Much of the conversation so far in the comments has ignored the context of that sentence in the article:
> He called out my mistakes using words like “crazy,” “nuts,” “ridiculous,” and “stupid.”
> The harsh words stung at first, and caused me to question whether I belonged in theoretical physics. But I couldn’t help noticing that Dick did not seem to take the critical comments as seriously as I did. In the next breath, he would always be encouraging me to try a different approach and inviting me to return when I made progress.
If you have many repeated interactions with the same people where you make it clear you don't think they personally are stupid, and also you are almost never wrong when you call something crazy/nuts/ridiculous/stupid, perhaps you can get away with it. If one of those things is not true, it is not a good way of communicating (in North America, at least).
> He called out my mistakes using words like “crazy,” “nuts,” “ridiculous,” and “stupid.”
> The harsh words stung at first, and caused me to question whether I belonged in theoretical physics. But I couldn’t help noticing that Dick did not seem to take the critical comments as seriously as I did. In the next breath, he would always be encouraging me to try a different approach and inviting me to return when I made progress.
If you have many repeated interactions with the same people where you make it clear you don't think they personally are stupid, and also you are almost never wrong when you call something crazy/nuts/ridiculous/stupid, perhaps you can get away with it. If one of those things is not true, it is not a good way of communicating (in North America, at least).