How do you view criticism?

Criticism? I devour it. Negative feedback is intel; it highlights weaknesses my opponents exploit. Positive feedback? That’s just confirmation of what I already know. The real growth comes from dissecting losses, not basking in wins. Analyze every defeat, every mistake—what patterns emerge? How can I adapt, counter, and ultimately predict my opponent’s next move? Seeing constructive criticism and positive feedback as equals is naive; the former offers far greater potential for improvement. It’s not about feeling good; it’s about refining your strategy to the point where positive feedback becomes inevitable. Mastering the game means mastering the art of learning from your failures, not your successes.

How would you describe criticism?

Criticism, at its core, is the process of evaluating and assessing the merits and flaws of a subject – be it a piece of art, a performance, a policy, or even a person. It’s not simply pointing out negatives; constructive criticism actively seeks to improve the subject. Think of it as a spectrum: on one end, you have fleeting, informal comments, perhaps a casual observation about a film. On the other, you find meticulously researched analyses, like those found in academic journals, dissecting every nuance. Effective criticism hinges on clear articulation, specific examples, and a balanced perspective; acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses. Consider the framework of a typical critical analysis: you start with a clear understanding of the subject’s context and intent, then proceed with detailed observation, analyzing its components, and ultimately forming a reasoned judgment, supported by evidence. The goal isn’t merely to judge but to understand, to illuminate both the work’s achievements and its limitations, offering insights that can lead to growth and refinement. Different fields utilize various critical frameworks – for example, literary criticism employs different tools than film criticism. Mastering the art of delivering and receiving criticism is crucial for learning and professional development.

Understanding the intent behind criticism is also crucial. Is it intended to be destructive, aiming solely to belittle or tear down? Or is it constructive, geared towards improvement and growth? Identifying the underlying motivation helps determine how to best receive and process the feedback. Learning to receive criticism with a growth mindset – viewing it as an opportunity for learning rather than a personal attack – is a valuable skill. Similarly, delivering criticism effectively requires empathy and tact. Focusing on observable behaviors and providing specific, actionable suggestions is far more helpful than generalized statements.

How do you deal with perceived criticism?

Perceived criticism? I dissect it. First, I identify the source: Is it genuine concern, veiled aggression, or simple incompetence? This dictates my approach. Gentle words are for allies; incompetence gets a concise, factual correction; aggression gets a swift, decisive counter-attack. Never let them see you sweat, or doubt your judgment. I analyze their words for underlying motives – are they feeling threatened? Jealous? Identifying their weaknesses is key to neutralizing future attacks. I listen, but I don’t passively absorb their poison. I filter information, identify the kernel of truth (if any), and discard the rest. Their emotional state is irrelevant; I focus on objective analysis. Taking things personally is for amateurs. Finally, I use their feedback to refine my strategy. Their “criticism” becomes data, fueling my improvement. Weakness is opportunity; I exploit it.

Why do I perceive everything as criticism?

That hyper-sensitivity to perceived criticism? It’s a common experience, and not necessarily a sign of personal flaw. In the gaming world, we see it reflected in the intensely passionate, often negative, feedback loops surrounding new releases. The constant barrage of opinions, some constructive, many not, can feel overwhelming, leading to a heightened sense of critique even outside the gaming context. This isn’t just a matter of thin skin; it’s a complex issue. Neurodiversity plays a significant role. Conditions like ADHD, for example, often involve heightened emotional responses, making negative feedback disproportionately impactful. Similarly, undiagnosed or untreated mental health conditions can exacerbate this sensitivity, creating a feedback loop where even minor comments are interpreted as major attacks. The experience can be akin to playing a game on the hardest difficulty setting – where every mistake is amplified and every setback feels crushing. Understanding this underlying neurological or psychological component is crucial to managing this perception, just as understanding game mechanics is key to mastering a challenge.

This isn’t about “toughening up”; it’s about acknowledging a potentially significant underlying issue that may require professional help. Just like a difficult boss fight requires strategy and preparation, dealing with this requires self-awareness and potentially professional guidance, similar to seeking help to improve your gameplay.

What is a good example of criticism?

