The destroyer of weeds, thistles, and thorns is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Every now and then, someone pops up (usually a relative!) to tell me something I’ve written is crap. This is wounding. Like everyone else who blogs, I’m convinced of my own genius and sagacity. Anyone who’s critical is clearly a fool. Except sometimes someone like Andrew Old comes along who, despite his many and various failings as a human being, is no fool. As an example of the kind of arguments we used to enjoy, take a look at the comment thread on this blog post. I decided early on, that since Andrew wasn’t a fool, he must just be ignorant. Clearly he had no idea of what went on in secondary schools.
When he proved he did, in fact, know quite a lot about what went on in secondary schools, I assumed the problem must be that since he was ‘just a maths teacher’ he really didn’t understand the complexities of teaching English. Patiently, like a great, grey glacier, his implacable persistence wore me down to the point where I accepted that he knew at least as much as I did about teaching and probably a great deal more.
At that point it became clear that he was evil. Obviously he was some sort of right-wing, child hating monster whose only object was to ruin the lives of young people. This is as far as many people get. Andrew’s criticism is tenacious to say the least. I remember a few years ago when a weary opponent attempted to call a draw by saying, “I think we’ll have to agree to disagree,” he would respond with, “OK. I’ll agree to be right, you can agree to be wrong.” This drove people crazy! They’d get so angry that here was this intractable, relentless obstacle who would not back down or compromise an inch. Eventually, they’d descend to mud slinging and that would be that: an opportunity to learn lost.
Learning can be hard. We all want to be courted and complimented, teased, seduced into maybe considering there may be another way of perceiving the world. We don’t like someone coming straight out and telling us we’re wrong.
This is something I’ve learned the hard way. Sometimes, whether from exasperation or impatience I’m just a bit too blunt. This was a low point for me. Then the emotional response is just too great to be able to hear what I’m actually saying, and my words get distorted into caricature. When I wrote my provocatively titled book, I thought as carefully about the tone as I did the content. What I really wanted was not so much to convince readers that what I think is right (obviously it is) but that I wanted to make people consider what it might be like to be wrong. In retrospect, I regret Chapter 3 which was just too polemical for some readers to get past.
I’ve got better at being criticised. Today I wrote a post criticising Michael Rosen’s views on grammar and, naturally enough, he was a bit critical of my criticism. He may well have felt a little stung. I’ve tried hard not to get emotional in response. Recently Daisy Christodoulou pointed out that my ideas on assessment weren’t as great as I thought they might be. Instead of sulking I went away to rethink, and, as a result, have learned something new.
So, how should we deal with criticism? For what it’s worth here’s my advice:
- Try not to take it personally. The other person will have feelings too and it’s ridiculously easy to escalate a disagreement into mutually ensured destruction. Resist the temptation to see others as trolls. Once I got so upset with Colin Goffin’s criticism that I took the unprecedented step of blocking him from commenting on my blog. Now that we’ve met and had a pint, everything is fine.
- You might be wrong: see what you can learn. Always seek to explore rather than confirm your biases. Look for evidence that you might be wrong, rather than just attacking the other person’s view. Argument – the clash of ideas – leads to learning. There is always someone who knows more and is cleverer than you. Don’t feel threatened by this: arguing with knowledgeable, smart people means you’ll learn faster. Dylan Wiliam has been a wonderful role model for me in this regard.
- The people who take the time to critique our ideas are the most valuable resource we have, cherish them. I spent many hours arguing with Ian Lynch. I still feel his loss keenly. Here’s a taste of his abrasive, but useful contributions.
- Don’t take yourself too seriously. Try to laugh at the insanity inside yourself. You can get away with so much more with charm, humour and self-deprecation. Tom Bennett is the master at this.
- If it all gets too much, you can always switch off. If you’re determined to check your notifications while strolling through a park with your loved ones, you’ve only yourself to blame. And for Pete’s sake, don’t moan about it. There’s nothing duller than reading about someone else’s wounded pride. If all else fails, the MUTE button on Twitter can be a God send!
And just so we’re clear, this advice is as much for me as anyone else. Carry on.
Oh, and by the way, once you realise Andrew’s not evil, you get to see what a sensitive flower he really is. His true complexity only begins to emerge when you learn that not only is he a Labour party activist, he’s also a teetotal vegetarian and a practising Catholic.
You wrote depreciation instead of deprecation. WHAT AN IDIOT. Because of this, I choose to dispute and disregard everything you say.
Good post David. I wish more people had the courage and humility to admit that they can learn from others, and not take criticism as something corrosive and cruel.
