-
Suppose 90% of the things in the world are not very good.
-
A good critic sees 10 and presents a good 1
- this is a big deal
- I am able to provide value to those who see my critique.
- Don’t bother mentioning the bad ones.
- No need to be negative.
-
Bad critics introduce one they happen to see.
- High probability of negative opinions.
- Easy because you don’t have to read a lot
- At any rate, if you put down the guy, there’s a 90% chance you’ll get it right.
-
In other words, a negative critique is a negative signal about the critic’s ability
- Seems obvious to me…
-
But the general public seems to think that critical writing seems smart and detailed.
-
negative evaluators of intellectual products will be perceived as more intelligent than positive evaluators
- Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators - ScienceDirect
-
-
If most readers irrationally value negative criticism, then it is less expensive and more beneficial for the critic to give negative criticism, so that is the locally optimal solution to choose.
-
Obviously, this is not the overall optimum, but how can it be addressed?
-
Related Rusantiman Empathic Content.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ネガティブな批評家 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.