> >1) Harsh criticism because it makes me feel good to show that I'm better
> >than you.
>> >2) Harsh criticism (sometimes personal) because you have to learn to
> >face it.
> >3) Strong criticism because the scientific idea is flawed. This includes
> >criticism with poor interpersonal style -- like this idea is
> >embarrasingly stupid, how could you possibly think that. But it should
> >be followed up with examples, though the receiver of the criticism might
> >have to ask for it.
>> >I think that all of these except #1 have a place to play in science and
> >in mentoring. #2 has to be delivered in the context of trust, or it
> >becomes #1.
>
I guess I'm not sure why #2 has to be delivered by a mentor. Yes, you will
receive harsh criticism if you pursue science, delivered by people who have
a personal dislike of you or who are doggedly clinging to something you
are disproving. But in my experience (somewhat limited so far, I've only
been doing this for 10 years), that sort of thing is far more likely to come
up
in a manuscript or grant review (I suppose they feel safer ripping someone
apart when it is anonymous). And at that point, a mentor can help you
figure out how to sift through the review and figure out what criticism is
valid and what stuff was just personal. Do other people have vastly
different experiences?
Valerie
