Liz Strauss at Successful Blog

Thinking, writing, business ideas … You’re only a stranger once.

July 14, 2008

Social Proof: The Difference Between Critics and Censors

ME Liz Strauss wrote this at 8:02 am

We Write About Others

The Living Web

Reputation is an online currency. The value of what we say is nothing without credibility, competence, and integrity to back it up. Part and parcel of online reputation has become something known as social proof. The popularity of our network and the things people say about us and our influence carry weight that affects the value of our words.

But what if people say things that are mistaken, out of context, or just made up? Even with the best intentions, folks meaning to evaluate and offer input can miss part of the story. And there’s that human trait some folks have for wanting to take down whatever person is currently at the top.

How do we tell a critic from someone who simply wants an influence to shut up?

Last night in a conversation on Twitter, the subject of critics and criticism came up.

This morning I went to Merriam Webster for clarification.

critic - Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krinein
Date: 1588
1 a: one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique

censor Etymology: Latin, Roman magistrate, from censÄ“re to give as one’s opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit Å›aṁsati he praises
Date: 1526
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

A critic analyzes a work to determine whether it’s structurally sound and accurate. He or she sees whether it’s aesthetically pleasing within the confines of the medium it’s offered. A critic uses education and experience to evaluate whether an artist, thinker, writer, speaker or other has set out to perform a worthwhile work and has accomplished that goal.

A critic’s personal opinion of a work or the source is secondary to how well the execution of the original purpose is achieved within confines of the validity, accuracy, structure, and expression of the work.

Statements about the “goodness, morality, or personal value” of a venture or adventure are not criticism in it’s truest nature. Unsupported personal judgment about a work has to pack unquestioned expertise to be criticism and even then –

Censors judge goodness, morality, and what is right . . . or not.

The danger of censorship is that it can make statements, assumptions, and evaluations about the artist, thinker, writer, speaker or other, as well as the work. Ideas of “goodness and morality” move the converation into motive and intent and possible outcomes. The world view and personality of the artist, thinker, writer, speaker or other get evaluated as part.

It’s a delicate endeavor to do that fairly without taking away a person’s humanity and in the process losing our own. The most effective censors also leave their personal biases at home.

A person is a person, a many dimensional being — not simply a blogger, an A-Lister, a social media guy, a date last night, or a mom. I think about that when I hear folks make statements about motivations and intentions without having heard from or studied the people they are talking about.

According to the Etymology, the word critic is younger than the word censor. Maybe we need more practice.

Critics and censors — what do you see of them? How do you respond?

–ME “Liz” Strauss
Work with Liz!!

Like the Blog? Buy my eBook!





Filed under Analysis |




C'mon. Let's talk!

8 Comments to “Social Proof: The Difference Between Critics and Censors”

  1. July 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
    Ulla Hennig said

    I am not so much into analyzing whether a certain person acts like a critic or a censor; important for me is: do I have the impression that someone is just showing off, acting his superiority or is she wanting to help me make things better. I hate persons who are too lazy to think first before they ask somebody something; but I also dislike persons who think that before asking them you have to read at least 5 handbooks and then you’ve to fall on your knees and beg to get an answer to your question.

  2. July 14th, 2008 at 8:37 am
    ME Liz Strauss said

    Hi Ulla,
    I agree about the people at both extremes. Might I also add . . . I also lose respect for folks who consistently don’t think before they react to someone’s behavior and consistently find out later that the story behind the behavior they applauded or condemned was more than what they thought.

  3. July 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
    SpaceAgeSage said

    No one wants unsolicited “advice,” be it from a critic or a censor, because both come across as judgment. Those who feel the need to judge others are often insecure. That’s why they are quick to apply perceived motivations on others — it’s easier to point fingers than take stock of themselves. I like this quote by Dr. Wayne Dyer: “When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”

    If it’s my job to critique something, that’s a different story. Also if I ask for a critique, I better be able to handle it with graciousness.

  4. July 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
    ME Liz Strauss said

    Hi Sage,
    Yeah. I like Dyer’s quote too!
    Probably the reason I so like it is because it’s my experience that whatever I find I don’t like in other people is usually something I don’t like in myself.

  5. July 14th, 2008 at 9:15 am
    Marc Rohde said

    I think you are defining a critic to narrowly, while you may be correct that the critics opinion is secondary consider the fact that the validity, accuray, and structure of most things that are judged will be subjective.

    Even in the “dictionary” defination of censorship the term “supervisies” implies that a censor has or sees the authority to remove the immoral material.

    If I find something morally abject and speak my criticism of the morality of the piece but don’t seek removal I am a critic not a censor.

  6. July 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
    ME Liz Strauss said

    Hi Marc!
    You’ve got a point. I was trying to draw the line clearly, and it’s clear that it’s probably not.

    If the comment box would hold it, I would venture a discussion that investigated whether your finding was based solely in your personal view and whether you advocated that your view was more important that the personal view of the content producer.

    I think critics have to be careful about keeping a detached sense of balance about what they criticize. When a critic begins to impose views on a work or the person who made it, then he or she moves over to acting as a censor might.

  7. July 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
    Laurie said

    I think that when we want to comment on something we have to decide what is the outcome that we’re looking for.

    Criticism is good when it’s provided in a way that helps us improve or develop. Even though the content of the criticism is negative, when it’s aimed at a positive outcome, it’s a positive-negative. However, when the critic crosses the line into personal attacks or judgments (censor), they’re much less useful - if at all - so their comments have a negative-negative outcome.

  8. July 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
    ME Liz Strauss said

    Hi Laurie!
    Welcome!
    I’m with you exactly. :)

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!