Criticism is it necessary? ( Archived) (59)

I agree with this summary!

That is if you are talking about "Constructive criticism"?

Very few people accept constructive criticism, or criticism of any kind...
The truth it that to accept it you need to be realising the potential of it and admit your own mistake or inability to see your faults...
And what's even harder is to really follow it and do something about it...
Sometimes saying "You are right" to your critic could bring a huge, positive change to your life...

Thats a more sensible intepretation pK

Do you have a regular person criticising you then, and then paid for, I guess, like a counsellor? They will drag it out forever too!

In reality. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can't be sure), so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn't buy stuff they can't afford. They wouldn't smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn't gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn't be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn't do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.

And common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. Heck, I think common sense is a contradiction in terms. Real sense can rarely be derived from experience alone because most people's experiences are limited.

In fact, I think that so-called common sense is a fallacy that has been foisted on us by our culture of ideology (any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do) that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers. Sorry to get a bit political here, but common sense is even used as an ideological cudgel by conservatives in which so-called coastal elites lack common sense and, as a result, are out of touch with "real Americans" who apparently have an abundance of common sense. But, if we use our elected representatives as examples (though I can't vouch for how representative they actually are), I think it's safe to say that unsound judgment, that is, the absence of common sense, doesn't discriminate based on political ideology.

The word common, by definition, suggests that common sense is held by a large number of people. But the idea that if most people think something makes sense then it must be sound judgment has been disproven time and time again. Further, it is often people who might be accused of not having common sense who prove that what is common sense is not only not sense, but also completely wrong. And, by the way, common sense is often used by people who don't have the real knowledge, expertise, or direct experience to actually make sound judgments.

I rest my case.

It's about how you say it that makes the great difference...
The way you serve your criticism is essential to how it's gonna be accepted or not...
Every critisms holds a seed of truth in it, there's always something that triggers the desire of another person to hurt your ego...

Google:

Criticism:
the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.

Psychosis:
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Can you now see how the two words can be put together?

The criticiser, aiming to disapprove and harm, has a severe psychosis, like someone contravening the law almost, losing touch with reality, through always criticising the people they don't like, and disapprove of. Note: Criticism is on a basis of Perceived faults and mistakes, so it is the criticiser at fault, not the criticised!