why do I like one approach and not another? I also like to understand why others may like the stuff that I don't like; if they're hoping to accomplish something else, then maybe why they like it makes perfect sense.

But if I want something, and a rule that I like isn't actually the optimal way to get there and I just like it because of inertia, I'd like to understand that about myself.

And then maybe I'll still prefer it anyway, because sometimes you just prefer certain things and don't have to explain it.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but also no. I mean, ideally people would do that for themselves, but we shouldn't ever expect anyone to do that. Preferences are what they are, people are entitled to have them, and we cannot demand that people justify them. That's why people get defensive or disengage; because it's honestly not appropriate to demand that people justify their preferences. The dynamic goes both ways.

Well, you are talking about "justifying" your preferences.
The OP is actually talking about understanding your preferences.

The difference in how the activity is viewed is part of how the internet interacts with human social and psychological dynamics.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sure, but especially on a "classic style" message board like this one, we have the time and room to take that deep dive. And don't get me wrong, many people do. But it seems less and less common.

Yes, but most criticism that people are exposed to nowadays is "I hate it, thus it's bad" hot takes on the internet, which have even leaked to many professional reviews, to the point that, when a critic does engage with a work and explain their issues more thoughtfully, their reward is people screaming "I HATE IT, THUS IT"S BAD" or "I LIKE IT, THEREFORE IT'S IMMUNE TO CRITICISM" which doesn't exactly encourage future thoughtful criticism.

And in the semi-pro space that a lot of internet criticism lives in, many of these critics may have never seen pre-internet criticism where even a panning of a movie would be a long, thoughtful piece explaining the issues with it.

We see this issue here, where people will loudly scoff at the notion that critics know anything, because the reader liked the book that got a one-star review, therefore the critic had nothing of value to contribute.

It's frustrating -- even professional critics I disagree with have typically seen hundreds more movies than I have, read hundreds more books and eaten thousands more meals in restaurants than I have, and almost certainly have some valuable expertise they're bringing to their critiques -- but under the current model of the internet*, I'm not sure anything's going to change.

* AI replacing search engine traffic is going to kill a lot of media companies off, starting with internet-only sites like your favorite video game news site or geek movie review site. So soon we'll be back to relying on the most informed critics of all: the guys behind the counter at your local comic book Magic the Gathering shop.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, you are talking about "justifying" your preferences.
The OP is actually talking about understanding your preferences.

The difference in how the activity is viewed is part of how the internet interacts with human social and psychological dynamics.

Yes, I understand that I'm taking the next step in the conversation. If we're talking about understanding your preferences, then we're talking about asking people to justify their preferences, i.e., explain why they have them. Plenty of people don't want to, and honestly, nobody has to. I have lots of preferences that I just prefer something and it just is. I can talk in detail about what I like about Texas style BBQ vs Carolina or Memphis or Kansas City style; I like the smokiness, I dislike too much sweetness, etc. but ultimately I just like it because I like it better.

 

[payn]

I think the 280 character limit era of the internet has taught people to ditch nuance and often context. Folks are generally good about discussing their preferences and examining them here in my experience. Those who dont, seem to be coming in here from the wilds of the internet where its not a common exercise.