How To Take "Criticism" Effectively? The Answer Is Externalized It...!!

Once again...!! Since about one month, I can fill my blog again...But telling you the truth, this time is really no idea in my mind to put on ...so when I am blogwalking, I've found in my browser's unsorted bookmarks, Jessy Mc Laren's Blog, she has the great blog! And one of her article is about "Taking Crticism"....when I read it, it really adds my knowledge in Taking Criticism Effectively...surely I think "Externalizing Critic" is one of the way to take Critics Effectively....hopefully you will have the positive things too for your ownself...

 "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary.

It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body.

It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."

~ Winston Churchill ~

Attitude

The longer I live, the more I realized

Will influence attitudes in the life

Attitude is more important than knowledge, rather than money, than an opportunity, rather than failures, than successes, than whatever may be said or done somebody.

Attitude is more important

than appearance, gift, or skill.

The most amazing thing is we have the option to generate the attitude we have on that day.

We can not change the past

We can not change people's behavior

We can not change what would happen

One thing we can change

is one thing we can control, and that is our attitude.

I am increasingly convinced that life is

10 percent of what is actually happening to us, and 90 percent is how we deal with it attitude.

Finally: All the choice lies in your hands, there is no IF or BUT. You're the driver. You decide ... YOUR WAY OF LIFE!

Kahneman on the storm of doubts surrounding social priming research

Daniel Kahneman issued an open letter to researchers doing social priming research, which has become the subject of skepticism after some studies were found to be fabricated and others were not able to be independently replicated. His letter offers advice to scholars about how to address the situation: Find out the truth through extensive replication and announce it.

The text of the letter is below:

From: Daniel Kahneman
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects
Dear colleagues,
I write this letter to a collection of people who were described to me (mostly by John Bargh) as students of social priming. There were names on the list that I could not match to an email. Please pass it on to anyone else you think might be relevant.
As all of you know, of course, questions have been raised about the robustness of priming results. The storm of doubts is fed by several sources, including the recent exposure of fraudulent researchers, general concerns with replicability that affect many disciplines, multiple reported failures to replicate salient results in the priming literature, and the growing belief in the existence of a pervasive file drawer problem that undermines two methodological pillars of your field: the preference for conceptual over literal replication and the use of meta-analysis. Objective observers will point out that the problem could well be more severe in your field than in other branches of experimental psychology, because every priming study involves the invention of a new experimental situation.
For all these reasons, right or wrong, your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. Your problem is not with the few people who have actively challenged the validity of some priming results. It is with the much larger population of colleagues who in the past accepted your surprising results as facts when they were published. These people have now attached a question mark to the field, and it is your responsibility to remove it.
I am not a member of your community, and all I have personally at stake is that I recently wrote a book that emphasizes priming research as a new approach to the study of associative memory – the core of what dual-system theorists call System 1. Count me as a general believer. I also believe in a point that John Bargh made in his response to Cleeremans, that priming effects are subtle and that their design requires high-level skills. I am skeptical about replications by investigators new to priming research, who may not be attuned to the subtlety of the conditions under which priming effects are observed, or to the ease with which these effects can be undermined.
My reason for writing this letter is that I see a train wreck looming. I expect the first victims to be young people on the job market. Being associated with a controversial and suspicious field will put them at a severe disadvantage in the competition for positions. Because of the high visibility of the issue, you may already expect the coming crop of graduates to encounter problems. Another reason for writing is that I am old enough to remember two fields that went into a prolonged eclipse after similar outsider attacks on the replicability of findings: subliminal perception and dissonance reduction.
I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess. To deal effectively with the doubts you should acknowledge their existence and confront them straight on, because a posture of defiant denial is self-defeating. Specifically, I believe that you should have an association, with a board that might include prominent social psychologists from other field. The first mission of the board would be to organize an effort to examine the replicability of priming results, following a protocol that avoids the questions that have been raised and guarantees credibility among colleagues outside the field.
The following is just an example of such a protocol:
* Assemble a group of five labs, where the leading investigators have an established reputation (tenure should perhaps be a requirement). Substantial labs with several students are the most desirable participants.
* Each lab selects a recent demonstration of a priming effect, which they consider robust and most likely to replicate.
* The board makes a public commitment to these five specific effects
* Set up a daisy chain of labs A-B-C-D-E-A, where each lab will replicate the study selected by its neighbor: B replicates A, C replicates B etc.
* Have the replicating lab send someone to see how subjects are run (hence the emphasis on recency – the experiments should be in the active repertoire of the original lab, so that additional subjects can be run with confidence that the same procedure is followed).
* Have the replicated lab send someone to vet the procedure of the replicating lab as it starts its work
* Run enough subjects to guarantee power (probably more than in the original study)
* Use technology (e.g. video) to ensure that every detail of the method is documented and can be copied by others.
* Pre-commit to publish the results, letting the chips fall where they may, and make all data available for analysis by others.
This is something you could do quickly, and relatively cheaply. The main costs are 10 trips, and funds to cover these costs would be easy to get (I have checked). You would have to be careful in selecting laboratories and results to maximize credibility, and every step of the procedure should be open and documented. The unusually high openness to scrutiny may be annoying and even offensive, but it is a small price to pay for the big prize of restored credibility.
Success (say, replication of four of the five positive priming results) would immediately rehabilitate the field. Importantly, success would also provide an effective challenge to the adequacy of outsiders’ replications. A publicly announced and open effort would be credible among colleagues at large, because it would show that you are sufficiently confident in your results to take a risk.
More ambiguous results would be painful, of course, but they would still protect the reputations of scholars who sincerely believe in their work – even if they are sometimes wrong.
The protocol I outlined is just an example of something you might do. The main point of my letter is that you should do something, and that you must do it collectively. No single individual will be able to overcome the doubts, but if you act as a group and avoid defensiveness you will be credible.

