I found this article deeply significant and easy to identify with. I was particularly struck by the example of Steve Jobs, but don't know enough to tell if it's an accurate characterization of the man or not. It would be nice to hear about this from other HN readers, as it would any insights on how to leverage this particular skillset. I dry up and wither on my own, but am very good at refining something by gradually eliminating its flaws in pursuit of a collective win.

The author's experience of being told by all and sundry that he was terribly creative while being acutely aware of the flaws in his own work ring very true for me. Indeed, this particular combination can be quite oppressive as people form extremely unrealistic expectations and then express inordinate disappointment when they go unmet...and meantime, one's real skill (which is diagnostic and often therapeutic) is widely regarded as a form of negativity - in extreme form, this manifests as anti-science claims founded on the idea that doctors have a vested interest in keeping people sick, or the like.

I'd like to see someone clearly articulate the difference between critical analysis of something and just plain bitching about it. Unfortunately the internet I have here is permeated by the latter and contains very little of the former.

For me, I think the difference is that good criticism acknowledges that every decision is a compromise, and of course every time you compromise you're giving up something in order to gain something else.

In "The Intellectual Situation" front-matter of Issue #6 of n+1 magazine about our "Book Review Nation" the following statement was written about the modern literature critic:

"...what separates us from, say, Edmund Wilson? It is not taste; it is not even erudition. The profounder difference is the ability to place the products of literary work into a system of belief that appeals to something outside the literary work and the literary culture that produced it. This--not the status of the outlets for reviews, not their forum in newsprint or online--is what marks distinction in reviewing."

I think there is a general truth in this statement.

Interesting, I find that almost every comment section here on HN contains at least one useful piece of criticism (when there's criticism at all).

The difference may be that good criticism in my eyes doesn't need to be a complete analysis. Earlier today I dismissed an article by saying it had "unsubstantiated claims" and was "sophomoric". That was it. No additional details or explanations given. I still consider that good critical feedback, because a sufficiently motivated person could improve the work based on it.

If somebody looks at my code and says: "that's too brittle", that's good criticism. If somebody points at something and says: "unpythonic", that is good feedback too.

Other people are not obligated to tell you what you need to do to improve. Even when their dissatisfaction takes the form of a rant, there's often a rational cause underneath. (The cause may be completely unrelated to the work he's criticizing, but humans are funny that way.)

The difference between a critical analysis and bitching is only intent. Bitching is an attempt to make yourself feel better by making somebody else feel worse about his accomplishments. Criticism is trying to tell others where to improve.

So the exact same one-liner (e.g. "that code sucks") can be nasty bitching from one person, and good feedback if it comes from a respected peer.

The ability to immediately see what's wrong with things can be useful, but can also be dangerous. It's the stuff that obsessions are made of, if left unchecked.

Where computers are concerned, I agree that people have a tendency to ignore the flaws. And I guess that's because they find computers enough of a nuisance already, if they started paying attention to what's wrong with them, they would find that they cause more problems than they solve.

I have submitted countless bug reports, often in the first few days of usage. And I have stopped using some software for the sole reason that their creators didn't pay enough attention to fixing bugs.

I can certainly identify with the author's premise. But I think this is more that just seeing what's wrong with stuff: it's more about knowing that perfection can't be reached, but not because we didn't point out what needs to be done to reach it.

Perhaps competition is good because it is a framework for criticism what tends to encourage continued effort and refinement, rather than discourage it.

I know it's cliche by now, and definitely a minor nitpick, but mentioning iTunes as the result of a perfectionist super-critic sounds like madness to anyone who isn't on a Mac. I would argue the Windows-port is the worst (yet successful) software ever engineered, and the only reason I have it, is because I need it for my iPhone (which I agree is a fine product).

That said, the general idea conveyed trough the article is interesting. So far people has accepted computers and programs as is with a "That's just how computers work" defeatist mentality, but that seems to be changing rapidly these days.