Criticism is one of the few things everyone receives regardless of age, gender, ethnicity and other factors used to differentiate people. When you were a child, your parents may have scolded you for the way you were playing with your food. As you grow older, you may have been criticized by your teachers for solving a math problem incorrectly or for using the wrong grammatical tense. All these forms of criticism genuinely seemed to be provided with intentions of aiding your growth in a given subject whether it be to eat properly, solve math problems correctly or write grammatically correct. However, as with many things, the way people criticize others can get out of hand. From strictly intentions of helping one another, people have started to critique others as a way of putting them down. Critiques surrounding one’s appearance have increased especially with the presence of social media. As these forms of critiques ultimately have a negative impact on one’s mental being, it brings to question, to what extent is criticism necessary and effective in building one’s character.
This question is explored by Heather Stringer in “Constructive criticism that works” and Sarah Griffiths in “Why criticism lasts longer than praise.” In “Constructive criticism that works,” Stringer implies that criticism can provide a positive impact on someone if certain criteria are met. This criterion includes enforcing a supportive environment that encourages improvement from criticism and being consistent with the criticism given. As for “Why criticism lasts longer than praise,” Griffiths implies that dwelling on negative criticism can cause more harm than good for the people receiving the criticism. To a degree, it seems as though Stringer and Griffiths have opposing views on criticism; while Stringer seems to welcome and encourage positive use of criticism, Griffiths is trying to tell readers how important it is to push away the negative thoughts associated with criticism.
Both authors have a different approach when it comes to introducing their topic and it speaks to the way they have different ways of approaching pathos in their writing. Generally, both articles are reaching the same audience, people who are curious about how criticism impacts people; however, the authors’ approach to introducing the topic differed. Stringer introduced her argument by discussing an active study psychologist Naomi Winstone was conducting about constructive feedback, and this was an intentional move by her. In doing so, readers are already left with the impression that the claims going to be made further on are serious and well equipped with evidence. As for Griffiths, she introduces the topic by helping readers recall old sayings or memories from the past. She asks readers to recall the moment they were told “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words would never hurt me.” Her way of getting everybody to remember a childhood memory is an effective way of maintaining the reader’s attention about a topic they may not initially be interested at first.
In terms of ethos, both Stringer and Griffiths do an effective job of establishing credibility. Oftentimes, both author’s make sure to provide the whole status of the people their quoting to make their arguments sound more believable. For instance, before supporting Lisa Steelman’s claims that a person’s work environment is essential to how they receive feedback, Stinger made sure to provide Steelman’s title as an “Industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologist.” As for Griffiths, she went as far as referring to Randy Larsen as a “professor of psychological and brain sciences at Washington University in St. Louis,” before talking about how he believes our negative emotions have a longer impact than positive emotions. In both scenarios, the authors take the time to provide elaborate titles before introducing people because they want to capitalize on their role and status. Certainly, knowing the people behind these arguments have an educational background in psychology would make me trust the article and its content more.
Lastly, both Stinger and Griffiths have a similar approach to logos. To make their points come across, they both provide qualitative research from studies already conducted. For example, Stinger provided a study in which people were tasked to view a training video, apply what they learn and get feedback in different orders. At the end of the study, they found out that the order of which the feedback was given did not alter how a volunteer improved on their skills. Introducing this study helped readers grasp and understand Stinger’s arguments more easily. This is the case for Griffiths too. To make her point about how negative critiques from our loved ones can make a tear in the relationship, Griffiths provided a study which claimed a couple who in the beginning stages have already negatively critiqued the other would separate later. Providing this study helped establish Griffiths point because she provided a relatable study which was easy to understand and thus easy to grasp the argument which she was making.