๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ, ๐๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง.
- Sreedhar Mandyam

- 1 minute ago
- 2 min read

Most criticism stings because it attacks a person's identity. It does not describe an action. It applies a label. Lazy. Selfish. Cold. Irresponsible. Uncaring. These words land like arrows because they seem to define the very core of who someone is. And when a person feels their identity is under attack, their only instinct is to defend. They raise shields. They counterattack. They shut down. The conversation dies, and the problem remains untouched.
But there is another way. A cleaner, more honest way. We can learn to describe the behaviour we saw, not the person we judged. We can separate what someone did from who we believe them to be.
Consider the difference. "๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ก๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐" is a statement about a behaviour. It is a fact. It can be acknowledged. "๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐" is a statement about a person's character. It is an interpretation, a judgment, a label. The first invites a response. The second invites a war.
"๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐๐ก ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐โ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ฆ" describes a behaviour. "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐" attacks the person. "๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐ก๐๐๐๐ " points to a behaviour. "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐" assassinates character. "๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐๐๐๐ก ๐๐ข๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฆ" states a fact. "๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐" builds a story on top of that fact, a story the other person may not even recognize.
When we describe behaviour, we do something vital. We let the other person know exactly what change we are seeking. If I say "๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐," the desired change is clear: please arrive on time. If I say "๐๐๐ข ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐" followed by "๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐," the desired change is invisible. What can they possibly do to prove they care? They are left confused and defensive, unsure how to fix an accusation they feel is fundamentally untrue.
Here is the deeper truth. All our accusations, all our blame, all our sharp labels are really covers. They are clumsy wrappings around a much softer, more vulnerable package. Underneath "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐" lives "๐ผ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข ๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข ๐ค๐๐๐๐'๐ก ๐กโ๐๐๐." Underneath "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐" lives "๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐โ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ." Underneath "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐" lives "๐ผ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ข๐๐."
We do not express these vulnerable needs because they feel dangerous. They expose us. They risk rejection. So we armour them in blame and hurl them at the ones we love, hoping they will somehow decode the message. But they rarely do. They only feel the sting of the arrow, not the need that fired it.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐จ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐๐, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐. To say "๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ก โ๐ข๐๐ก ๐คโ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐, ๐ผ ๐ค๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ค๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข" instead of "๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐." To say "๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ โ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐๐กโ ๐กโ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐โ๐๐, ๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅโ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก๐๐" instead of "๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐." This is terrifying. It makes us vulnerable. But it also makes us heard. It invites the other person to meet our need rather than defend against our attack. It turns a battle into a conversation. And in that conversation, real change becomes possible.




Comments