Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michelle Akin's avatar

i just love what you're doing. i'm gonna sound like a broken record soon. i'm fine with that.

Expand full comment
Lane Watson's avatar

Interesting take! I agree that intra-tribal criticism can be incredibly effective for growth and trust-building within a group, especially when it’s constructive and aimed at genuine improvement. Groups that can critique themselves thoughtfully often avoid blind spots and prevent echo chambers from taking root. And I agree—constructive internal feedback can make a group stronger, sharper, and more credible.

But I wonder if this approach always works as smoothly as you suggest. There are times when internal criticism, even well-intentioned, can backfire. For one, public intra-group critique might weaken a group’s cohesion or cause divisions if not handled carefully. In some contexts, it risks eroding trust among allies, as members feel scrutinized or under pressure to conform to particular criticisms.

Moreover, while internal critique can build strength, it can also create vulnerabilities. Opponents might exploit visible internal disagreements to portray the group as fractured or lacking in unity, undermining its public credibility. This happens frequently in politics, where intra-party critique sometimes plays directly into the hands of opponents.

Lastly, not all intra-tribal critiques are created equal. Some criticisms might focus too much on surface issues or personal grievances, which could distract from more urgent priorities. It seems like there’s a fine line between productive critique and undermining, and figuring out where that line is might require a lot of nuance and care.

In short, I think intra-tribal criticism is one that should be used with intention and awareness of its potential downsides. What do you think? Are there cases where internal criticism might do more harm than good?

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts