Do you think some people draw criticism and negative people to them? Do you think there is a way to break this if it is true?

With criticism it is always important to keep things in proportion, neither overdoing things, nor being too timid. These requires an ability to relativize things, and a level-headed approach. People can be too critical, but they can also be insufficiently critical.

To orient oneself realistically in the world, in order to achieve success in what one does, it is important to strike a good balance: to be neither excessively critical nor completely uncritical. People who are too critical, focus only on the downside or limitation of things - they run into the problem that others perceive them as being "too negative", and lacking a "constructive attitude". If there is too much criticism, it gets in the way of getting anything done - people are just "anti", but "it does not lead anywhere".

People who are uncritical, however, are often regarded as naive and superficial ("suckers"); they lack discernment, they are prone to being deceived and tricked, because they readily believe all kinds of things, which they should not accept just like that, for their own good. If they thought more critically, they would not give in so easily to what others say or do. An important reason why balanced criticism is desirable is, that if things get totally out of proportion, the critics or their targets can lose their balance themselves.

Criticism can wreak havoc, and therefore people have to know how to handle it from both ends. If the criticism is balanced, it is more likely to be successful. When psychologists analyze the effect of criticism on others, they are concerned with how people respond to criticism (cognitively and emotionally), and how criticism can influence the way people are relating.

When people criticize, it can have a fruitful, enriching and constructive effect, because new ideas and viewpoints are generated in trying to solve a problem. Suddenly, people have the benefit of ideas which they did not think of before, themselves. People can also be very hurt by criticisms, when they experience the criticism as a personal attack.

Psychologists concerned with human communication, such as therapists, therefore often recommend that people should choose the right words to express their criticism. The same criticism can be raised in different ways, some more successful than others. If people formulate their criticism in the right way, it is more likely that other people will accept it.

If the criticism is badly expressed, people might reject it, not because it is wrong in itself, but because they do not like being talked to in that way. Even if the content of a criticism is quite valid, the form in which it is expressed may be so bad, that the valid point being made is never accepted. The content may be something that people can work out on their own, but the form concerns the social relationship between people.

The terms "criticism" and "feedback" are often confused, where people think that criticism is a "negative response" and feedback is a "positive response". But such an interpretation is a fallacy. Feedback can be positive or negative, and so can criticism.

What is true is that they can be mistaken for each other. For example, an inexperienced person, who handles a machine with lethal danger to himself and others, can be criticized by another person who tells him "you are doing it wrong, and you should stop what you are doing immediately". This looks like an example of negative feedback.

In reality, if the criticism was not made in time, people might die. If the same criticism was said "in a nice way" ("could you please consider withdrawing from your activity, and use your energies more productively elsewhere?"), it might not prompt the inexperienced person to stop. The term "feedback" is often used instead of criticism, because "feedback" sounds more neutral, polite or positive, while criticism seems to be about "finding fault".

A certain language may be used, because there are issues of authority and obedience ("who has to follow whom"), as well as the need for cooperative teamwork to get a job done ("constructive collegial attitude"). The question is often "who controls the feedback", "who is allowed to criticize", "who owns the problem" and "who is to do something about the problem". It may be that managers educate employees in a certain language, in order to get them to see things in a way that is productive for the enterprise.

Criticism is not necessarily feedback, because it can be both the initiative of a "feed" and the response of a "feed-back". Inversely, feedback is not necessarily criticism, because the feedback response could just consist e.g. Of a compliment or a "yes" or "no" ("is that all the feedback I get?"). Feedback is not intrinsically positive; and telling somebody how they are doing need not involve any criticism.

Criticism and feedback are really two different things, with some overlap ("critical feedback" or "critical response"). If feedback comments (positive or negative) and criticism are treated as if they are exactly the same thing, usually something is being hidden, suppressed or denied. Especially educators, but also e.g. Lawyers, managers and politicians are very concerned with the quality of criticisms.

People might raise all kinds of objections and criticisms, but how good are they? Criticisms can be just "noise". They can also be a nuisance if they are misdirected, they get in the way of getting things done.

Brief and succinct, with a start and a finish, not endless. Relevant and to the point, not misplaced.