The author references the work of Barbara Frederickson, a psychologist who had a very popular theory on "Positivity Ratios", a theory that was in part justified by misuse of differential equations from fluid dynamics, and was thoroughly debunked in "The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking: The Critical Positivity Ratio" [1].

There have been several good summaries of this paper and the work that led up to it over the past few months (my favorite being this [2] one).

I'd take this author's view with a grain of salt (or something stronger).

[1] http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/complex_dynamics_final_clea...

[2] http://narrative.ly/pieces-of-mind/nick-brown-smelled-bull/

Not to dismiss an interesting study, but it only seems to address the emotional response to criticism. When giving or receiving criticism in a work environment, there is likely to be a rational response of equal or even greater importance. At the very least, an employee who receives criticism will perform some sort of rough mental calculation to determine things like:

1. Is the criticism valid?

2. Is it threatening?

These calculations may be influenced, not only by how you deliver the message, but by what information has already been revealed to the employee -- by your behavior, by the corporate history and culture, and by the employee's general knowledge of business trends.

I think you are over estimating the influence of rationality in peoples response.

Summery: "instead of criticizing someone, ask them about their dreams"

What if your dreams are flawed? Nearly everyone's dreams are flawed. The world never works in the way you'd image it to. My mother's harsh criticism of my life's decisions is actually what ended up turning around my life. Harsh reality was not only necessary but the only way out of my endless fantasizing and dreaming.

I can understand and agree that positive reinforcement is better than negative criticism but that's assuming the subject eventually found something positive to do. At some point you either sit around and wait until something positive is done so you can praise it, or you suggest positive actions (which is a subtle indirect form of criticism).

When you downvote someone on HN, you make it harder for that person to change.

It changes a person, but in a wrong direction, i think.

This article criticizes people who express criticism.

So we should never disagree with anyone? And when should a person change? When someone tells them to or when they realize their convictions may not be right?

You disagree, but then you have to think what you really want to happen. If you want that person to change her point of view, it's probable that even if you are completely right with facts backing your possition you will not achieve it just by telling them that they are right. But you don't have to give them the reason either, while usually people rise defenses as a way to protect their self from an "agression", you are able to modify and change their ideas with indirect methods. One way is not talking directly about it but showing the correct way. That way the other person will see what you do and maybe will change voluntarily one she realizes that your method is superior. Another way is telling a story where the topic is touched indirectly, talking about another person and the results of her actions, but not as an example but as if trying to explain another topic. Z

This kind of roundabout indirect communication never works with me because I'm the kind of person that won't read between the lines. However, if someone says something along the lines of "Matt, you're wrong and here's why..." I'm quite likely to listen, evaluate what they're saying, and make changes as necessary so long as they're not a cunt about it.

I'm really quite open to the prospect of being wrong and absolutely love direct communication. If people try to do the same thing in some ambiguous and tortuous way they're likely going to spend a lot longer and will fail. If I do figure out that's what they're doing rather than just saying what they need to say, my opinion of them is likely to fall it comes across as cowardly; they could have just said what they wanted to say rather than tapdancing around the topic and hoping for the best.

That kind of attitude is awesome. But you will agree with me that it's not the normal behaviour on most people. Most people will understand a well intended correction as a personal attack.for example that's what happening with active atheism. When religious people are told that all their believes are wrong they take it as if you were attacking all the parts of their personality and not as an accurate description of the situation. In that moment they close their possition and react having even a stronger faith than before. I think that active atheist should begin to use the scientific method to check their approach on the matter (they are currently using the same evangelization method they critizice). If it's not working the actual method new ones should be used. But this methods takes more time, as you must gain the trust of the person that you are trying to teach, and make them learn bit by bit without cuestioning their actual believes, only adding small gems of new knowleadge till they replace the old ones over time. The person doing this will probably will have to go to church with the rest of his community and take part on all the events with them religious or not.

Criticize people who are doing a good job, so they keep up the good work out of spite.

criticizing: You are not performing very well at your job.

disagreeing: You're wrong, you fucking retard.

There can be various contexts of disagreement as well as criticism. (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) Our both arguments are on extremities of each.

Kindergarten report card: D can't take constructive criticism.

I sort of understand this. I really do. And I try hard to be positive and constructive, and to give credit. But I also value the times when people tell me I am wrong and why. And I can't stand the culture of never saying no, even if the question is very clear and to the point and the answer is clearly actually no. None of us are perfect, and that is a good thing.

Human traits are a vast shade of grey, neither black nor white. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Someone who even attempts this approach is underestimating our diversity (not to disparage this scientific study in any way).

Focusing on 'dreams', focusing on 'flaws' or using some other emotion to motivate a person, there cannot be a 'standard' approach. Sometimes it is the 'fear of loss' which works wonders. On someone who wants to be the 'best', it is realization of flaws which might work. But there are several other factors which need to be taken into account, including life circumstances. Keep all options open and be willing to change your strategy quickly in response to how the situation is turning.

And sometimes, even if we want to change, the 'monkey' inside us doesn't let us change. Mere realization of a flaw does not guarantee change. It takes a lot of hard work to achieve a personality change. A lot of people aren't capable of that.

I didn't read the article but based on the title I expect they came to the same revelations that Dale Carnegie did in his famous book "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

I didn't read that book, but I did read Mark 'Chopper' Read's How to Shoot Friends and Influence People.

From article: "Bottom line: don’t focus on only on weaknesses, but on hopes and dreams. It’s what our brains are wired to do."

That's all nice and fuzzy, but I can't say this is true for me - and possibly many other people. Personally, I am interested in self-improvement and receiving criticism (mainly constructive) is the best way for me to make change.

Lastly, making broad statements like this demonstrates ignorance on the part of the author around the complexity and diversity of what motivates different people.

Coincidentally, in the "Most Popular" links, #6 for me was: "The Fine Art of Tough Love" which seems to, at a high level, contradict this article.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/the-fine-art-of-tough-love/

I was open to the idea that the article might be making a good point until I reached the stereotype that Engineers don't have people skills.

In my experience, most Engineers have very good people skills and understand that you can't look at the world as a technical problem waiting to be solved.

As a programmer I see this as an investigation/debugging. I try to make sure my assumptions are correct, then try to list all the problems and suggest fixes in the simplest manner in interrogative form so the person clicks deeply and peacefully.

It's hard to take an article seriously when the title is obviously false.

And if I criticize myself, do I make it harder for myself to change?

Who is the 'you' in this case? The original author? The person who submitted it? The people who upvoted it? You have to give us something to work with here :-).

Research done while watching peoples brains at work is always interesting even if the veracity of the brain scan technique is dubious.

It is always interesting to ask people how they like to be managed, when you aren't their manager, because one presumes they give more honest answers.

Assuming the GP was trying to make a joke, it is is also helpful when giving criticism to have it be for something specific and actionable (which isn't the case for that post.)

I think breaking the guidelines, and then ending with something like "worth the karma loss", should be grounds for hellbanning, since apparently downvotes was not sufficient disincentive.

Everything alright?