Constructive criticism vs narcissistic criticism: discernment 101.
A micro-post that helps clarify a common question people have.
Please note I’m using “narcissistic” as an adjective, not a diagnosis. It should go without saying (I’m not a doctor of any kind. Do you see “Dr” in my name? Do you see a doctorate or a qualification in the medical field in my bio? No, but if you’re one of the narcissistic trolls who assume I’m diagnosing people when I gave zero evidence to back that assumption, you probably didn’t even read my bio because THAT’S the level of disrespect and disregard you have to offer me. How very grown-up).
It’s very problematic — worrisome, even — to weaponise and gatekeep medical lingo to that extent. A lot of common words included in diagnosis names actually predate the criteria for said diagnosis. One of these words is “narcissistic”. In case you didn’t know, the word dates back to an Ancient Greek myth. Did they have the DSM-5 in Ancient Greece? I don’t think so. Just because we now have a new meaning for the word added to the dictionary (referring to a medical diagnosis), that doesn’t invalidate the ancient one used in common language to describe an “entitled, self-obsessed person”.
So, with that out of the way, on to what matters:
There are two main kinds of people who comment on the Internet criticising the content or the author of said content. Within these 2 kinds, there are more subdivisions, but I’ll only focus on the 2 main categories to keep this article short and straight to the point. I might need to link to this article every time some smartass troll comments on my posts going forward, so keep an eye out for that, because I’m not pinning this to my profile.
A) constructive criticism.
B) narcissistic criticism.
These aren’t official terms universally recognised, I’m coining them myself, but they are based on real phenomena you can take your head out of the sand and observe for yourself while surfing this Worldwide Web.
With constructive criticism, there’s nuance. The most common kind is that where someone criticises what they didn’t personally like, or even an objective error they saw, and on the same comment offers a solution/correction. However, there are also other kinds of criticism which may be considered constructive: sometimes, even without offering a solution, you know the commenter came in good faith because they bring actually useful questions that can lead YOU to arrive at a satisfactory solution without their help. For example: “I disagree / don’t understand / am not onboard with such and such. That’s because I have unanswered questions about this topic which, if you answered or considered them, you could probably change your mind on it”. (Or pick your chosen wording — from rude to sugary sweet. That doesn’t change the fact it’s constructive. Even if the person has no tact, you KNOW they’re not simply hating on your content with a bunch of low-effort digs and nitpicks. No, instead, their comment is relevant and can actually be USEFUL if you detach and remove all the emotion from it). The keyword is content-oriented. Constructive criticism is content-oriented and doesn’t have a disingenuous or “shadow self” undertone.
With narcissistic criticism (and you can do it even if you don’t have a personality disorder, even if you consider yourself a good person, and even if you think you deserve the high horse you’re on), as the name says, it’s self-serving. The critic isn’t interested in helping the author solve any problems, but instead wants to put them down in order to feel good in contrast. Notice how this motivation is very broad and doesn’t just encompass name-calling or aggressive all-caps hate speech. It can also encompass pseudo-intellectual, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, high horse kinds of criticism whereby maybe the commenter used neutral and/or mindful words, but you can’t help but notice an undertone of “look at me! I am so much smarter than you! You’re such a useless idiot. Please submit to my whims and let me walk all over you or I’ll accuse you of being a bad listener”. Contrary to constructive criticism, where the person, even if very angry, ACTUALLY CARES about quality control… With narcissistic criticism, it’s 100% coming from an ego response. This can be triggered by certain kinds of feeling: the commenter could be envious of something in this author or the content, or maybe they read something in the content that struck a chord with their shadow but they’re not feeling like doing any shadow work and instead resort to projecting… Among many, many other possible underlying reasons. The key-word is person-oriented. Even if there are no ad hominem arguments, the commenter wants to make the author feel “less than” and “not good enough”. That’s the only goal.
I’m using a lot of buzzwords that entered common language from the field of Psychology, as you may have noticed. Whether you’re in favour or against this habit, maybe it’s a good idea to take a look at the overarching message here as well and see if there’s value to it. If you’re one of those people who get triggered by common use of jargon, try rewriting this article (it’s fairly short anyway) without them and see if the central message still holds true. I can assure you it will. Medium is full of frustrated Academics who enjoy putting down people who aren’t in this same exclusive (loser’s?) club, but what they don’t know is that I do, in fact, have credentials. They just happen to be in Linguistics. And that’s what we’re dealing with here: verbal communication. Trust me, you CANNOT outsmart me at that. And you SHOULD NOT pick on “anecdote tellers” anyway because that’s just a form of punching down and tells everyone a lot about your own character (or lack thereof). Character is one of those things you do not acquire with a diploma, I’m sorry to inform.
I hope this helps.
Here’s an actual Psychology professional talking about online hate, lest I strike a nerve with the Academic crowd just for existing: