Negative critics

Suppose 90% of the things in the world are not very good.

A good critic sees 10 and presents a good 1

this is a big deal

I am able to provide value to those who see my critique.

Don't bother mentioning the bad ones.

No need to be negative.

Bad critics introduce one they happen to see.

High probability of negative opinions.

Easy because you don't have to read a lot

At any rate, if you put down the guy, there's a 90% chance you'll get it right.

In other words, a negative critique is a negative signal about the critic's ability

Seems obvious to me...

But the general public seems to think that critical writing seems smart and detailed.

negative evaluators of intellectual products will be perceived as more intelligent than positive evaluators

If most readers irrationally value negative criticism, then it is less expensive and more beneficial for the critic to give negative criticism, so that is the locally optimal solution to choose.

Obviously, this is not the overall optimum, but how can it be addressed?

---