# criticizing ideas not persons

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/criticizing-ideas-not-persons/13500>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [December 29, 1995, 12:44am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/criticizing-ideas-not-persons/13500 "1995-12-29T00:44:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Brian\_D\_Agostino](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@Brian\_D\_Agostino](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Brian_D_Agostino)\
**Post date:** [December 29, 1995, 12:44am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/criticizing-ideas-not-persons/13500/1 "1995-12-29T00:44:13Z")

</div>

[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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Richard\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Richard_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 29, 1995, 7:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/criticizing-ideas-not-persons/13500/2 "1995-12-29T19:47:40Z")

</div>

[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