In response to Ed Yong’s article in Nature in which Kahneman’s letter is published, Norbert Schwarz, has written a response, saying “There is no empirical evidence that work in this area is more or less replicable than work in other areas.”

REFERENCE

Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act

Get The Early: Seeing The Future to Compete In The Present

FREE EXCERPT: Get There Early: Seeing the Future to Compete in the Present

It’s a guidebook for what’s going to be, for the future that is really not optional — the VUCA world of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity. Because it will give you an entirely new angle on how to approach your job as a business leader in this VUCA world. Bob Johansen has created a book that is exceptional in its originality and clarity of expression as well as in its effective blending of theory and practical examples.

But you may well ask: “Can I really do the things described in this book and make a difference in my business?” From personal experience, It can again say resoundingly, YES. We all need a better way to engage with the dilemmas that are increasingly apparent all around us. This book provides that better way.

 

An excerpt from

Get There Early:

Sensing the Future to Compete in the Present

by Bob Johansen

Published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Myers Briggs Personality Indicator Highlight

Myers Briggs Personality Traits

Knowing Your Parenting Perosnality

Recognizing What Motivates You
Let's begin with nine simple questions. There are no right or wrong responses to this well-tried methodology for identifying the foundation of your personality, your dominant motivational mode. Once you understand what motivates you, you'll be prepared to discover whether you tend to be a Helper, Organizer, Dreamer, Observer, Questioner, Entertainer, Protector, Peacekeeper, or Moralizer. Following each question are three statements. Choose the one that fits you most closely.

1. When you reflect on your own approach to parenting, which of the following statements best describes your style?

a. My parenting style has to do with interaction and energy, with connecting to my children. I ask myself, am I getting through on an emotional level? I try to feel where they are coming from. Do they understand where I'm coming from? How do they see me? It's important that we connect in a meaningful way.

b. My parenting style is intuitive; I have a gut sense about what's right and wrong, fair and unfair. I'm ambivalent about conflict, but when I have something to say, I have a great need to say it and to be heeded. I don't like being encumbered by extraneous demands or the social expectations of others.

c. My parenting style is intellectual, no question. I'm interested in how children think, process information, and work with ideas. I live in my head-conceptualizing, fantasizing, thinking things, researching and proving--that's what's important to me. "Rationality" is a big word with me.

