Critique vs Criticism

[Xue Sheng97]

Brazilians were spelling jiu-jitsu wrong.

Well they are...but we all know why...you BJJ guys are so enamored with us old School American Jiu-Jitsu guys that you adopted our spelling...because you want to be like us.... and who could blame you...based on our awesomeness, and attractiveness

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

If it's a fact, then it can be independently verified. That doesn't mean that we now have to cite every source. But it points to the distinction between fact and opinion, once again. Facts can be verified. Opinions are just that. Now, is your opinion more credible than mine? Well, how solidly grounded in facts is your opinion? Are your facts independently verifiable?

But, even the most credible opinion is still not a fact.

Factual assertion (easily verified): Jujutsu is the blanket term for a family of martial arts originating in Japan.

Factual assertion (verifiable with some work, but subject to the uncertainties of the historical record): Miura Ryu was founded by Miura Yojuiemon.

Opinion: Danzan Ryu (is/is not) a (legitimate/traditional) form of jujutsu. To reduce this to a verifiable question of fact, you must first precisely define what you mean by "legitimate" or "traditional." Since there is no consensus among the martial arts community (or even among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists) as to the meanings of these terms, you can't defer to authority. You have to explain what you mean by the terms in the current discussion. Even once you nail down your definitions, you will still have uncertainties regarding the underlying facts. (i.e. what exactly did Okizaki actually study besides Kodokan Judo?)

Opinion: The most important principles of judo are Maximum efficiency with minimum effort and Mutual Welfare and benefit. Judo is practiced by millions of people with different goals and priorities and has evolved considerably over the 130+ years. What you consider to be the most important principles depends very much on who you are as a practitioner.

Factual assertion (easily verifiable): Jigaro Kano, the founder of judo, identified Maximum efficiency with minimum effort and Mutual Welfare and benefit as the highest goals of judo.

Opinion: The most effective way to execute a rear naked choke is xyz.

Factual assertion: In my 20+ years of grappling with non-compliant opponents, I have had a much higher rate of success executing the rear naked choke like xyz, as opposed to methods abc or 123.

 

[Steve]

Well they are...but we all know why...you BJJ guys are so enamored with us old School American Jiu-Jitsu guys that you adopted our spelling...because you want to be like us.... and who could blame you...based on our awesomeness, and attractiveness

Ha! That must be it!

Found the language discussion. Pretty fun stuff. I enjoyed reading through it again.

 

[Kung Fu Wang103]

John, you have a tendency to … .

When 孟子(Meng Zi) said, "予岂好辩哉?予不得已也 (I don't like to argue, but sometime I just don't have any choice)." When he said that, he was arguing. Even ancient Chinese sage loved to argue, we normal human being should not expect us not to argue in our daily life.

But since this thread is trying to discuss "how to avoid argument", at least that what I think the subject is, I'm not going to respond to your post and start to "argue".

 

[Transk53]

When 孟子(Meng Zi) said, "予岂好辩哉?予不得已也 (I don't like to argue, but sometime I just don't have any choice)." When he said that, he was arguing. Even ancient Chinese sage loved to argue, we normal human being should not expect us not to argue in our daily life.

But since this thread is trying to discuss "how to avoid argument", at least that what I think the subject is, I'm not going to respond to your post and start to "argue".

Hell why not, the reverse often counts.

 

[Jake104]

I find it quite sad that Wing Chun practitioners cannot get along. It is prescribed condition!

We all get along. It's just an act. We pretend to disagree and argue to keep the rest of Martial talk entertained. I think we do a stellar job by the way. See, we had you fooled?

 

[Transk53]

We all get along. It's just an act. We pretend to disagree and argue to keep the rest of Martial talk entertained. I think we do a stellar job by the way. See, we had you fooled?

Looking at that should have been "is it" Yeah I see what you are saying and probably most would be a little combative in a friendly way Thing is though, I kind of sit there in front of a screen and taking bets with myself as to whom will pull the trigger first I wouldn't say anything is wrong though, just maybe somethings should be a little more measured. Like one post is outstanding with the conveyed content and ideas, only for another to be just as stellar, but bloody well confusing because it alludes to the opposite. Sometimes seems like there are a million types and a million ways to do Wing Chun kind of thing.

 

[dvcochran]

As has been said many times, on-line communication has a huge potential for misunderstanding because so much of communication is nonverbal, and a forum is limited to text only. We lose the nuance of tone of voice, facial expression, speech pace, and more. Add in culture misunderstandings, and it only gets worse. Emoticons and smileys help -- but even they can be misunderstood. Even though two members may indeed understand that they are joking with each other, it's not always perceived that way by others and warnings are kind of equivalent to the security staff at an event "wandering by" to make sure that there isn't a problem.

