On Criticism

I. Distinguishing Criticism

Criticism is not reproach, not attack, and not the practice of insult under the guise of righteousness.

People have long suffered from criticism. Yet upon closer examination, what they suffer from is not criticism itself, but the various atrocities committed under its name. For instance, when a jackstand is improperly placed, pointing out its non-compliance with standards and clarifying its hazards—this is criticism; mocking someone's stupidity and insulting their lineage of instruction—this is attack; speculating that they intentionally schemed to cause harm—this is incrimination; widely broadcasting the matter to ruin their reputation—this is slander. The four appear similar but differ fundamentally in nature; they must be carefully distinguished.

The essential meaning of criticism lies in clearing obstructions where reasoning fails to flow and bridging gaps where logic fractures. What it relies upon is reason; what it directs toward is the matter; what it protects is the person. Once departed from these three anchors, even with eloquent prose and copious citations, it amounts to nothing more than exploiting public instruments for private desires, wielding justice to perpetrate cruelty.

Thus it is said: criticism must be grounded in goodwill; without goodwill, there is no criticism. Beneath malice, even without a single vulgar word, the essence remains persecution.

II. The Right to Criticize

Criticism is not an innate right, but an entrusted responsibility.

Unauthorized criticism is like an uninvited guest—even if brimming with wisdom, it is nonetheless presumptuous. A patient visiting a doctor thereby grants the physician the right to diagnose; a student following a teacher thereby grants the teacher the right to correct; an inquirer seeking an answer thereby grants the respondent the right to dissent. This authorization may be explicit or implicit, but it must exist for criticism to be valid.

What must be further vigilantly examined is the authenticity of such authorization. There are many in the world who say "feel free to speak" while harboring vindictive intentions, and many who make promises rashly without yet understanding what "accepting criticism" entails. This is akin to a minor signing a contract—the expression of intent itself does not possess full legal efficacy. Therefore, a skilled critic not only seeks authorization but also scrutinizes its authenticity and reliability, preferring silence over recklessness.

The right to criticize is like a fine bow: used properly, it pierces the target from a hundred paces; abused, the string snaps and the bow shatters. Expending this right on trivialities—improper posture, incorrect chopstick holding, inappropriate laughter—means that when the critical moment arrives, there are no arrows left to fire. How many people exhaust all their influence on minor details, only to find that when their children go astray, they have not a single word of power left to reclaim them. This is not because criticism is useless, but because the user has incapacitated themselves.

III. Examining Motives

Before committing to criticism, first examine your own heart.

A person's impulse to criticize often interweaves multiple motives: some wish to settle inner resentment, some wish to halt losses they are implicated in, some wish to demolish another's confidence to make them more compliant, some wish to destroy another's reputation to eliminate rivals, and some genuinely wish to help another recognize their blind spots and move toward the good. These five motives coexist within a single impulse; without deep reflection, one cannot discern them clearly.

Those seeking to settle resentment should express their feelings directly, not disguise retaliation as criticism. "This hurt me" is a statement; "how could you do this" is a judgment. Emotional injury is a matter to be resolved, not a debt of guilt to be repaid. The other party has no obligation to anticipate all your sensitivities, just as you yourself only know where pain strikes after having been hurt. Condemning someone by standards they do not know is punishment without instruction.

Those seeking to halt losses should improve guidance, not harshly criticize execution. A leader's true capability lies in communicating instructions so clearly that even the least perceptive person cannot misunderstand them. One who can accomplish tasks with mediocre talent is free from coercion by the elite. Those who find improving guidance too laborious and instead prefer to scold subordinates are in fact sabotaging their own career prospects through laziness.

Those who demolish another's confidence may appear to gain a devotee, but in reality they bear the burden of an idol. Having received another's faith, you must assume the obligation of a deity who never errs. Once you falter, the backlash from believers will far exceed the cold gaze of strangers.

Those who destroy reputations will inevitably bring disgrace upon themselves under a wise leader. This point will be elaborated later.

Only the fifth motive—helping another recognize blind spots and move toward the good—is the proper path of criticism. Yet even with pure motives, one must weigh: is this matter worth deploying the right to criticize? The preciousness of this right lies in its sparing use. Each deployment either strengthens or wears it down; there is no possibility of neither gain nor loss.

IV. The Method of Criticism

With motives rectified and authorization obtained, one may then discuss method.

There are six principles:

First, adopt the other party's standpoint. The critic's position must be that of the person being criticized, not one's own. If the other party wishes to support their family while you wish to build a public listing, you cannot justify criticism on the grounds of "impeding the listing." Imposing your own demands upon another is not criticism—it is bullying.

Second, follow logic that the other party acknowledges. Rules the other party does not accept cannot be directly cited as evidence. To employ a new rule, one must first derive it from the other party's existing understanding, and only upon their recognition may it be invoked. Even if the whole world stands behind you, if the other party has not consented, you may not override them by majority force.

Third, rely on facts the other party acknowledges. In the same incident, you may believe "you misled me" while the other party believes "you misread me"—one must then argue from "let us assume I misread," rather than treating one's own judgment as an unquestionable premise.