2. How do you assess the way you communicate with your family?

a. What you see is what you get. I don't use guile, or fancy gimmicks. I talk about things the way I understand them; I give it my best shot. My family gets my honest sense of how it is.

b. I like to present things in the best light possible, not being dishonest, but finding ways to connect, to make sure I get a response--the medium is the message, that kind of thing. So I try to put on a show in a way, highlight my ideas; find the nuances of expression that will help me get through to them. I use emotion and some dramatics, anything that will help them better understand what I'm saying.

c. I try to keep things as conceptual, uncluttered and intellectually pure as I can. I love to ask questions, to practice skepticism, to be a discerning thinker. I try to probe below the surface. I want my children to learn to think this way. If we can stick with what's rational and logical, we're on solid ground.

3. You try to teach your children how to solve problems and make decisions, to encourage their positive personal growth. What is most important to you about facilitating your children's growth?

a. I facilitate their growth through mental activity, finding answers, the excitement that comes from seeing their minds open to the possibilities, to big-picture connections, to new conclusions. Their mental energy stimulates my own thinking. I like that.

b. I facilitate their growth through valuing them as people. I teach them the possibilities of all sorts of human contact and connection: the emotional highs and lows, the feeling of togetherness when we all click and experience some profound interconnection in the moment. My family is a small world complete unto itself; we play out our lives together--unity built on empathy and human understanding, little else.

c. I facilitate their growth by trying to steer them in a direction where they can make a difference and lead fulfilled lives. People need a sense of themselves, of where they stand. The world is difficult to understand--you can lose your way all too easily. Teaching them for me is giving them some skills, some tools, some road maps to take on their journey.

4. Although you get along with your children most of the time, every so often you clash. What would they say about you in those moments?

a. I come on too emotionally when I'm talking to them, they feel like I'm trying to manipulate them into interacting with me. Why can't I just say things out straight? I try to shine it on. It's almost like I need their approval.

b. I'm too abstract, too theoretical, too detached. They need more emotional, personal interaction from me. We're talking, I'm listening, but they have this sense that I'm not really there, that I've moved to somewhere in my head. The harder they try to know where they are with me, the more I distance myself. They question whether anything gets through to me emotionally.

c. I can come across as an immovable force, solid, implacable, although I'm not usually aware of this. I know I can dig in and nothing people say or do will shift me. I've been accused of being overly defensive, stubborn, and critical. I'm not usually aware of my impact on people.

5. Your child is in serious trouble in school because of a grave misdemeanor. How do you try to help in this difficult moment?

a. I try to help by being rational, and not getting caught up in emotions. I can explain the inevitability of the disciplinary decision based on school rules. I can support her best by being logical. Then we can have rational discussion, and I can help her see all the reasons for this outcome. She knows how strongly I love her; this has nothing to do with that-school rules are school rules.

b. I try to help by being straightforward and down-to-earth, having a face-to-face talk. We know where we stand, together, how solidly I love her. This in no way affects that relationship-that doesn't even come into the picture; it's the way things are. She made a mistake. We all do. Face-to-face, saying it straight without any extraneous talk, that's always the best way to handle these interactions.

c. I try to help by letting her know how much I care. I don't like handling these situations. When my children are in trouble, it strikes at my heart. I'm more anxious about this than I want to admit--emotional upsets really get to me. I know her so well, I know what she's feeling as if it were myself. Although she's in the wrong--and we all know that--I'll try to get through to them how much I care.

6. At the last minute your child tells you that he wants to spend his birthday with friends, knowing full well the plans you've made together for the day. What is your first reaction?

a. Disbelief--I can't accept this at all. I know he has to grow and become independent, but why now, why on his birthday? We've planned this day for months. He knows how much I love birthdays. I'm so disappointed; it's a heart-wrenching feeling. It'll take time for me to get over this one.

b. I guess I should have seen this coming. He made noises about this last year. He's growing up--all the signs are there--I just didn't think it would come down on this day. If you think about it rationally and logically, it's a perfectly legitimate request--shows healthy growth. I allowed myself to be blindsided by my own expectations. I'll learn other good lessons from this. Of course he wants to be with his friends, have his own experiences and memories. I won't take this personally.

c. I'm upset and angry about this. It's about honoring commitments. It's that simple, you don't let people down at the last moment. He should have given me an inkling, a clue, not go along with making plans without a word. You get slammed in this world, one way or the other, even by your own children. The anger is overwhelming; I feel it in my whole body. I'll count to ten, but she must know how unfair this is.

