Psychology of biased critics

'Happy people will always encourage. Successful people will always support. Attractive people will always compliment.

Those who have nothing to offer will always bring you down.' The above social media feed makes it easier to understand the psychology of biased critics. Whether it is an official meeting, parent-teacher conference or any of life's adventures, discouraging words start dripping from the mouths of those who are unhappy, unsuccessful and ultimately unattractive. The irony is that criticism reveals the criticising authority more than its recipient, as Oscar Wilde writes in his aphoristic style, "Criticism is the only reliable autobiography." Simply put, criticism is always self-revealing.

It exposes our own turmoil and failings. Criticism is a matter of ego, which always seeks to be filled, while encouraging others comes from soul, which is an eternal wholeness. In a belittling criticism, the critic desires pathologically to assert their superiority, relevance or ego-pampering vendetta.

Behind such behaviours lurks the need for validation i.e. to assert their intelligence or moral superiority. When they too are defied, hierarchical or relational relevance is asserted to condescend to the target of criticism.

Physiological markers of biased critics include speaking at higher decibels, palpitations of heart and panting breath. Instead of the power of language, the language of power (authority) is wielded to subdue the opposition. When the critic fails to counter the opposite arguments, he takes no time in revealing his true colours and stoops so low that he descends from generalised argumentation to personal attacks.

Criticism is not just a matter of words; it's fundamentally a matter of emotions. John Gottman, in his theory, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, counts criticism as the first foundational misstep among the four destructive communication styles. It leads unhindered to the other three - contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling.