How Personal Opinions Can Make Criticism More Persuasive

In a recent LinkedIn post, copywriter Justin Oberman examines how criticism can persuade readers—or weaken their trust—depending on whether it speaks from personal experience or makes claims on behalf of others. This article covers Oberman’s LinkedIn argument; it is not written by him.

“The lesson: How to write strong opinions without losing a reader’s trust”

Oberman uses a critical comment by Nickolas Crim as a case study. He says he cannot know what Crim intended, offering several possibilities, from simply expressing an opinion to trying to attract attention. Rather than speculate about the commenter’s motive, Oberman focuses on the wording and the effect it may have on readers.

Speaking for yourself leaves room for curiosity

Oberman proposes rewriting the criticism in first person: “I think you’re an idiot for doing these types of posts. I don’t see how this helps me, and I can’t imagine wanting to work with you after reading it. I know I never will.” In Oberman’s analysis, that version invites a reader to ask why the commenter feels that way and what they saw in the post.

According to Oberman, those questions may prompt someone to examine the original post, or learn more about the commenter. The critique remains blunt, but it is tied to one person’s experience. That gives readers room to consider the reasoning without having to accept a sweeping judgment about what everyone thinks.

Broad claims can prompt readers to take sides

Oberman contrasts that approach with wording that says “anyone” would not want to work with him or refers broadly to “people.” He argues that such language asks readers to judge whether they themselves would work with Oberman. It can also lead them to consider whether they would want to connect with the person making the criticism.

“Because most people don’t like working with people who call other people idiots.”

As Oberman notes, readers may reject the commenter’s tone even if they agree with some of the criticism. In his view, speaking for a wider group can therefore give readers an easy reason to disagree with the comment—and may send their attention toward the person being criticized.

A small wording change can shift the conversation

Oberman presents the example as a lesson in copywriting, not as a rule against forceful criticism. He acknowledges that broad claims may suit some situations and says people remain free to criticize him. His stated interest is helping others produce more effective writing.

He connects the example to “Hunt 50,” a concept in his Copy Hunter course. As Oberman describes it, the exercise asks writers to examine what a sentence asks readers to believe, what question it raises, and whether it moves them toward the intended response.

“You would be surprised how a small change in the claim can change the whole conversation.”

Oberman’s post argues that a strong opinion may be more persuasive when it clearly belongs to the person expressing it. His case study suggests that a shift from speaking for “everyone” to describing one’s own experience can change what readers focus on—and whether they stay open to the point.