O privire matematica asupra criticatului :P [english only]

There are three dimensions at play here:

X Axis | Content
What you want to say -- grammar is wrong here, this plot point doesn't work, etc. x<0 is bad news, x>0 is good news.

Y Axis | Form
How you explain x -- y>0 is (generally) phrasing your x datapoint as your friendly opinion; y<0 is (generally) phrasing your comments as facts or other ways that I've found don't work as well.

Z Axis | Author's Reaction
How the author of the manuscript reacts to your critique. z>0 is good, they find your critique useful (even if x<0). z<0 means they react negatively to your critique.

The z<0 case is the one I'm most concerned about. We want z>0. When z<0 you've not communicated to the author, so your time was, in a sense, wasted.

Now the common confusion is that x and y are related -- that y is a function of x, like y=x. What I found is that it isn't. And it's important that it isn't, because z _is_ a function of y, in a strong way.

I don't know what the true function z=f(x,y) is in this case, but my experience is that it's just a teeny bit related to x (how bad your news is) but it's dramatically related to y (how you phrase the bad news). Maybe z = (exp(x/100)-1) + (1-exp(-y))... !

That's probably not that far off, conceptually: Negative content, x<0, doesn't seem to upset authors (just a little). Positive content makes them feel better (naturally). Whereas look at the effects of y! Poor phrasing, y<0, makes z go VERY negative (like exponentially). This correlates with the kind of email I get from authors.

Here's what the 1-exp(-y) term looks like graphically:



Left: Receiver's Reaction [Positive -- Negative]
Down: Diplomacy of Phrasing [Improperly diplomatic -- Properly Diplomatic]

See how a slightly negative tone gives a very negative reaction... while a positive tone is fairly neutral (doesn't irritate the author). The point is to remove the irritant (by phrasing bad news better).

The other problem is that big negative z (from y<0) closes their ears and they don't hear what you had to say; it masks the value of your x content.

It's NOT, as the math shows, sugar-coating. x and y are orthogonal. Or like the title of that document, "It's Not What You Say, But How You Say It." You can deliver bad news in a way they can grasp.

I hope you'll see, via the math, that this isn't about soothing egos or lying. It's about writing for one's audience, and communicating effectively.

i.m so not reading all that stuff

E foarte interesant :) cum poti explica si critica corect din punct de vedere matematic

Daca nu intelegi explicatia de mai sus, si esti confuza asta inseamna ca nu esti pregatita sa iti organizezi si structurezi propriile tale ganduri -.-" sau... cel mai probabil nu vrei sa intelegi pentru ca nu iti place matematica sau orice e legat de ea.

prefer sa gandesc cu partea dreapta a creierului.

prefer sa gandesc cu curu'.

Well, fara sa fii citit chestia asta inainte, asa procedam in comentariile de pe deviantart de obicei. Conteaza foarte mult cum pui problema, daca vrei sa ajuti cu adevarat prin critica ta. Daca e rautacios comentariul, n-ai ajutat pe nimeni, doar il enervezi pe cel in cauza, deci comentariul in sine devine fara rost.

L.E.: trebuia sa scriu in engleza? Acum vad ca scrie English only.

nu.. :) articolul e in engleza