Socially critical thinking
Social software maps the networks we already know. Presumably, the goal is to have the systems we interact with enable or inform us about something or someone we do not.
Recently I have been beating a drum with a colleague on the lack of critical thinking people bring to bare, regardless of environment – digital or real – and how we might support more thoughtful interactions. The disturbing trend is that people communicate critique through disengagement and silence. Anyone who has enjoyed a college-level art class can affirm that the most humbling and beneficial moments come from open critiques.
Your work, something you sweat over for hours, is hanging up against a wall along side those of your peers. Artists hang their work on the wall, stand back and review in hopes to see what they might be missing. The things we like and dislike about art often thought to be subjective, that taste is something unique to us. If this were true then more people agree than disagree on esthetically pleasing artistic expression. Go to an art critique and watch as people judge both on the technical execution and on the way the piece makes them feel. For the artist, it is likely the first time anyone has interacted with them around their art; it is the beginning of a dialogue. When there is agreement, the artist has communicated something so well that everyone remarks. If the reaction is not in-line with the artist’s intention, then it is an opportunity to learn and adjust. Art is, at least in part, communication. For whatever reason, we do not ask our peers to hang Power Point slides up on the wall and reflect. Ask a developer to be honest about their anxiety of participating in a code review. We have created a culture of quite, passive, secret thoughts.
People need to be more critical. Not negative, critical. We have an opportunity every day to contribute to the reality we share, if even only to compliment. Why withhold so much in fear that we might offend? Try starting with what you liked and then follow up with your suggestion. Venture out and express how you feel the next time someone asks you for your thoughts. Do not just say, “looks good,” because that is the same as silence.
When you organize jour [sic] social world solely around affinity, then you get an endless hall of mirrors. - Adam Greenfield, Author, Adjunct Professor at New York University, from an interview with Zachary Jean Paradis, Sapient, interview.
Social spaces are about the participants and their connections. If they are unable to show us something other than what we know, they have failed. Collecting the list of people we know is an ego game, whose meaning is short lived. Part of addressing this challenge is in valuing the diversity among us – go beyond gender, race and include thought. Love the person who disagrees with you, because you have the opportunity to learn something new. Be more critical of what you see. Find others that are willing to be more critical of you. Decide that a hall of mirrors, while familiar, is not as interesting as what other people are showing.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Its too bad that my engineering school didn’t have as foundational a reliance on the art of the critique as a teaching tool as our art and and architecture schools.
There were horror stories of course. One proported to have an art teacher stare at a student’s work in silence only to remove the tacks, flip it upside down and say “that’s better”. Another, of somewhat dubious origin, involved an architecture professor looking at a student’s work, telling her “go get a cup of water”, and setting the drawing on fire. Those aside, the critique always seemed like one of those experiences you have that you dread initially, but has exponential returns for your growth.
I agree with you entirely - especially with “looks good” - that is just short hand for “I’ve given your work no thought at all, in fact, I’m probably just looking at it for the first time now as we speak, and I’m really more engaged in something else anyway.”
I see it all the time, people have the opportunity to critique and don’t take it. We perpetuate it too by letting ourselves trail off in conversation, misuse words, or and “and stuff” to the end of a statement because we really haven’t researched the claims we’re advancing well enough to convince ourselves. We follow it with a near imperceptible wince and sigh, which is usually met with an agreeing nod, “uh huh” or “ok” - a tacit signal from the listener that we’ll let it go, and that they don’t expect to be critiqued either.
Its a dangerous cycle of apathy and mediocrity that also has the side effect of labeling even the most sincere critic as an asshole. “If you just wanted me to agree with you then why did you ask me what I thought?”
There is hope though, at least I think there is. I’ve given more than a couple of critiques that were honest, not flattering, and particularly thorough and they were met with appreciation. I’ve been on the other end too, but not as often as I would like to be.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I’ve often felt provoked to comment on your thoughtful posts, but nothing has made me take the leap like this one. I think the most important piece of critique is that when it is given, it’s an honest assessment. And not only honest, but needed. Too often a critique is given just so the critiquer has contributed SOMETHING. I’m a strong believer in giving a compliment on something only when it’s a truth — which sort of goes against the constructive criticism sandwich (start with something you like..). Critique is truly helpful when the delivery is devoid of condescension, isn’t wrapped in disclaimers, and is truly meant to improve the work, not stall it.
So.. uh.. yeah, I’m a fan of open, honest, constructive critiquing
November 15th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I noticed you referred to an interview I did with Adam Greenfield in this post. Since the version you referred to was pulled from the DUX07 site, I thought I would provide this link (http://www.creativeslant.com/mt/archives/000065.html) to another copy of it.
Cheers,
Zachary Jean Paradis
November 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thank you Zachary. Link updated.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:17 am
When you organize jour [sic] social world solely around affinity,
I’m mortified by this kind of thing, and asked the DUX organizers on more than one occasion to remove this interview as a result so that errors like this wouldn’t appear anywhere else.
I apologize for its manifestly low quality, and for whatever it’s worth, I assure you that I will never work with the individuals involved again.