Okay, so we’ve got a scenario: Level 1 – “Dirty Dishes.” The objective is to communicate frustration effectively, not to trigger a rage quit from your teammate (spouse/roommate). A naive approach – shouting “You never do the dishes! You are always so lazy!” – is a guaranteed game over. That’s a level 1 noob move. It’s a blunt, unproductive attack, lacking any constructive feedback. You’re flooding the chat with negative emotions, overwhelming the system. Expect a disconnect.

A pro gamer approach? We’ll need a more strategic communication. Let’s analyze the problem: Dirty dishes are the immediate issue. Underlying issue? Lack of teamwork in household chores. We need to pinpoint the root cause, not just react to the symptoms.

Here’s a level 5 strategy: “Hey, I’ve noticed the dishes have been piling up for three days. It’s starting to feel overwhelming for me. Could we work together to establish a better system for managing chores? Maybe a chore chart, a rotating schedule, or something that works for both of us?” This is a diplomatic approach. It acknowledges the problem without resorting to accusations. It opens communication and focuses on a solution instead of assigning blame. You’re using your communication skills to find a solution, not just complaining. Think of it as collaborative play. This is how you achieve a win-win situation and avoid a game over.

Another advanced tactic? Instead of criticizing the action (not doing dishes), focus on the impact it has. “Having a pile of dirty dishes makes me feel stressed and overwhelmed.” This is expressing your feelings without blaming. This is crucial for efficient communication – and unlocking the achievement of a clean kitchen.

Why do I perceive everything negatively?

You’re experiencing the negativity bias, a hard-wired survival mechanism prioritizing threats. It’s not just about noticing bad things more; it’s about their disproportionate impact. Your brain’s amygdala, the fear center, reacts far stronger to negative stimuli than the positive reinforcement areas. This asymmetry means a single insult stings more than multiple compliments. Think of it like this: your brain is geared towards avoiding death, not maximizing pleasure. That’s why bad experiences linger; they’re crucial for survival learning. This isn’t a personal failing, it’s fundamental brain architecture. Overcoming it requires conscious effort, mindful attention to the positive, and actively challenging negative thought patterns. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) techniques can be especially helpful in retraining this bias.

Consider this: evolutionarily, reacting strongly to potential dangers boosted survival chances. Missing a threat was far more dangerous than a missed opportunity. So, your brain is wired for maximum threat detection and minimization. It’s a powerful, yet sometimes debilitating, survival tool. While useful in a hostile environment, it needs recalibration for modern life. You’re not alone in this struggle; understanding its roots is the first step towards effective management.

Practical strategies include gratitude journaling, focusing on accomplishments, and actively seeking out positive social interactions. Challenge your negative thoughts; are they truly accurate or are they distortions? Remember, altering this bias takes time and consistency. It’s like leveling up your emotional resilience; it’s a long fight, but achievable.

How would you describe a critic?

A critic? Think of them as a high-level boss in the game of culture. They’re the endgame content, the ultimate challenge. They’ve mastered the art of analyzing the loot – the artwork, the literature, the films – and dissecting its stats: composition, narrative, impact, innovation. They’ve seen countless playthroughs of different creative genres – from the pixel art of early indie games to the AAA cinematic experiences. They can identify game-breaking glitches in logic, flawed mechanics in storytelling, and exploit weaknesses in artistic choices. They’re not just rating the game; they’re deconstructing the code, revealing hidden mechanics and strategies others miss. Some critics focus on specific genres; others are true completionists, tackling everything from the low-poly landscapes of experimental theater to the photorealistic textures of haute cuisine. And just like some players focus on PvP, some critics dissect social and political systems, tearing apart their mechanics to expose bugs and vulnerabilities.

They’re not just about judging, though. Top-tier critics act as guides. They help players – the audience – understand the game better, identify what’s truly worthwhile, and avoid wasting time on bad content. Think of them as wikis, walkthroughs, and expert reviewers all rolled into one intimidating, opinionated package. They’ve got the skills, the knowledge, and the experience to offer invaluable insight – provided you’re ready to handle the brutal honesty.

How do you describe a critique?

A critique? Think of it as a post-game analysis, but instead of a match, it’s a piece of work – a game design doc, a piece of art, whatever. It’s a deep dive, a breakdown, not just “good” or “bad”.