Very well said. Verbal gesture's and expressions cannot be understated. Something impossible to replace or equal with written and certainly not with emoji's. I cannot feel the passion a person has about a topic reading it off the screen. Remembering how important the visual queue's are in conversation should help all of us be more thoughtful in what we write for all to see.

 

[Buka20]

Critique.....that's what you hear when you're single.

Criticize.....well, you know.

 

[Steve]

Critique.....that's what you hear when you're single.

Criticize.....well, you know.

This thread makes me laugh. @Chris Parker was in rare form. Thanks for dredging it up, @Buka.

 

[Buka20]

True. I have been very careful about my reactions and wording online when I don't know the origins of the person I'm talking to. There were times when my joke was taken out of context as it seemed aggressive or offensive.

Welcome to Martial Talk, Gordon.

 

[TenHands]

Critique: Your stance is too short. Push that knee over the toe.
Criticism: You have very bad basics.

Critique is when you point out specific problems and tell the person how to fix them.
Criticism is when you make a broad, negative statement and provide no elaboration or advice.

 

[JerryL]

Simon Cowell is one of the best judges on [whatever the name of the show he is/was on].

The reason is because he provides useful and specific feedback. It's not "I like it" or "I don't like it", but "you are doing this wrong, you should change it this way".

As someone who has occasionally had DI's giving instruction; I'll take crass but specific over polite but useless... and I'm *far* more interested in being told what I have wrong than some sort of feel-good feedback.

 

[kfman]

I have criticized people in my style and they get all bent out of shape. Some people can't take it.

 

[Balrog]

Critique: evaluate in a detailed and analytical way
Criticize: find the faults with or about something

Please remember that there is a difference. Many times, we find ourselves criticizing posts and videos when they ask for a critique. Critiques are generally factual and objective, though they may own opinions within a critique. If you want to stay on the right side of the rules and friendly spirit hereabouts, review your post before you hit send, and make sure that you're offering a critique rather than finding fault.

In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise. Find something positive to say about what they did. Show them one thing they can do to improve it. Praise them when they do that thing.

 

[drop bear103]

The rule of thumb is to sandwich one bad thing in two good things or something.

 

[Buka20]

People learn in different ways. People take criticism or even critique differently as well. It's always good to know how students react to things.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

The rule of thumb is to sandwich one bad thing in two good things or something.

Which is a usable concept (without worrying about the numbers), but only if the good things are real and as specific as the thing that needs to improve. Saying, "You did good. That kick sucked, though - not nearly high enough and your balance was off. But your movement was solid." won't work.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf103]

Which is a usable concept (without worrying about the numbers), but only if the good things are real and as specific as the thing that needs to improve. Saying, "You did good. That kick sucked, though - not nearly high enough and your balance was off. But your movement was solid." won't work.

Yup. Better option is "Your footwork leading into the kick was good, but when you actually kicked it seemed like your balance was off and that effected your kick height. It's great that you were able to keep your guard up throughout it though, you've really improved on that!" Ideally with a follow-up then on how to improve balance, rather than leaving them to figure it out on their own (unless it's something that you want them to figure out).

Also, in reality, I've found that as long as the complement is sincere and related, and it's clear the critique is being offered in a helpful/productive manner, that you don't actually need to sandwich anything. One complement is normally enough, and depending on the person/your relationship, you may not need any. I do agree that the better option is to start off with a sandwich until you get to know the person better though.

 

[geezer]

In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise. Find something positive to say about what they did. Show them one thing they can do to improve it. Praise them when they do that thing.

In my day job I'm a high school art teacher. This is exactly how I introduce students to doing critiques. Kids at that age can be really insecure, so I begin with informal self-critiques.

I ask them to begin by identifying at least one positive aspect of their project. Then they need to discuss something they would have liked to do better and finally conclude by considering how they might use this information to get even better results on their next project.

The two answers that are not acceptable are 1. "My project is perfect exactly as it is and I wouldn't change a thing." and 2. "It totally sucks and there isn't anything good I can say about it."

The error of #1 is pretty self-evident, and for #2, I point out that if you look hard enough, there is something useful to be gained ....even from what you think is a total failure. After all, even poop is good for fertilizer.

....So it's really more than the "oreo" technique of just sandwiching criticism inside layers of praise. It's examining the good and the bad, and considering how you can use knowledge of both to improve. In other words, what you said.