criticizing ideas not persons

[Brian_D_Agostino]

[From Brian D'Agostino 951228.1950 Eastern Standard Time]

Responding to Ed Ford's advice against criticizing others, Bill

···

Powers wrote on 951220.0930 MST: "I also agree with you about
criticism, if you mean criticizing people rather than ideas or
presentations." In this context, I find the distinction between a
person and his or her ideas less clear and helpful than it appears
on the surface. In the series of exchanges regarding my research,
I argued that beliefs reside at the principle and program levels
and often serve to maintain needs of the self, which I locate at
the system level. Bill made a number of objections to this view,
which I answered in my post of 950930.0610. There were no further
objections.

If my theory is correct--and that is ultimately an empirical
question--criticizing a person's ideas can disturb the self just as
much as criticizing the self directly. Hasn't this been our
experience on CSGnet? If Ed ultimately decides to leave the CSG,
I believe the reason will be because he is tired of participating
in discussions that are ostensibly on the level of ideas, but which
are ultimately about the endless dynamics of attacking and
defending the self.

So, where does this leave the CSG? Based on what I have observed
from the CSGnet, I am not optimistic that the major partipants have
any real desire to change this pattern, and I certainly can't blame
Ed if he also comes to this conclusion, or has already come to it.
If there is a solution, however, the responsibility for discovering
and implementing it rests with you innocent ones who feel that the
only higher order value you are maintaining on CSGnet is "the
truth." For all you folks, I have two suggestions.

First, stop assuming you adequately understand the other person's
frame of reference. If the other person says something that sounds
wrong to you, instead of criticizing it, tell him or her what you
don't understand and give them a chance to explain it more
adequately. Practiced as an iterative process, this should
culminate either in mutual understanding or one person abandoning
the discussion because he or she finds it moving in an
unproductive direction. In the latter case, the other person will
not feel under attack, as we so often feel on CSGnet.

Second, when you encounter what you perceive as scientific error,
ask yourself what part of _you_ feels disturbed. Can you take a
vacation from defending the truth, and instead start to turn some
attention to that part of yourself and start to express it to
yourself and to your antagonists on the CSGnet? Can you start to
describe to them how their errors or criticisms of your ideas make
you _feel_? Can you start to reflect on where these feelings
come from, and how you got to be programmed like that? Such
reflection and discussion may prove therapuetic, or it may prove a
waste of time, but haven't you already wasted lots of time on
CSGnet? What have you've got to lose?

I would hate to see this group disintegrate or continue squandering
its intellectual energies on polemical debates. My comments were
offered to help avert such outcomes, if that is still possible.

Happy New Year, and best regards,

Brian

[Richard_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (951229.1145)]

Bill Powers (951220.0930)

I also agree with you [Ed] about criticism, if you mean criticizing people
rather than ideas or presentations.

Brian D'Agostino (951228.1950) --

In this context, I find the distinction between a person and his or her
ideas less clear and helpful than it appears on the surface.

Criticizing an idea means being critical of characteristics of system
concepts like reinforcement theory, PCT, Chistianity, Judaism, etc.

Criticizing a person means being critical of characteristics of that person,
like their intelligence, looks, etc.

I think we have to assume that people on this net can handle criticism of any
of their systems concepts, including those that they think are very
important. If people can't handle such criticism, they are probably better
off somewhere else.

I think we also have to assume that people on this net deserve to be treated
with respect; so we should try to avoid criticizing characteristics of people
even while we feel free to criticize characteristics of their ideas.

So I would say that it is _not_ personal criticism to say things like:

"Reinforcement theory is crap" or "PCT is horse manure".

But it is a personal criticism to say:

"Bruce, you ignorant slut" or "Rick, you braindead dweeb".

If Ed ultimately decides to leave the CSG, I believe the reason will be
because he is tired of participating in discussions that are ostensibly on
the level of ideas, but which are ultimately about the endless dynamics
of attacking and defending the self.

Can you give me some examples of discussions on CSG-L which were ostensibly
on the level of ideas, but which were ultimately about the endless dynamics
of attacking and defending the self?

The problem we have here on CSG-L, I think, is that, in scientific
discussion, it often turns out that if one idea is right, another is wrong.
If Copernicus's idea is right then Ptolomy's idea is wrong -- no matter how
nice of a guy Ptolomy might happen to be. If Galileo's idea is right then
Aristotle's idea is wrong-- no matter how nice of a guy Aristotle might
happen to be.

If Powers' idea is right, then just about everyone else's ideas about
behavior are wrong -- no matter how nice these people might happen to be. So
people who join CSG-L thinking that there is something to reinforcement
theory, cognitive theory, conventional behavioral research methods, etc., are
going to be a bit put off when they find these ideas being criticized to the
hilt by PCTers; they will be especially put off if they are pro-PCT and don't
see any conflict between reinforcement theory, cognitive theory, conventional
behavioral research methods, etc. and PCT.

So what's the solution? I _don't_ think the solution is compromise; science
doesn't work this way (otherwise the earth might have been placed a little
closer to the center of the solar system and the sun a little farther away).
I think the solution is just to keep showing how the PCT model of behavior
works and submitting alternative explanations of behavior to clear,
quantitative test. That is, we should keep doing what we've been
doing on the net for the last 5 years. There is no other way.

Those who want to continue down a path that PCT shows to be a dead end (such
as the path of conventional behavioral research) will continue down that
path no matter what. PCT demands a big mental change from people; a change
that involves seeing as misconception what had been seen as obvious "truth"
(like the truth of reinforcement or the truth of how to do a psychology
experiment). When we make points about PCT that require this kind of mental
change -- and the requirement for such a change was not anticipated by the
person we are addressing- - we are perceived as being engaged in personal
criticism. This is because we are, indeed, criticizing something rather
personal; we are criticizing ideas (like reinforcement theory, dynamical
systems models, motor programming models, conventional behavioral science
methods, etc) that are very important to some people. But just becuase ideas
are important to people doesn't mean that those ideas are right.

Discussing PCT on CSG-L can be a bit like discussing evolution with
fundamentalist Christians; everything goes along fine as long as no one
brings up Genesis. But once someone mentions the description of the origin of
species in Genesis it becomes clear that what the fundamentalists take for
granted is completely inconsistent with what is known from the fossil record.

Something like this happens on CSG-L; everything goes along fine as long as
no one brings up Introductory Psychology. But once someone mentions
"reinforcement" or "behavior" or "stimulus control" or "how to do psychology
experiments" it becomes clear that what many discussants have been taking for
granted is inconsistent with what we know from studies of control. Like the
fundamentalists on the evolution list, these discussants will either get on
board the PCT train or go back to the church of introductory psychology and
pray like hell that the whole PCT thing will just go away.

Best

Rick