It’s a structured approach:

Deconstruction: You dissect the thing. What are its core mechanics? Its art style? Its narrative? Think of it like studying your opponent’s replays – identifying their strengths and weaknesses.
Interpretation: What was the creator *trying* to do? What’s the intended message or impact? This is where you get into their strategy – what was their goal? Did they achieve it?
Evaluation: How well did they execute? Were the mechanics balanced? Was the story compelling? The art effective? This is your judgment call, backed by evidence from the previous steps.
Conclusion: You synthesize your findings. What are your overall thoughts? What worked? What didn’t? How could it be improved? Think of this as suggesting strategic adjustments for future games.

Key elements of a killer critique:

Specificity: Don’t just say “it was boring.” Say *why* it was boring. Cite specific examples.
Objectivity: Balance your subjective opinions with objective observations. Support your claims with evidence.
Constructive Criticism: Focus on how the work could be improved, not just what’s wrong with it. It’s less about flaming and more about providing useful feedback.

Think of it less as a judgment and more as a collaborative process towards improvement – a vital tool for leveling up any creative endeavor.

How to respond to people’s criticism?

Mastering the Art of Responding to Criticism: A Loremaster’s Guide

Level 1: Active Listening – Don’t just hear the words; decipher the intent. Active listening isn’t just about nodding; it’s about truly understanding their perspective. Observe their body language, tone, and word choice to identify underlying emotions and motivations. This is your initial quest – gain intel on the source of the criticism. A crucial skill honed through years of deciphering cryptic scrolls and ambiguous prophecies.

Level 2: Strategic Response Timing – Not all moments are equal. A hasty retort is a rookie mistake. Sometimes, a strategic delay allows you to craft a more effective counter. Think of it as studying the battlefield before engaging. Consider the context – a heated moment might require a delay before any meaningful dialogue.

Level 3: Reflection and Analysis – This is where the real mastery lies. After gathering information, take time to process the feedback. Separate valid points from emotional outbursts. Analyze from multiple angles—is the criticism constructive? Is it biased? Is the source credible? This is the equivalent of studying ancient maps and texts before embarking on a perilous journey.

Level 4: Crafting the Perfect Response – This is your moment to shine. Choose your words carefully. Acknowledge their perspective, even if you disagree. Focus on facts and solutions, not emotional rebuttals. Frame your response with diplomacy and respect. A well-crafted response is a spell that can disarm even the most seasoned critic.

Level 5: Follow-up and Evaluation – The quest doesn’t end with a response. Observe the outcome. Did your response achieve its intended effect? If not, what adjustments are needed? Consistent evaluation refines your skills. Treat every interaction as a learning opportunity. Remember, even the wisest loremasters are constantly learning.

Bonus Tip: Recognize that criticism is not always personal. Sometimes it’s a signal that something needs improvement. Embrace this opportunity for growth and self-improvement. See it not as an attack, but as a valuable quest to refine your skills and better yourself.

How do you respond to criticism interview question answer?

When faced with criticism, especially in the high-pressure environment of professional esports, I don’t see it as an attack but as valuable feedback. My approach leverages the STAR method, focusing on continuous improvement.

Situation: During a crucial playoff match, our team’s strategy for the late-game objective collapsed. Post-match analysis revealed that my aggressive early-game play, while initially successful, had left our team vulnerable to counter-attacks. The coach pointed out the predictable nature of my actions and its impact on team coordination.

Task: My task was to refine my gameplay to improve our team’s overall performance and reduce predictable patterns, which made us susceptible to counter-strategies.

Action: I didn’t take the criticism personally. Instead, I analyzed the game footage extensively. I reviewed professional gameplay from other teams, looking for successful counter-strategies to the type of early aggression I employed. I discussed my findings with my coach, teammates, and even analyzed data from our in-game metrics like kill participation and objective control to pinpoint specific areas for improvement. I adjusted my playstyle, focusing on greater map awareness, adaptable aggression, and better communication with my team during crucial moments. I also implemented specific drills to enhance my decision-making under pressure.

Result: In the following matches, our team’s performance significantly improved. My refined gameplay contributed to more balanced aggressive pushes, and better team coordination around objectives. This directly translated to an increased win rate. Critically, the predictability in my gameplay decreased, showcasing effective adaptation to feedback. It’s about continuous self-improvement, and this experience helped solidify my understanding of collaborative gameplay and adaptability, key components in high-level esports.

