Negative critics

• 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.