读了某报刊发的《特别要听得进逆耳之言》一文,很受启发。但文中说:“所谓逆耳之言,就是那些不中听、不顺耳却包含着真知灼见,能够促人警醒的话。”我认为这样界定逆耳之言,有失偏颇。理由有三。一、不能涵羞逆耳之言的全部内容。逆耳之言的内涵是十分丰富的。一切不中听、不顺耳的话,都应包括在内。从内容看至少有以下种种:完全正确,全部是真知灼见;部分正确,部分错误;基本正确,但有不足;基本错误,但有真理 Read a newspaper published “especially to hear the words” a text, very inspired. However, the article said: “The so-called counterreaching words, that is, those who do not listen, disliking it contains true insights, can promote people’s vigilance.” I think such confusion, is biased. There are three reasons. First, you can not shy away from the words of the full content. Conversation of the meaning is very rich. Everything that is unpleasant, unpleasant, should be included. There are at least some of the following from the content: completely correct, all good and bad; some correct and partially wrong; basically correct but inadequate; basic wrong but truthful