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.
3 replies on “Assignment 2 Draft”
I really like how you summarize the main ideas of each article in the beginning! It lets the reader know what to expect throughout the rest of the essay.
You first talk about how each author introduces the audience with pathos. Stringer discusses “an active study psychologist Naomi Winstone”, for “the impression that the claims going to be made further on are serious.” I interpreted this as ethos (credibility) since the author is using the work of a professional to set the tone as “serious.” It can even be logos if the author uses factual evidence in the beginning. The use of title which in this case is “psychologist” is the same evidence you use in the next paragraph about ethos so maybe consider another example for pathos regarding Stringer’s article.
Regarding the paragraph about logos, I feel like that was rather rushed. You should include more specific details; what qualitative data was found that stood out to you. How does this contribute to why criticism should or should not be encouraged? Also, what are some limitations of your author’s arguments? For the conclusion, maybe restate your thesis and summarize the points discussed earlier. Overall, I really vibe with the examples you used, and they contribute to your argument well.
The introduction is really well done and the way you gave relatable scenarios engaged me as the reader into the rest of it (just analyzed an analysis). To make the first body paragraph flow smoother, I think you should just introduce the articles like you did but then just give the author’s viewpoints instead of stating the title of the articles each time. For example, “In “Constructive criticism that works,” Stringer implies…” I think you could remove the article name and just start with “Stringer implies…” since the author’s work was already stated the sentence before, same for the other article. The summary is great, it gives the reader each author’s viewpoint on criticism. The pathos part on Stringer’s side definitely feels more like ethos like Anusha said as the title more gives credibility rather than invoking an emotion from the audience. I think you should create a conclusion or maybe some type of closing sentence in your last paragraph as it feels like the essay should keep going. Other than that, the content of the analysis is really solid for a first draft.
The way you discussed the impact of criticism on individuals is flawlessly executed. Both Heather Stringer and Sarah Griffith effectively target their audience’s curiosity about the impact of criticism. Your analysis effectively dissects the passage, highlighting its key components. In terms of ethos, both authors support their credibility by providing the qualifications of the experts they reference. The way you begin with a concise summary of the main ideas from both articles is a strong hook for the reader. When discussing the introduction and the use of pathos, I agree that Stringer’s approach seems to lean more towards ethos by establishing the credibility of the study psychologist. So you might need to consider finding another example to illustrate the pathos element. In the section about logos, you’ve recognized the need for more specific details regarding the qualitative research in both articles. Adding specific findings and their implications would enhance your analysis and make your argument more compelling. Including a conclusion or closing sentence would also help to tie your analysis together. Overall, the passage dives into the multifaceted nature of criticism, presenting two distinct viewpoints, and both authors effectively use pathos, ethos, and logos to engage and persuade their readers.