Furthermore, I actively seek feedback, both from coaches and teammates. I view criticism as an opportunity to identify weaknesses and refine my skills. I believe a player’s ability to incorporate criticism effectively defines their potential for growth in esports.

Openness to Feedback: I actively solicit constructive criticism from various sources.
Data-Driven Approach: I use in-game statistics to objectively assess performance and identify areas for improvement.
Team Collaboration: I leverage the expertise of coaches and teammates to refine my strategies.

How do you handle criticism short answer?

Criticism is inevitable in any high-stakes environment. Treating it as actionable game data, rather than a personal attack, is crucial for improvement. Here’s a refined approach:

Active Listening & Data Acquisition: Don’t interrupt. Focus on understanding the specifics of the criticism. What are the observable behaviors? What are the measurable outcomes? Note the source’s perspective and experience level – weight feedback accordingly.
Emotional Regulation: Recognize emotional responses are normal, but don’t let them cloud your judgment. Treat negative emotions as “lag” in your processing system; acknowledge them, but don’t let them dictate your actions.
Contextual Analysis: Is the criticism valid given the context? Consider team composition, game objectives, and resource limitations. Was it constructive or destructive criticism?
Feedback Filtering: Not all criticism is created equal. Prioritize feedback based on source credibility, objectivity, and alignment with overarching goals. Identify patterns in recurring criticism.
Data Interpretation & Hypothesis Generation: Formulate hypotheses explaining the observed shortcomings. Could resource allocation be optimized? Are there skill gaps requiring training? Analyze play logs and metrics for objective data points to support or refute the criticisms.
Actionable Strategy Development: Based on your analysis, develop concrete, measurable steps to address identified weaknesses. This should include both short-term tactical changes and long-term strategic improvements.
Iteration & Testing: Implement your strategies and rigorously track the impact. Monitor relevant metrics. This creates a feedback loop for iterative improvement.
Performance Review & Adjustment: Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your implemented strategies. Be prepared to adapt and iterate based on new data.
Self-Reflection & Continuous Learning: Honest self-assessment is key. Maintain a growth mindset and consistently seek opportunities for self-improvement. Learn from both successes and failures.

What is criticism in a good way?

Constructive criticism in esports is all about leveling up your game. It’s not just pointing out mistakes; it’s about delivering specific, actionable feedback backed by concrete examples from replays or live matches. Think detailed timestamps and precise descriptions of what happened and how it could have been improved, maybe even referencing specific pro player strategies. It’s about offering suggestions for improvement, focusing on mechanics, strategy, decision-making, or even team communication. Good constructive criticism is delivered with a supportive attitude, understanding the pressure and intensity of competitive gaming, aiming to help improve performance, not to demoralize. The goal is to help analyze your gameplay, identify weaknesses and transform them into strengths, boosting your KDA, win rate, and overall performance. Consider it like having a dedicated esports coach analyzing your gameplay to help you reach the next level of play.

What is perceived criticism?

Perceived criticism (PC) refers to how individuals interpret the actions and words of others as critical, regardless of the other person’s actual intent. It’s not about the objective criticism itself, but the subjective experience of feeling criticized.

Research consistently demonstrates a strong link between perceived criticism and negative mental health outcomes. High levels of PC are predictive of:

* Symptom severity: Individuals experiencing high PC tend to exhibit more intense symptoms of various mental health disorders.

* Treatment response: PC can hinder treatment effectiveness, leading to poorer outcomes in therapy or medication management.

* Relapse risk: A strong predictor of relapse across a wide spectrum of disorders including depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, and schizophrenia.

This is particularly important because PC can be a subtle and often unconscious process. Someone might not be overtly critical, but a perceived slight, tone of voice, or even a facial expression can be interpreted as criticism, triggering negative emotional and cognitive responses.

Understanding this concept is crucial for both mental health professionals and individuals themselves. For clinicians, it highlights the importance of exploring patients’ perceptions and addressing potential sources of perceived criticism within therapeutic relationships and daily life. For individuals, learning to identify and manage their own responses to perceived criticism is a valuable skill in improving mental wellbeing.

Further research is continually exploring the mechanisms behind PC and developing strategies for mitigating its negative impact. Areas of investigation include the role of cognitive biases, attachment styles, and mindfulness techniques in managing PC.

How do you analyze new criticism?

