This seems to underscore the need for criticisms to seem credible in order to be accepted.
For example, if I write an article and I get a drive-by critical comment that offers no substantial detail drawn from the article itself, I have no idea whether or not the critique is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I'm likely to dismiss the critique because it lacks credibility. I achieve nothing by reacting to a random person's hallucination of what I wrote.
But when there's a clear indication of understanding (or misunderstanding) in the critique, which to me also indicates respect, I'm happy to receive the criticism, respond to it, and perhaps adapt to it. Because then it's a real thing from a real person who cares at least a little bit about both the ideas I've expressed and me as a person.
For example, if I write an article and I get a drive-by critical comment that offers no substantial detail drawn from the article itself, I have no idea whether or not the critique is based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I'm likely to dismiss the critique because it lacks credibility. I achieve nothing by reacting to a random person's hallucination of what I wrote.
But when there's a clear indication of understanding (or misunderstanding) in the critique, which to me also indicates respect, I'm happy to receive the criticism, respond to it, and perhaps adapt to it. Because then it's a real thing from a real person who cares at least a little bit about both the ideas I've expressed and me as a person.