Bastard! How dare you troll my blog!
Reminds me of a time I pointed out your misspelling of schadenfreude. O the irony!
THANKS
It depends how it is expressed. Hectoring, badgering, pomposity, pestering, relentless repetition rarely a constructive exoerience. Don’t want to learn from people like that thanks.
One woman’s hectoring is another’s gentle sophistry.
Lol, some of us not willing to travel that rocky road. Good blog though.
I really get that, but it does limit the opportunity to learn.
You are on form this week!
I’m *always* on form, dontcha know? 🙂
Then again, I really do want to call someone a somnambulistic jack-ass, only because I love the word somnaumbulistic.
Couldn’t agree more. I use the line “I am an expert but not the expert. Someone in this room knows more than me and does it better than me” when I deliver INSET. And I plan to steal some of point 2 this Wednesday when we do a session. Ta.
Like that! Also like ‘the most intelligent person in the room is the room’ where the group wins
Thank you for such an important blog. ‘Always seek to explore, not confirm your biases’. This is something I am striving to do.
This reminds me of J. Benton Underwood’s reaction to having a paper rejected by a journal:
“The rejection of my own manuscripts has a sordid aftermath: a) one day of depression; (b) one day of utter contempt for the editor and his accomplices; (c) one day of decrying the conspiracy against letting Truth be published; (d) one day of fretful ideas about changing my profession; (e) one day of re-evaluating the manuscript in view of the editor’s comments followed by the conclusion that I was lucky it wasn’t accepted!” (p. 87)
Source: Underwood, B. J. (1957). Psychological research. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc.
That’s a great quote! Thanks
I agree with what (I think)you say about reflective discussion.
That opener seems to lead to a “but”, which is a sadness that by including one specific name, it calls attention to another. I am assuming that this is written after watching a Twitter spat, which is rarely enlightening nor edifying, as participant or spectator.
Exploring ideas should be the hallmark of a profession. This should not become a binary issue, as adaptability is often the key to supporting a child to see a way forward, or to ” make an idea work” in a specific context.
Equally, our life experiences tend to colour the way we see things.
( Being good at arguing doesn’t necessarily make someone “right”, just determined to win)
Be well. Hope Swindon is offering what you wanted.
‘Being good at arguing doesn’t necessarily make someone “right”, just determined to win’. Absolutely right. That’s why David’s determined attempt to be reasonable works for most, but not all, debates in politics and education. Treating a discussion as if it’s a competition, and then using the old boxing technique of bashing repetitively away until the opponent falls down is all too common, in which case the only worthwhile lesson is quite simply to avoid engagement in future. Willingness to learn has to be a precondition for all sides.
Chris, I’m very much afraid that I have no idea to what you’re referring. I’m writing about my own experiences and most ‘spats’ are often only in the mind of the person who feels upset that they’re views are not universally agreed with.
Hi David.
Chapter 3 was one of my favourite chapters in your book. Do you mind elaborating further on why you regret writing it? Or, at the very least, including it in the final publication?
Because it’s in danged of being interpreted as polemic.
[…] This ‘clash’ or ‘conflict’ is real. I appreciate that, as always, people tend to genuinely believe what they profess to believe. But be careful what you wish for. Dignity is made possible through access to the institutions of justice. Victimhood is made possible through access to the mob. If you believe in justice, in the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, you should be on the side of dignity. If you find yourself feeling oppressed by criticism of your ideas, instead of rounding up a gang of mates to defend your honour, try reading these suggestions on how to deal with criticism. […]
Only just catching up with this, David – good post. (But I have to point out you have “who’s” where you mean “whose” in your third paragraph. I know you can take the constructive feedback….)
Hope to see you again soon.
Damn! Thanks
[…] How to deal with criticism. The destroyer of weeds, thistles, and thorns is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not.Robert Green Ingersoll Every now and then, someone pops up (usually a relative!) To tell me something I’ve written is crap. This is wounding. Like everyone else who blogs, I’m convinced of my own genius and sagacity. Anyone who’s critical is clearly a fool. When he proved he did, in fact, know quite a lot about what went on in secondary schools, I assumed the problem must be that since he was ‘just a maths teacher’ he really didn’t understand the complexities of teaching English. […]
A teetotal vegetarian Catholic Labour party activist? God, how utterly boring and self-evidently nuts. Can’t have anything worthwhile to say to us normal folks. Glad you told us!
Well, that doesn’t come across as bigoted or anything :/
Blimey! When I made a gentle but negative criticism of something you said a few weeks ago, all I got was a condescending ‘couldn’t care less what you think’. What’s brought this about?