How to Respond to Criticism – Learning from Dr. King(fourhourworkweek.com)
fourhourworkweek.com
How to Respond to Criticism – Learning from Dr. King
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/08/24/letter-from-a-birmingham-jail/#more-2122
6 comments
The connotation exists, mind, because most people who are labelled with the term are so labelled because they've lost some touch with reality.
Mind you, protesting for basic human rights, that's not extreme. It was seen as extreme at the time, but that's moderate. Similarly, some protests today, like the "don't let companies rob us because we're dying" protests, might be called extreme by the "other side", but they're not really extreme. That's a rational cause and most of the people protesting for it are rational people.
On the other hand, last year I participated in a handful of protests, largely because I had nothing better to do, and there you find real extremists. You find people who think that the Jews are all part of a conspiracy to kill nonJews, and you get the people who think organizations of any time are detrimental to society, and you get the antitech people.
I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades were obnoxious and hurting the cause. A friend of hers in turn responded in a rant that said I couldn't possibly understand society if I was heterosexual, I was probably a repressed homosexual, I was actively harming his existence by living, and I was a pretentious bourgeoise without a mind.
In response to that unwarranted rant, I decided to become an extremist moderate. My intolerance is towards extremists. In the half-year since I decided that, I've found that in every situation I choose to insert myself, I feel I'm fighting for a good cause. People who refuse to listen to the words of their opponents are never wholly the good guys.
Mind you, protesting for basic human rights, that's not extreme. It was seen as extreme at the time, but that's moderate. Similarly, some protests today, like the "don't let companies rob us because we're dying" protests, might be called extreme by the "other side", but they're not really extreme. That's a rational cause and most of the people protesting for it are rational people.
On the other hand, last year I participated in a handful of protests, largely because I had nothing better to do, and there you find real extremists. You find people who think that the Jews are all part of a conspiracy to kill nonJews, and you get the people who think organizations of any time are detrimental to society, and you get the antitech people.
I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades were obnoxious and hurting the cause. A friend of hers in turn responded in a rant that said I couldn't possibly understand society if I was heterosexual, I was probably a repressed homosexual, I was actively harming his existence by living, and I was a pretentious bourgeoise without a mind.
In response to that unwarranted rant, I decided to become an extremist moderate. My intolerance is towards extremists. In the half-year since I decided that, I've found that in every situation I choose to insert myself, I feel I'm fighting for a good cause. People who refuse to listen to the words of their opponents are never wholly the good guys.
I remember posting once on a friend's wall that while I appreciated her passion in supporting gay rights, I couldn't help but think gay rights parades were obnoxious and hurting the cause.
That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his reasoning starts to go wrong?
That's exactly the position that King's letter rebuts. Where do you think his reasoning starts to go wrong?
The reasoning goes wrong when the parades become less about a bunch of sincere people campaigning for their rights, and becomes more a grotesque parody of what that group looks like in the public eye.
I go to a school where there are more gay people than straight people, so I know straight-up how awesome gay people are. I also live in a very conservative town, and I know that a lot of homophobia stems from people not knowing gay people. The more you know, the more you realize they're just like us.
So when you're somebody who knows nothing about gay people or gay rights, the right way to get attention is to have more casual protests. Get a large block of people that look normal to peacefully march through a city, looking like everyday citizens. You do not want people in tight leather humping 30-foot-tall dildos, because then they look like freaks and people will lose sympathy for them.
My irritations during this argument with this kid were furthered when he claimed that the dildo-humping was essential because gay people are over-the-top like that. I mean, if you're going to protest against unfair depictions of you, don't perpetuate the stereotypes yourself.
I go to a school where there are more gay people than straight people, so I know straight-up how awesome gay people are. I also live in a very conservative town, and I know that a lot of homophobia stems from people not knowing gay people. The more you know, the more you realize they're just like us.
So when you're somebody who knows nothing about gay people or gay rights, the right way to get attention is to have more casual protests. Get a large block of people that look normal to peacefully march through a city, looking like everyday citizens. You do not want people in tight leather humping 30-foot-tall dildos, because then they look like freaks and people will lose sympathy for them.
My irritations during this argument with this kid were furthered when he claimed that the dildo-humping was essential because gay people are over-the-top like that. I mean, if you're going to protest against unfair depictions of you, don't perpetuate the stereotypes yourself.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Actually had to look that one up only to find that it was by an American politician I'd barely heard about (Barry Goldwater).
It's a really good line, and it seems he turned into a figurehead for the Libertarians. It just strikes me as funny that there's no room in American politics for a 3rd party.
It's a really good line, and it seems he turned into a figurehead for the Libertarians. It just strikes me as funny that there's no room in American politics for a 3rd party.
Not exactly a guide on "how to respond to criticism." More like "Tim Ferris Presents... MLK's Letter From A Birmingham City Jail."
