Critics surf the intersection of what's already not good and what could become great. Generally, the not good comes before the could be great.
Like people would tell you, "So and so isn't good, BUT you can do xyz to improve it and reach your potential!"
Others take it the other way round, "could be great" comes before "not good." Usually, not good is reserved for you to realize it yourself.
As in when a person spotlights your strengths and potential first without going into what's lacking or problematic, but still giving you the hint that there's room for growth and refinement.
Somehow, the latter inevitably does create space for self-reflection and discovery of areas needing improvement. Because when you're shown what excellence looks like within your reach, the gaps between your current state and that potential become naturally apparent.
Between the two methods, it's debatable on which is more impactful, in terms of creating lasting change or fostering genuine growth in the recipient.
I think it's more so a preference from the receiver of the critic and the natural communication style from the giver of the critic.
I personally prefer the latter method. Gimme the potential without any restrictive frameworks and I'll discover the imperfections in due course, once the vision is sufficiently compelling.
I think this approach also mirrors how we navigate less simple social dynamics like team building or fostering innovation in a creative environment.
You can take a wide-angled view that captures the full spectrum of human potential rather than zeroing in on deficits from a narrow perspective.
But the catch always is it's like finding the needle in a haystack of possibilities, where the needle represents untapped potential waiting to be discovered.
Put in a slightly different way, to truly see the "could be great" in a "not good" situation sometimes demands a wide-angled view of the entire ecosystem.
You're pulling back from the immediate problem and examining the larger system, underlying assumptions, and the interconnected forces at play.
This macro-level observation allows you to identify not just surface-level faults, but fundamental misalignments that, once corrected, can unlock exponential potential.
However, pinpointing the precise leverage point for change within these complex systems can feel like finding a needle in a haystack.
There's an abundance of data, opinions, and competing priorities, yet only a few critical elements truly dictate transformation.
In a modern context, I'm tempted to equate this to a chef tasting a dish and knowing it's not quite right. But instead of listing ingredients, they intuitively understand it needs a pinch of something to elevate it to "great" and that something is the needle in the haystack of flavors.
A nuanced approach to criticism also reflects an interesting paradox (at least for me) in human nature that I often observe with people who think deeply about societal issues.
It's the tendency to be bashing society but loving humanity at the same time.
We readily critique systemic failures, societal shortcomings, and collective irrationality, often with a fervor that suggests a deep dissatisfaction with the present state of the world.
Despite and beneath this critique, there's an unwavering faith in individual potential and an inherent belief in the goodness of people, even as their collective actions might frustrate us and indirectly harm us, many of the time.
This dual perspective—sharp criticism of the flawed structure while holding profound empathy for the individuals caught within it—is, in my unconventional view, a hallmark of mature critical thinking.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
