I had to look up the reference, and based on the wikipedia plot summary at least, I admit I don't quite get the relevance. I expected a plot where someone handles criticism quite badly and suffers as a result, but in fact the plot was actually about someone who handled criticism very well instead, and improved the lives of others as a result?

So now I'm curious! In what way does Pollyanna relate to adults who can't handle critique? Have I got the wrong Pollyanna by any chance? xD

I’ve also thought about that based on the same info, i.e. not reading the source completely.

There is a notion of a “Pollyanna mode” in schematherapy. What it means is ignoring negative facts and challenges with an outwardly positive attitude and avoiding addressing the issues themselves.

This certainly can be harmful to oneself. Another harmful thing is hating and bashing oneself for mistakes and faults and I won’t make a comparative judgement, but a healthy way is supposed to be along the lines of speaking up openly about what bothers you and thinking what can be done about it if at all.

This makes sense. Thank you for your comment! Learnt something new today :)

A Pollyanna is somebody who's cheerful and optimistic to a fault, i.e., even when it's unjustified.

The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. Something like Wiktionary or another dictionary would be a better place to look it up.

In this case, it's not about being able to receive criticism, but about being reticent about _giving_ it.

> The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom.

This is a good and perhaps under-appreciated point. When I first read the term "Polyanna" I made the same mistake as GP. I think if you read "The Prince" to find out what "Machiavellian" meant you'd be no better than when you started. Even terms like "Kafkaesque" have taken on lives of their own and are probably better not thought of as mere literary references.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" will give you a decent understanding of what people usually mean by "Machiavellian". The book explains what methods would allow an absolute ruler to stay in control of state. It does not generally make moral judgments about those methods.

Machiavelli's "Discourses" is the one that will really confuse a reader looking to understand the colloquial meaning of "Machiavellian". In this book, Machiavelli lays out a vision of a healthy "republic" (or more precisely, res publica) which benefits the people who live in it. Among other things, Machiavelli argues that republics actually benefit from multiple competing factions, and from some kind of checks and balances. Apparently these ideas influenced several of the people who helped draft the Constitution of the United States.

Now why Machiavelli had two such different books on how governments worked is another interesting question...

> Machiavellian

> adjective

> uk /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ us /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/

> using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control

(from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiave... )

Ymmv, but I think that's far from the point of the book, and isn't even the main topic. It's hard for me to imagine taking a person who'd never heard the term, letting them read the book, and then asking them to propose a definition, would produce anything like the above.

I'd be in favour of auto-stickying this. I see a lot of e-ink spilled over arguments that boil down to whether or not it's ok to comment about not liking some aspect of the subject under discussion. There are good reasons not to criticize in some situations, but I don't think they apply here. Either way the arguments are tiresome. We should agree to ban criticism, or agree not to argue about it (barring special circumstances).

Can you give me an example of criticism that is not negative? As far as I know, all forms of criticisms involve pointing out a flaw or fault. There's constructive criticism, but it's still fundamentally negative.

Either way, feel free to replace the word "negative" with "criticism" in my comment if you want. It expresses the same thing I intended to express: I disagree with the criticism.

If we're not Pollyannas and we're all "adults who can handle criticism," then you should also be able to handle criticism of criticism. It goes both ways.

I've been thinking about your comment that all criticism is negative and I'm not sure where to go with that in my mind. I think it very much depends on your definitions of "criticism" and "negative". For example, a movie critic could praise a movie, 100% score, no faults. That's still a criticism by many definitions.

But the interesting thing about this is "the eye of the beholder". I suppose to some folks, all criticism does seem to be negative... which is why code reviews can turn into nightmares... and helps explain why I recently received a very angry phone call from another engineer because of some changes that were made to "his code".

For the purposes of this discussion, the oddity seems to be the folks jumping to defend the software they had no part in creating. Why does the criticism result in negative feelings for them? I can understand the author taking issue with it, but someone else's criticism should not impact another's ability to utilize the software for whatever purposes.

I don't want to play a definitions game and dissect word meanings here. I think it's usually a waste of time. That's why I implored folks to just accept a revision in wording in my previous comment. What I intended to convey was this:

1. There were many comments providing criticism that I disagreed with.

2. I felt that the vibe given by the comments at the time was not commensurate with how much utility the tool brought me in my own workflow.

So it seemed useful to point this out. That is, that there was a gap in the commentary that I thought I could fill.

Obviously I won't be using this phrasing again because it spawned off a huge meta sub-thread that I think is generally a huge waste of time and space.

> For the purposes of this discussion, the oddity seems to be the folks jumping to defend the software they had no part in creating. Why does the criticism result in negative feelings for them? I can understand the author taking issue with it, but someone else's criticism should not impact another's ability to utilize the software for whatever purposes.

Again, it cuts both ways. Why isn't it odd for folks to jump in and express criticism of software they had no part in creating? If folks can express negative criticism, then why can't I express positive feedback?

I didn't say people shouldn't make those comments. I said it was unwarranted. Or in other words, that it was undeserved and that I disagreed with it. Or that some balance was appropriate. This has literally nothing to do with my ability to utilize the software. I don't know why you're going down that road.

Negative comments are not always a product of negativity. Sometimes it's positive feedback to improve something that has potential.

I think that can be true and my top-level comment can be true simultaneously. I've also clarified what I meant at this point.

I think GP is saying that you didn't need to focus on the negativity (which is in itself negativity), just say the substantive thing that you wanted to say without editorializing about negativity. Your complaint (negativity) about negativity might be over-done, and anyways not useful. We can all shake our own heads at others' possibly-unnecessary negativity without having to be calling it out all the time. Meta arguments are not always useful.

Besides, consider this negative comment:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41653797

is it one of the negative comments you didn't like? It seems like a possibly-useful negative comment -- "it didn't work for me because ..." is useful unless it was really a matter of undiagnosed PEBKAC. Would you rather than comment not have been posted? Surely not.

I think I've clarified my position in other follow-up comments sufficiently that everything you said here has already been addressed.

I even already said I would use different wording next time.

And I never said folks shouldn't make those comments. I clarified that too.