Fourth, what you provide is solely logical computation. The standpoint is theirs, the rules are theirs, the facts are what they acknowledge; only that neutral, independently verifiable reasoning process is what the critic contributes. The critic's value lies in completing a cognitive computation that the other party has not themselves performed, enabling them to see the logical fracture between their own position and their own behavior.

Fifth, strictly refrain from passing judgment on persons. Toward specific individuals, exercise caution with all evaluative language. Criticism reveals logical fractures—it does not canonize, it does not deliver divine punishment. If you condemn Zhang San (张三), listeners may perceive themselves as belonging to the same category; once defensive instincts arise, all efforts are lost.

Sixth, pursue minimal collateral harm. Being proven wrong inevitably diminishes one's credibility—this is an unavoidable cost. However, the critic has an obligation to reduce this cost to the lowest achievable level. The other party's granting of the right to criticize is an entrustment based on trust; it must never degenerate into an opportunity to exercise tyranny. Only harm that cannot be avoided even after exhaustive effort may be asked to be forgiven—and even then, an apology is required.

V. The Responsibility of the Organization

The ecology of criticism cannot be maintained by individuals alone; it must rely on organizational stewardship.

The primary duty of those in authority is to ensure that criticism does not degenerate into a tool of attack. Business problems, efficiency problems, decision-making problems—all may be freely discussed; but evaluating someone's personality, style, or values—even when couched as jokes—is prohibited.

When some use criticism as a cover for veiled attacks and insinuations, if those in authority turn a blind eye, the hearts of key personnel will inevitably grow cold. Not only the attacked party grows cold—bystanders grow cold as well. The chilling of bystanders' hearts is especially fatal—they may not voice their concerns, but they will silently withdraw all extra investment beyond transactional obligations, and then bide their time to depart.

An organization that permits criticism to degenerate into a tool of attack inevitably faces the dilemma of rival talents—only one of two technical giants can remain, only one of the sales and technical vice presidents can stay. Such internal friction, even if achieving temporary prosperity, amounts to nothing more than a corpse in a tomb. Profitable with three stores, losses with fifty, hemorrhaging with a hundred—this is not the fault of expansion, but the consequence of ethical collapse.

For those in subordinate positions encountering such circumstances, they should quietly observe how those in authority handle the situation. No need to complain, no need to threaten. If the superior consciously upholds the red line of criticism, then this place is worth staying; if not, then this person no longer deserves to be your boss. No need for resentment, no need to attempt to change them—incompatibility with organizational culture cannot be forced. The immediate priority is to accumulate capability and seek a better place to thrive.

VI. Faith and Force

Why does correct criticism possess a force that cannot be dismissed?

Because human beings, through millions of years of social living, have been shaped at the hardware level: when an explicitly existing logical fracture is perceived, an instinctive anxiety must arise. Those who can remain indifferent to this were, in the long course of evolution, marked as dangerous by their peers, socially exiled, and gradually eliminated from the gene pool. The attribute of "being unreasonable" is the most alarming and despised quality in human society—this is not a cultural convention, but a natural law.

Yet the efficacy of this law must be grounded in faith.

This faith means: if criticism has not produced effect, then it must be one of the following situations—the effect has already occurred but I failed to perceive it, or I misjudged the other party's standpoint, facts, and logic, or my own reasoning is flawed. It is never that the law itself has malfunctioned.

Because of this faith, the critic can refrain from blaming the other party for the ineffectiveness, and can accept reality with composure when personal capability has been exhausted without observable change, rather than crossing the red line and seeking "effectiveness" through coercive means.

"Speaking nicely doesn't work"—this is the most common excuse for overstepping boundaries. However, after "it doesn't work," the options are by no means limited to "enhanced criticism." Material compensation can be exchanged for behavioral cooperation; legal recourse can be pursued; plans can be revised; one can prepare to bear the losses. The one thing that must not be done is to escalate criticism into coercion, attack, or even violence—because from that moment onward, what you are exercising is no longer the right to criticize, but naked coercive power. And under coercive power, even if the other party submits, there will never be genuine change—only seeds of hatred left to germinate when the time comes.

VII. Conclusion

A critic is as precious as gold—encountered by fortune, not by pursuit.

Those who truly understand criticism can nurture outstanding individuals beyond ordinary imagination, and can accomplish great endeavors that illuminate future generations. It is not that people do not welcome criticism; rather, they suffer because nine out of ten encounters are persecution masquerading under the name of criticism.

A skilled critic examines their own heart before speaking, cautiously guards authorization once obtained, adopts the other's standpoint, follows the other's logic, relies on the other's facts, and solely employs the power of computation to help another see their own blind spots. They do not pass judgment on persons, do not harbor private agendas, do not flaunt their abilities, do not overstep boundaries. What they depend upon is not cleverness, not power, but respect as unyielding as steel.

The reason a person can entrust you with the privileged right to criticize with peace of mind is precisely because they have subconsciously perceived this respect.

What takes effect is less your wisdom than the authorization that the person themselves has granted you.

This is called the way of criticism.

Copyright Notice: This is a preview translation — Chinese original is the authoritative version. Copyright belongs to Guangzhou Phaenarete AI Technology Co., Ltd. Unauthorized reproduction, citation, or distribution is prohibited.