I believe this question will be challenging to answer by anyone that is not a psychologist (perhaps them as well). For the most part, I think this parallels a lot of the societal overtones witnessed today.
There is the cause-effect that occurs. A thing is said, a person said it, a person heard/received it. The sayer speaks with an intent. The hearer interprets what is said, decides on its meaning, and determines how they take/respond-to it. Signals sent, signals received, and signals translated. This is the core of what occurs when someone becomes "offended" where the interpretation of signals by the receiver has applied offensive intent, whether any was there from the start.
A topical example would be the modern election. Words that carry a connotation, such as “snowflake” or “macho” were used to describe a class of people, but they sparked emotion and people took offense. Words/messages by themselves cannot be offensive, it is only how we receive them that triggers an emotional response.
Of course there are many elements that determine how that communication signal (message, words, etc) is translated by an individual. Other factors such as intensity, repetition, etc influence how the signals are translated. Interpretations seem to be relative based on an individual's conditioning and how much the signals deviate from standard (societal norm). This is nothing new, it's like what defines morality.
In your case, it appears you are not conditioned to hear the constant negative feedback and thus are more responsive to it. Society today has been preaching empathy, handholding, and "babying" unlike any society before it. Whether that's good or bad is yet to be determined, but one thing is certain, little will change in your case without intervention.
Thus you have a few options:
- You can change your philosophy and how you translate those signals so that your reactions work for you
- You can hope the professor will come across something that will change their philosophy and behaviors
- You can address your experience head-on
Exploring Option 3
I think option 3 would do leaps and bounds for your psychological sanity and professional development. The goal, if it were me, would be to first establish a line of communication. Just stating the issue may be enough, not only for your professor to address the issue, but also in generating respect for you. Stating what does and doesn't work for you helps to establish your voice. Conducting the process of expressing your concern can also be therapeutic and relieve stress.
Next, I think a focus point would be not to concentrate on the critiquing/criticizing of your work, but to be thankful that they are giving warranted feedback and that the focus is to help you improve and meet your goals (succeed) with the professor's help. This will help sidestep any defense mechanisms and instead concentrate on the best way for you to succeed (part of that may be better feedback).
Finally, it is important not to come with just problems, but also solutions. "Your feedback doesn't help me" or "I feel demoralized with so much negative feedback" doesn't do as much as "I feel the repetitive feedback is negatively effecting my psyche and engagement on this topic. I think I could be more successful if…"
Of course you won't be able to control another person. Ultimately, your ability to persuade and work with them will help change their opinion or actions, but it is their decision to do so. They could even come back and change your philosophy: "The real world will give you more negative feedback than I ever could, if you don't have the moral fiber or mental vigor to surpass the challenges you will face, then you may want to consider a different career path."
Of course the innocent, blunt truth is if you don't want to receive negative feedback, don't do negative things that warrant it ;) This is very blanketed and argumentative, but should suffice to incite re-evaluation of a perspective and thus, even if it may be considered a "dumb" response, could have benefits in going through the process.