[philliphaydon]

I disagree. Criticism is awesome. If people can't handle criticism then they should change profession. If 1 person says something negative. Then there's 1000s more who feel the same who say nothing.

Constructive criticism is even better.

Criticism is only personal if you make it personal. Criticism is only egocentric if you make it egocentric. Criticism is on vague when it is not constructive. Criticism only belittles if it is targeted at the person and not the thing being critiqued.

[JustSomeNobody]

>Criticism is only personal if you make it personal. Criticism is only egocentric if you make it

That usually begins with the person doing the criticizing.

[swsieber]

“He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.” ― Brigham Young

That said, I do think the GP has a point: it is possible to divide feedback according to the two sets of criteria mentioned, and that things go better when we craft our communication to be the nicer one (he called it critique, you call it constructive criticism).

I'm not going to use the fact that people should be able to handle criticism to give mean feedback. And I think that's the point he's making - we should choose to be nice.

[SolaceQuantum]

Feedback has been and always will be a two way street. It's on the critiquer to word their comments in an impersonal, constructive manner just as much as it is on the critiqued to receive comments with grace and poise. Feedback is an active collaboration for a better product and all involved parties are on the hook to contribute in a manner that allows all other parties to also contribute.