On Negative Comments
Recently I've been thinking about how we evaluate people's performances. Or rather, I've been thinking about how I, specifically, approach commenting on performances and my family's tendencies while commenting, which is mostly negative. So now I've posed the question to myself, after years of having been exposed to this type of criticism (some constructive, some not): Why do I find it easier to say negative comments over positive ones? What I've concluded is that I've been trained, to a degree, to be able to see faults easier than virtues, but maybe that's the same with most people. But as it is, I've been trying to improve my ability at giving compliments, which is causing me to have to analyze why I have an easier time with one, but not the other.
As I see it, commenting on a negative has certain strengths: it can be specific, more accurate, has greater potential for improvement, and comments on something tangible. What I mean by this last point is that it’s commenting on an actual, present fault that is clearly apparent to the observer. Say someone is singing and they are very flat on a particular note, which was easily observed. Commenting on this, supposing the error's done at least semi-consistently, is useful because it shows a problem that can be fixed and is consistently present; it's very apparent. If we suppose that we get this kind of feedback all the time, we'll doubt our ability to be at all good, and may think that we're bad, despite the critic never actually saying that (not directly, at least). Taking it further, commenting on such a temporary fault that was obviously a one-time error is also very negative and irksome because it's probably something the performer recognized and has no chance/need to correct. "There's no way for me to fix that one-time error, so why bother commenting on it? it happened once, let's move on" is the thought process that would be accompanied with criticising such an event.
In contrast, positive comments are usually: vague (it was good!), can imply something negative through pointing out the absence of something (you weren't off pitch! (implies that the error is normally present)), and absolutely useless for improvement. I suppose that general comments can be fixed by being more specific, but through the specificity you are running a greater risk of getting into the semi-negative realm of comments due to pointing out absence of error. The lack of constructivity is difficult to absolve, but you could do the compliment sandwich technique, at best. A good example of how comments, that are intended to be positive, can be underhanded is in the movie American Beauty: the daughter participated in a choreographed dance and the mother's comment was "I watched you very carefully and you didn't screw up once!", which is difficult to decipher whether she is a tactless idiot with good intentions, or if she really wanted to say something negative and disguise it as a compliment.
Another example would be for clean vs dirty: saying that a place is clean is vague ("wow! it's clean!"), non-tangible ("there are no dirty dishes!" comes off negatively), and unhelpful for the future; saying something is dirty is more constructive ("try putting things away when you're done; it's easier to put less things away over more instances!"), tangible (there's actually something to be done), and helpful, but with the drawback of making the criticised party feel worse and like the critic less.
To further negative comments, a lot of people I've spoken to only seem to think that negative feedback is the only real information, while positive feedback is regarded as either a white lie or something similar (e.g. vested interests). Of course, not everyone thinks like this, but an even more common feature for positive-negative thinking is the unequal weights for each: one negative comment is worth four positive ones. You read correctly - four. Relationship research shows that relationships need at least a 4:1 or 3:1 positive-negative ratio for a relationship to be at all successful, and if it dips below that "magic" ratio, it's very likely to fail.
So, as I continue to work on my own habits, the 'lesson' is to try and keep that ratio happening, while considering the impact of tactless comments. The key word is Metacognition.
I don't know if it's necessarily true that positive feedback is always more vague than negative; it just seems to take a little bit more work. Your dishes example (no dirty dishes vs. everything is clean) could easily be quantified in the same way a negative comment could (ie. Negative: oh, there's still two dirty dishes, Positive: Oh how wonderful, you washed seventeen dishes) and we can see how the lazy human mind easily goes to count the smaller number. It's simply unfortunate that when we are commenting on someone else's performance, our negative comments actually display our own negative performance (laziness).
However, from the positive quantitative feedback a person could work to improve their performance (increase the number of dishes done), still feel that they have done well in the first place while maintaining a positive relationship with whomever is giving the feedback.
That being said, many behavioral psychologists still struggle to quantify all of their comments, both negative and positive. It requires thinking and rethinking before speaking, and your key word is right on the money.
Human nature in itself struggles to create order... many times when there is none. Order in one's mind creates comfort in predictability and reason- Chaos creates feeling of unease and lack of control. Being negative is easy- any idiot can spot things that are out of order; out of place or out of tune. Stating a negative(although possibly constructive) comment shows a number of things- its quick; it has some dimension of superiority, even when unintended(and for insecure individuals; intended); it challenges the receiver to "justify" the negative as a planned event or apologize for the error.
I know many people who constantly complain about things they can do little about(ie: government) and I have little patience for discussing or listening to complaints about what can’t be done. My feelings are to focus on what can be done and then come up with actions however small, to move forward. If we all tried this, great things could and sometimes do happen(ie: texting $5 to Haiti relief).
Today "opportunities lie in the unknown" and therefore requires risk takers to find them. One’s knowledge is best learned from "the compilation of personal failures". Those with the most accumulated (unrepeated) failures then need to be positively motivated to continue for all of our growth.
Let's say there are 3 types of people: 1)those only with positive comments regardless of performance(not those(ie: family or spouse) just accepting you as you are); 2)those only negative; and 3)those having a balanced approach.
1)There is little to be learned from those only positive and therefore unlikely to be a true treasured colleague or friend. 2)From a factual standpoint the most expedient to be learned is from the 'only critical’ type since there are specific tangible items identified to act upon. This person can be a colleague, however unlikely to be respected or even avoided if the comments seem self serving.3) -The most gratifying response is not just positive or negative but one that allows the emotional. You still get all the facts of the negative person, but you get to feel good about what met expectations and what was done well- although you likely know what you did well without anyone telling you. A balanced person who tells you with absolute truth as to what was wrong and what was right, is likely to be your most respected treasured colleague or friend.
Living outside your comfort zone(in another part of your blog) is admirable since it forces you to stretch you mind and body- good for you... Most attempt to stay only in their comfort zone and thus losing life's opportunities to experience and learn. If you could always look at a negative comment as an unemotional opportunity to learn or improve, great, but that requires 'thick skin' and is uncomfortable for many and avoided by most. All of us need to be more positive in our comments, however this takes time to compose and think through a response. Usually when someone wants your feedback, it is immediately after the event or performance; thus the need for immediate feedback is to find something obvious to comment on and therefore leads to finding the slightest out of order imperfection to appear to have paid attention or be knowledgeable. When training a dog(or children) you must catch them and immediately point out the negative, in order for the unwanted behaviour to be known and hopefully changed.
Also, too many positive comments from the same person or group eventually becomes meaningless by the recipient and ultimately ignored and even viewed negatively- take rock stars for example- eventually they will not listen to those adoring fans since they will compliment them on anything they do, even when absolutely outrageous.
In closing, both the person giving and the person receiving should take on the responsibility to allow time for a thoughtful response.
Our world today is all about immediate gratification and progress is not made in 10 second increments and that will be hard to change.
Comments are welcome.
I agree with everything you said; the third person should be the type to strive for if one were to consciously try to change. I think my post was written with a bit too much of a false dichotomy of good-vs-bad comments and didn't look enough at the grey in-between.
And I know exactly what you mean when it comes to drowning in positive compliments. It comes to feel fake, hollow, and meaningless. You don't bother to ask that person's opinion anymore because you know it'll be positive regardless of how you actually did, so there's no room to improve. A tactful suggestion with positive elements trumps.