"People only tolerate criticism from people who have authority
over them or people they pay to provide it."
People have become angry with me for providing criticism, which I have given to try and help them, and not in a way to make them feel stupid or anything. Their subsequent anger or even halt of communication with me has taught me that no matter my intentions, people just don't want to be criticised. So now I rarely criticise people, as it appears they simply can't handle it. What strikes me as odd, however, is that clients pay me to criticise them when they ask me to correct their work. When I'm done they even thank me for it. But then I am not their peer, so then it is okay. How weird is this? As if criticising peers would mean that that they are total losers and I am superior to them. No! It just means that I am better at one particular thing, or even know one particular thing that they don't - and can provide free assistance - while they will be better at other things, and can help me whenever they so desire. Consequently, any criticism to a friend or colleague must be very cautiously given, or not at all. Apparently, people generally only appreciate this assistance when they pay for it. How odd that money apparently overcomes the shame of not being as good at something as one would like...