Analyzing a text through the lens of New Criticism involves a close, meticulous reading focused solely on the internal elements of the literary work itself. External factors—author’s biography, historical context, social influences—are deliberately excluded. The critic’s task is to uncover the text’s inherent meaning and unity.

Key Analytical Elements:

Theme: Identify the central ideas and recurring motifs explored in the text. Consider how these themes interrelate and contribute to the overall meaning. Look for patterns and contradictions.

Structure: Analyze the arrangement of the text. How do plot, narrative voice, and point of view shape the reader’s experience? Examine the use of chapters, scenes, stanzas, or other structural components and their impact on meaning.

Literary Devices: Pay close attention to the author’s use of figurative language (metaphor, simile, symbolism), imagery, tone, and style. Consider how these devices contribute to the text’s overall effect and meaning. Analyze the interplay between form and content.

Internal Consistency: New Criticism emphasizes the text’s internal coherence. Look for paradoxes, ambiguities, and ironies. How do these elements contribute to the work’s complexity and richness?

Example: Instead of researching Shakespeare’s life to understand Hamlet, a New Critic would focus on the play’s dramatic structure, the use of soliloquies, the recurring motif of revenge, and the interplay between appearance and reality within the text itself to arrive at an interpretation.

Limitations: While valuable for close textual analysis, New Criticism’s disregard for context can limit its scope. It may overlook crucial social, historical, or biographical factors that significantly shape the text’s meaning and impact. Understanding these limitations is crucial for a balanced critical approach.

How do you feel about criticism?

In gaming, receiving criticism, whether it’s about your gameplay, your in-game designs, or your latest strategy guide, can trigger a cascade of emotions. Defensive reactions are the most common: a knee-jerk impulse to justify your actions or choices. This is especially true in competitive environments where pride and skill are constantly on display.

Beyond defensiveness, shock, embarrassment, hurt, and even fear are all entirely valid responses. Negative feedback, especially public critique, can feel like a direct attack on your competence, passion, and even your identity as a gamer or developer. This is amplified by the intensely personal nature of many gaming experiences.

Remember that criticism, unlike outright hate, often implies an underlying desire for improvement. Constructive feedback points to areas where you can learn and grow. For example, analyzing negative reviews of a game can reveal crucial design flaws that might otherwise go unnoticed. Similarly, receiving critiques on a gameplay video can highlight aspects of your technique that need refinement.

Understanding the source of criticism is key. Is it coming from a respected authority in the field? A casual player? A competitor? Knowing the source and their potential biases helps to contextualize the feedback. It’s crucial to differentiate between genuinely helpful criticism and simply toxic negativity.

Focusing on specific actionable advice within the criticism is vital for improvement. Instead of getting bogged down in emotional responses, identify the concrete suggestions and assess their validity in relation to your goals. This process transforms criticism from a potential blow to a valuable learning opportunity.

What are the three types of criticism?

Forget the simplistic “destructive, constructive, instructive” tripe. That’s for newbies. In the brutal arena of PvP, criticism is a weapon, and you need to wield it with precision. There’s only *one* type: effective criticism, and it’s a spectrum.

At one end, you have the blunt force trauma of *purely negative feedback*. This isn’t about building; it’s about exposing fatal flaws, highlighting glaring weaknesses in positioning, decision-making, or reaction time – the stuff that gets you instantly deleted. Think, “Your rotations are garbage, you’re predictable, and your awareness is nonexistent.” Harsh, yes, but sometimes brutally necessary.

The other end is the subtle, strategic guidance; *precise, targeted improvements*. This isn’t hand-holding. It pinpoints specific mechanical inefficiencies, tactical missteps in teamfights, or strategic errors in map awareness, offering concrete, actionable suggestions for improvement, e.g., “Your interrupt timing on that ability was off by 0.3 seconds – focus on precise timing using visual cues.” or “Consider a different build against this specific composition to counter their burst.” It demands the receiver understands the underlying mechanics and strategy.

The middle ground? A carefully calibrated blend of both. You rip apart what’s broken, then meticulously show the path to reconstruction. It’s the difference between a battlefield surgeon and an amateur butcher. Master the spectrum. Master the game.

What are the characteristics of a good critic?

A good critic? Think of them as a veteran gamer with thousands of hours logged. They’ve seen it all, from broken pixel art to flawless masterpieces.

