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".