And the only reason negative feedback appears more on INTPc is not because people there are more into self-improvement but people simply shrug off more of the emotional and personal implications of potentially critical statements.
I am still not quite sure what you're getting at. In general, open criticism of other people has to occur in a very controlled circumstance in order for it to have positive results. (Usually this is why it occurs in smaller and more private settings -- because friends have earned the right to criticize their friends, because their loyalty and love is not really in question.)I also don't know if a comparison to a group of people sitting in a circle really does justice to the complexity and depth of the relationships at this site. It's really hard to find an matching real-life setting to even begin to draw comparisons. I don't read the blogs of all my friends, and I don't have discussions with them about their personal lives and fears to the same degree I do with people on this site.
Of course I agree. It just seems that you'd be more apt to throw it like a hand grenade into the middle of an open forum... which to me is the closest analogy here. Criticism actually can cause a lot more harm than good, if not presented in a way that the recipient can actually swallow and respond to in a positive and creative way. "Open Season" thus tends to be one of my less-preferred methods. It only works if everyone is fairly impersonal to begin with and can easily shrug off negative emotions in order to simply view (and accept or reject) the content of the criticism.The criticism might not go over well, but it's expression is important nonetheless, wouldn't you agree? Criticism serves both the source and the target. Otherwise this place'll turn into PassiveAggressiveCentral. Yikes.
Have you ever sat through a constructive criticism class in creative writing? Good lord -- there the people actually are warned AND expect it... and it's still an ugly business. Now imagine a larger group of people pointing out each other's moral and personal flaws. Even if you prep them, it's still usually more harmful than positive.
I guess in some circles it could be.
But I have a lot of admiration for people with strong faiths. I only take issue when they put others down for not sharing it or when they insinuate they are superior (morally or otherwise) because of their particular religious beliefs.
That's very true.Funny how 70 years ago, a person would have been ashamed to admit such a thing.
Of course, back then, basically you still just had a smaller core of true believers, while everyone else was doing lip service because they knew it was social and political suicide to admit they were agnostics or didn't believe in God at all. (Even today, in the environment you describe, there is a high percentage of people who would not vote for a president who openly claimed to not believe in God; and one of Mitt Romney's greatest weaknesses is that he is a Mormon, which is still labeled as a cult in some Christian circles.)
It was basically a veneer, and I'm not sure which I prefer better.