Articulation is key. They don’t just say “it’s good” or “it sucks.” They dissect the experience, painting a vivid picture with precise language, like a master crafting a perfect strategy guide. Think detailed descriptions, not just surface-level impressions. High-level appeal? That’s their endgame boss, flawlessly executed prose.

Sympathy: They understand the developer’s vision, even if they didn’t pull it off perfectly. They see the effort, the struggles, the bugs that slipped through QA.
Sensitivity: They appreciate nuances, subtle details, the overall mood and atmosphere – they’ve mastered the art of immersion and can dissect the elements that make it work (or fail miserably).
Insight: This goes beyond basic observation. They can connect the dots, uncover hidden themes, and predict the impact the game will have. They’re uncovering easter eggs, not just describing the main quest.

Form, style, and medium matter. A critic understands that a pixel art indie game is different from a AAA open-world title. They judge the game on its own merits, acknowledging the inherent limitations and strengths of the chosen platform and genre. They don’t compare apples and oranges; they know when a specific mechanic is a masterful execution despite not being ‘innovative’.

They understand the game’s intended audience. A brutally difficult Dark Souls-like isn’t judged by its accessibility to casual players.
They factor in technical aspects, whether it’s optimization, performance, or bug count. A game-breaking bug is a game-over.
They consider the overall impact. How does the game make the player feel? What message is it trying to convey? What’s the lasting impression?

How do you respond to criticism or opposing views?

Responding to criticism, especially in the hyper-competitive esports world, requires a strategic approach. A polite demeanor, even when facing harsh critiques, is crucial for maintaining a positive image and avoiding unnecessary drama. Think of it like managing your in-game comms – staying calm and collected is key. Always thank the person for their feedback; it shows respect, even if you disagree. Remember, many criticisms stem from a lack of understanding, not necessarily malice.

Consider these points:

Context is king: Is it constructive criticism from a coach or teammate? Or toxic negativity from a random viewer? Tailor your response accordingly. A concise, professional reply to a coach’s feedback is far different than engaging with a troll in chat.
Don’t feed the trolls: Ignore blatantly disrespectful comments. Engaging only fuels the fire. Focus on constructive criticism.
Learn from the criticism: Even harsh critiques might contain valuable insights. Analyze what points are valid and how you can improve your gameplay, strategy, or even your public persona.

Instead of direct confrontation, consider these options:

Acknowledge the criticism: “I appreciate you pointing that out.”
Briefly explain your perspective (if relevant): “My strategy was based on…” or “The situation was a bit complex….”
Focus on future improvement: “I’ll work on improving that aspect of my gameplay.”

Remember, the esports scene is constantly evolving. Revolutionary strategies and unconventional playstyles are often met with resistance, but that doesn’t diminish their value. Embrace the challenge and use criticism as fuel for growth.

What do you call a person who criticizes others?

While “criticizer” is a perfectly valid term, it’s a bit blunt. Let’s explore a more nuanced understanding of the different types of people who criticize, because the right word paints a much clearer picture. Understanding the *why* behind the criticism is key.

Beyond “Criticizer”: Understanding the Nuances

The Constructive Critic: This person offers criticism with the intention of helping the recipient improve. Their feedback is specific, actionable, and focuses on the work, not the person. Think of a skilled editor providing notes to an author.
The Cynic: This individual is often pessimistic and tends to find fault in everything. Their criticism is usually negative and rarely offers solutions. They may be driven by insecurity or a desire to tear others down.
The Naysayer: Similar to the cynic, but often focuses on actively opposing or discouraging ideas or plans, regardless of their merit. They prioritize negativity over productive engagement.
The Devil’s Advocate: This person challenges ideas and perspectives to stimulate deeper thought and reveal weaknesses in arguments. Unlike cynics, their intention is to improve the overall quality of ideas, not simply to be negative.

Choosing the Right Word: A Guide

Consider the intent: Is the criticism meant to help or harm?
Analyze the delivery: Is it constructive and specific, or vague and personal?
Evaluate the frequency: Is this a one-time occurrence, or a recurring pattern of behavior?

Using the right term allows you to communicate more effectively and understand the underlying motivations behind the criticism. Simply labeling someone a “criticizer” overlooks the valuable distinctions between these different types of critics.