Do You Have To Be Good At Something To Criticize..

[Orange]

It?

I was just thinking about this, and it's a topic that's come up here before.

Do you have to be good at something to criticize it?

Most of the time, I'd say no. However, I think the main reason a lot of people would say yes, and it's a point that I feel is valid, is because some don't seem to have a basic understanding of how certain things work. For example, when somebody blasts a wrestler for not being a good "worker" or not up to par in their opinion on the mic - I just don't think they understand how hard it is to actually be a wrestler - so I can see why people would say yes - it's almost insulting for guys that have worked their entire life crafting their skill and dedicating their lives to something to get criticized by somebody who has probably never wrestled a match in their life. The same could be said for anything, but the wrestling example is the reason I started this thread.

I'm no saint when it comes to this myself - but I have been attempting to at least be fair about criticism, and not just outright dismiss something the way some people can.

So, FAN, what say you? Do you have to be good at something in order to criticize it - or is everything/body fair game no matter if the person has experience in that field?

[Brother Nero....Wolfe]

You don't need to be a cook to spit out something and scream it tastes like the devil's toenails. Likewise, you can very well critique somebody for doing something wrong if the subject is something that either directly affects you, giving you a perfect way to gauge whether they were successful or not, or something that gives visible results that you can analyse.

For example, I can criticize somebody for not being funny on the grounds they didn't make me laugh--assuming it isn't a freak incident where I'm the only one not laughing. I can also say that a fencer who stabs himself during a match isn't a very good fencer, because that's very observable.

Things like "Book X would have been better if..." are a lot more sensitive because, while it's perfectly fine to say "I'd have enjoyed it more if..." it's very rare to find a single change that would have made the movie an even better financial success than it was, for example. Sometimes those criticisms come from not understanding the business and they aren't valid because they miss the point.

More specifically, it's wrong to criticize something for not doing thing X that would have made it better if X is subjective and you got no experience with it. If it's an objective thing, by all means, but when it comes to performance and other subjective topics, generally you need to know a lot about it before you can go on about what's right and what's not.

[Rolent Tex]

I'd say no.

I've never played football in my life (wish I could say different) but I'll be damned if that would have stopped my relentless mocking of the professionalism, playing skills and buffet butchering skills of one JaMarcus Russell.

[Cyno]

I always thought that "well, you don't (insert something here) so your opinion is invalid!" was a pretty weak argument made by people who can't handle criticism.

[AFN: Judge Shred]

It doesn't matter how hard it is to be a wrestler at all. I can judge them because I have other better wrestlers to compare it too. I can also judge them and say "hey, they have gotten better". If I cannot make the judgment for the negative, how can I make one for the positive? Plus, they are entertainers, they exist to make others happy. Soyes, they can be judge and have to be by sheer virtue of what they are.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

I don't think you need to, just having what is in your opinion better or new ideas. For example, I probably couldn't make a game on anything more complex than RPGMaker but I still like to think I have ideas that could improve various games (and my belief is strengthened when the developers do include these ideas in the sequels).

After all, many professionals use ideas suggested by fans.

[spec]

Anybody can offer their opinion on something, but if you have experience of actually doing whatever it is yourself then any criticism is likely to have a lot more insight and credibility behind it.

[Deleted]

I would say no, because even though I can't race a car, I can certainly tell when there's a driver in Formula One who has no talent and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a race car.

[darthalexander]

If we all had to be good at something before criticizing it, we'd never be able to voice our own opinions.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

Nope

I suck at lots of things but I can tell when something is bad or not. Like video games, I don't have to know how to design and programme a video game to realise when one sucks. Likewise boxing, I don't need to be good at boxing to realise Amir Khan has a weak chin and is a overated, overhyped hack.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Nope. It's an ad hominem attack by the one being criticized, nothing more.

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2012 0:51:47 GMT -5 Brother Nero....Wolfe said:

You don't need to be a cook to spit out something and scream it tastes like the devil's toenails.

Pretty much this, exactly.

No one produces things exclusively for other members of the same field.

[Push R Truth]

I've always looked at it like this:

It doesn't take any special skill to know something is bad. (This soup tastes like Mark Sanchez's buttfumble)

HOWEVER, it does take knowledge and skill to know how to improve the same object. (Does the buttfumble require some salt? Maybe more cream? Maybe the buttfumble soup tastes the way it's supposed to, you just happen not to like it. Maybe less running into your own lineman's ass? I don't know enough about the topic to know with any certainty)


Being a Critic is the easy part. Offering a solution opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Red Impact]

Dec 4, 2012 9:04:09 GMT -5 Push R Truth said:

I've always looked at it like this:

It doesn't take any special skill to know something is bad. (This soup tastes like Mark Sanchez's buttfumble)

HOWEVER, it does take knowledge and skill to know how to improve the same object. (Does the buttfumble require some salt? Maybe more cream? Maybe the buttfumble soup tastes the way it's supposed to, you just happen not to like it. Maybe less running into your own lineman's ass? I don't know enough about the topic to know with any certainty)


Being a Critic is the easy part. Offering a solution opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

And now I've got the image of eating buttfumble in my head. Thanks.

In all seriousness, this is exactly right. Anyone can say something is bad, and you don't have to be an expert in a field to know that something is bad. But having knowledge and skill in an area gives it more weight. You can still get very informed opinions from the layman, but it's less likely, largely because most layman don't want to spend the time clearly articulating or developing the critique.

Ignoring criticism because someone isn't in your line of work is silly. You can ignore it if it's baseless and ridiculous, but it's nothing but unwarranted arrogance to just completely write it off.

[The OP]

Dec 4, 2012 7:50:05 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Nope. It's an ad hominem attack by the one being criticized, nothing more.

Mostly I agree with this, but there are times when I'm reading someone's comments and I get the sense that they really don't appreciate the work that goes into (to use the original example) being a pro wrestler. Take out pro wrestler and write in another difficult task or career path, same thing.

[Toxik916]

It's one thing to criticize something but then there are people who use the vail of criticism to be a dick. I think all criticism is fair until people start making personal attacks on the person their criticizing and not the person's work.