He basically RT'd Martin Luther King Jr.
He basically RT'd Martin Luther King Jr.
I completely agree. Yet I read the entire text, which I have never read before, and it is such a great call to action for any just cause.
Man, it makes me think about how little I am doing to advance what I believe in out of comfort.
Man, it makes me think about how little I am doing to advance what I believe in out of comfort.
MLK's "Letter" is great. I had to read it for an english course in my freshman year. And to his credit, Ferris highlighted very good sections. He may not have actually created any novel content, but he definitely made the letter more skimmable.
"He basically RT'd Martin Luther King Jr."
Is "RT'd" the new blogspam? :)
Is "RT'd" the new blogspam? :)
Think of the letter this way also: there were millions of people who faced the same awful conditions every day. But of those millions, how many were able to communicate the experience to someone else?
That's what made him great - he was able to communicate what all the other millions could only feel.
That's what made him great - he was able to communicate what all the other millions could only feel.
True: It is too bad there was no analysis done. Presenting the letter and bolding parts of it makes it more readable and highlights key points. However, those points make much less sense and have much less power if all you read is the bolded portions. Good commentary on what King was doing and why would have been more valuable.
I haven't managed to get through the whole thing yet, but a few things I have noticed:
1) King states that he rarely responded to his critics, but did sometimes. On the one hand, it's a bad idea to spend too much time arguing with people about your work. It takes precious time and energy away from the work and it sends the wrong message about your mission. A good way to "lose" such a battle is let your detractors distract you overly much with such tactics. On the other hand, never responding to criticism leaves your critics with too much power to shape public opinion. Don't get mired in arguing with these people whose minds you are unlikely to change. But don't let them have the only say in shaping public opinion. When responding to them, be cognizant that you are really speaking to a larger audience and this larger audience is the one you most want to reach. You have little hope and little need of really winning over your critics. It is sufficient to neutralize them in the battle for mindshare.
2) King preached non-violence and taught his people to not retaliate.
If you genuinely want justice, you cannot retaliate. Retaliation proves to people that you don't genuinely value justice. It proves that you would do as much injustice to those currently in power as they are doing to you if only you had the power to do so. Standing by your principles is far more powerful.
3) While not retaliating, King does not hesitate to call people on their BS.
This is a distinction many people seem to have difficulty making. It is a powerful distinction that helps give teeth (so to speak) to a non-violent position. Non-violence does not mean being a wuss. Respecting people does not mean kissing arse.
4) Avoid hyperbole and stick to the facts.
The facts are usually plenty ugly on their own and typically do not require hyperbole to get strong reaction. Hyperbole is a good way to give your critics a means to dismiss you as a hysterical nutcase.
I haven't managed to get through the whole thing yet, but a few things I have noticed:
1) King states that he rarely responded to his critics, but did sometimes. On the one hand, it's a bad idea to spend too much time arguing with people about your work. It takes precious time and energy away from the work and it sends the wrong message about your mission. A good way to "lose" such a battle is let your detractors distract you overly much with such tactics. On the other hand, never responding to criticism leaves your critics with too much power to shape public opinion. Don't get mired in arguing with these people whose minds you are unlikely to change. But don't let them have the only say in shaping public opinion. When responding to them, be cognizant that you are really speaking to a larger audience and this larger audience is the one you most want to reach. You have little hope and little need of really winning over your critics. It is sufficient to neutralize them in the battle for mindshare.
2) King preached non-violence and taught his people to not retaliate.
If you genuinely want justice, you cannot retaliate. Retaliation proves to people that you don't genuinely value justice. It proves that you would do as much injustice to those currently in power as they are doing to you if only you had the power to do so. Standing by your principles is far more powerful.
3) While not retaliating, King does not hesitate to call people on their BS.
This is a distinction many people seem to have difficulty making. It is a powerful distinction that helps give teeth (so to speak) to a non-violent position. Non-violence does not mean being a wuss. Respecting people does not mean kissing arse.
4) Avoid hyperbole and stick to the facts.
The facts are usually plenty ugly on their own and typically do not require hyperbole to get strong reaction. Hyperbole is a good way to give your critics a means to dismiss you as a hysterical nutcase.
Feeding a squirrel while wearing a tank top is a good move. Draws attention away from the fact that you're trying to draw attention to your buff physique while at the same time emphasizing your sensitive caring side. Not that there's anything wrong with showing off your buff physique. Unless you're Tim Ferris, in which case highlighting how big a poser you are is probably the last thing you need. The squirrel is genius though.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Except perhaps to illustrate why I should seek advice on "how to respond to criticism" from Ferriss: He's had a lot of practice.
Everytime I hear or read this line I get chills down my back. He took a word with an incredibly negative connotation (still remains true today) and turned it into a call for action. This is how I imagine true leaders-- people who listen to their criticisms, but use their intellect and common sense to turn their perceived weaknesses into strengths.