Not to be critical, but we are a bit thin-skinned

Not to be critical, but we are a bit thin-skinned

Krabbe K. Piting
Contributor
Jakarta

When we say we can handle criticism, do we really mean it? Can we
look our critics in the eye and have a healthy albeit heated
discussion on the subject?

Can we accept the fact that -- shock, horror! -- somebody out
there has a different opinion or taste and wants to let us know
about it? Sure, we say. Bring 'em on! We can handle criticism,
just as long as it's constructive. Not petty and mean and
personal. Constructive criticism, yes, that we like. If most
people are to be believed, we actually seek it. But do we?

In my experience, most people want to hear what they want to
hear. Everyone knows that "no" is the default answer for, "Does
my bum look big in this?" when what you really want to say is
"Better stick to black, dear". I should know, I was subjected to
the modern day torture of a women's magazine makeover a few weeks
ago.

Some sulk, some say things behind their critics' backs. A
colleague once fired off an angry e-mail written ENTIRELY IN
CAPITALS (that's shouting, people), saying she HAD DONE NOTHING
WRONG after she was told off for not doing her share of work.

On mailing lists, every once in a while somebody would post a
message that will surely incense some members. The nature of its
content? Criticism of some sort, harsh or otherwise. A thread of
angry posts will follow, several will be deleted as a result.

Sometimes the moderator will be forced to plead, "This is a
public message board. Please be more diplomatic and try not to
offend anyone, etc., etc."

Nothing new there. So I wasn't the least bit surprised when I
found a post by the moderator of a certain mailing list after
somebody said Indonesian advertising is crap and several adfolks
were up in arms against the poor sod: "This is Indonesia, so in
keeping with our values, please write something nice after you
criticize something to lessen the blow."

Although it might soften the blow, criticism is still
criticism. Either you can take it or you can't. True, there are
some people who have perfected "diplomatic criticism" to such an
art. But no matter how you gloss it over, it is still pointing
out something that is allegedly wrong or bad.

Is there any difference between giving constructive criticism
and being nasty, though?

As I said, any which way is bound to sting. But personally I
think if the critic keeps it nonpersonal, then it's fair game
("Her acting was wooden throughout, she was not believable as a
single teenage mother" works better than "Her acting was wooden
throughout and she looked fat".)

Plus, I have a problem in so-called "Indonesian values". Are
we such cocky yet vulnerable weaklings who can only stand praise
and more praise? If the boss doesn't get our idea, they're
stupid. If somebody doesn't like our work, they are rednecks.

We are so naive to think that if we work really hard at
something, it will turn out to be the masterpiece of the century.
A dead dog is a dead dog is a dead dog, and somebody should not
be crucified for saying that it is.

And because of this, we get insipid review where critics are
reluctant to "make enemies" and leave a trail of bruised egos in
his or her wake. I would presume then that putting up with
mediocre work or treatment is more in keeping with our
"Indonesian values".