7. You want to be a great parent--your dreams reflect the deepest parts of yourself. Your passion for your vision stems from:

a. A feeling that I've got something valuable my children can relate to. I believe I've got what it takes to put across my vision in a way that's honest, good, and effective. It's all about people, I'm in tune, and I understand people. I want my children to have this, too. In my heart I know this is true.

b. A hunch, an instinct that I'm in the right place at the right time doing what I'm supposed to be doing, what I'm meant to be doing. When my head, heart, and gut are aligned behind something, I can trust that sense. I can put my full force behind it. I would never commit to being a parent if I didn't feel 100 percent about it. I'm a 110 percent parent.

c. The knowledge that I have thought through first-rate ideas about parenting that will be of benefit to my children. I wouldn't be involved in anything if I wasn't convinced of the validity of my ideas, hadn't thought things through, and this includes being a parent. If I weren't absolutely sure of my thinking I wouldn't be putting myself on the line.

8. You want to run for an open slot on the PTA. You feel confident you can handle the job and make a contribution to the life of your child's school, because:

a. Of my proven record as an ideas person. No one can question that what I do is conceptually sound. My references attest to my theoretical ability and know-how. I'm as intellectually solid as anyone on the PTA.

b. Of my track record of getting through to people. Whether it's coaching Little League, attending a meeting of the choral society committee, or volunteering at the community center, I've always been able to put across what I believe so that people want to be part of it. I know people; people are my life. I can get the world on board.

c. Of the fact I just know this is right for me now, I can fit myself into the PTA. I have reliable instincts. I've proven it to myself and others time and time again. Lots of people have made good from my instincts. Only something that I believe in 100 percent would get me into running for this election. People know where they stand with me, and that makes them feel safe.

9. Your child writes a paper for class on why you are the best parent in the world. It's published in the school magazine. What is your response?

a. This is wonderful--it validates my parenting style. It's great that my child appreciates the way I think through what I do and my intellectual energy. She's picked up on the highly mental approach I bring to all my activities, it's something she can measure and write about. So, I'm pleased.

b. It's gratifying, but this is not about me. I'm not what I do. It's about her, how perceptive and a good writer she is. This paper's being published won't change things one way or the other: it won't make me a better person, or bring more meaning to my life, or change my relationship with her. I'll just go on being the parent I've always been.

c. I know I'm a good parent, so I deserve this validation, but there are lots of good parents. What's important is that my child wrote about me. That means the world to me. That she knows me so well, values me, is connected to me, and wants to acknowledge me this way. That really pleases me.

How Do I Think? How Do I FEEL?
Now that you've completed the exercise, locate your choices on the chart below. Your dominant mode is reflected by the area with the most choices. You may find you have some choices that do not indicate this mode. There are sound reasons for this that has to do with the shifts you make from your dominant mode when you are under stress or in a particularly secure situation. Nonetheless your dominant mode is the one that shows the most circled choices.

Feeling Mode (Attacher):
1a, 2b, 3b, 4a, 5c, 6a, 7a, 8b, 9c

Mental Mode (Detacher):
1c, 2c, 3a, 4b, 5a, 6b, 7c, 8a, 9a

Instinctual Mode (Defender):
1b, 2a, 3c, 4c, 5b, 6c, 7b, 8c, 9b

Research on personality shows that we make our way in the world primarily as Attachers, Detachers, or Defenders. My nomenclature--Attacher, Detacher Defender--is based on the respected work of the pioneering psychologist Karen Horney who, in her book, Our Inner Conflicts, describes three broad personality patterns as those of moving toward people, moving away from people, and moving against people. I developed the terminology Attachers (who move towards people), Detachers (who move away from people), and Defenders (who move against people). People are a complex fusion of these three ways of being, but one is always dominant. 

From: Enneagram Edge