If the criticism comes from someone who I do NOT.
If you are truly objective, you will only focus on what is said. Who it came from should not matter.
2)
respect either because I clearly see their 'hidden' agenda.
You do not respect the person because he has a hidden agenda, and not because his statements lack merit? That is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Since he lacks integrity, because you know he has a hidden agenda (therefore is insincere), and because of this character defect of his, his statement must be rejected. This is an error in reasoning because you claim that the statement is to be rejected without showing how it leads to falsehood.
OR because I acknowledge my superiority or expertise in the subject matter and basically know that I know more than them..
It should not matter if you're better than them or not, how good they are is irrelevant it only matters what they say. Imagine an expert mechanic training a teenager. He shows the boy a chart on how a car is to be constructed and then himself misses one detail. The boy looks at the chart and notices the detail the mechanic missed, and points it out to him. Does it mean that since the boy has less skill than a mechanic, he therefore is not capable of pointing out an error that he commited? That is a palpable falsehood, as we both see that statement A(propounded by mechanic) is contravened by statement B (propounded by the boy). We do not need to note that the statement B was propounded by the boy to notice that it is epistemically superior than statement A. Hence, this supports my previous claim that knowledge of the author of the claim is irrelevant. Only the claim itself is relevant.
You don't have to be an 'expert' for me to respct you..
Your opinion of the person is not relevant when it comes to the assessment of soundness of the propounded criticism.
..but for the most part, if I don't respect you as say a performer, I totally am going to ignore any suggestion you have for me to perfect my craft. Because I've already seen your craft and NO THANK YOU I don't want to emulate it.
See the example of an amateur mechanic pointing out the error of an expert mechanic.
All this is compounded if they
3) Have a superior attitude and NO reason to. I am a really open-minded, tolerant person, but I cannot STAND mediocre sucky people who are full of themselves i.e too stupid and talentless to realize that they have no talent and are mediocre and actually think they have talent OR they are desperately clawing and rasping to the top and basically talking out of their asses because they must constantly be bombastic and act like they are in charge.
..again, people who are shitty writers talkng like experts on 'grammar' (dude, grammar is DEAD, no one is an 'expert' on American English grammar0 and picking at ONE sentence for the grammar which is actually CORRECT. Then I read their project which is FULL of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. OMG, this peeves me.
Quality of one's writings should not be assessed in terms of one's adherence to the grammatical convention.
Quality of writing should be assessed in terms of one's ability to express thoughts as faithfully to what one has had in mind as possible.
Writing is mere expression. People often would say Charles Dickens is a good writer because he wrote compelling literature that has had a profound impact worldwide. They are not praising his writing, they are merely praising his ideas. It was not the way he wrote that moved people, but what he wrote. One can be a good thinker and a bad writer. Dostoevsky is the case in point. Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, Crime and Punishment, Notes From Underground should be considered to be among the supreme literature known to man. Yet, they were indeed poorly written. Dostoevksy notoriously broke all rules of punctuation and his thoughts followed in radically idiosyncratic patterns. Not only was it difficult to understand what he was saying because his punctuation made it difficult for one to see what he was focusing on, but also he was out of tune with the perceptions of his readers due to the discrepancies between what he expected his readers to perceive and what they truly tended to perceive after reading his statements.
Exactly right.
meep meep......
