On Criticism

[From Rick Marken (01.04.14.1815)]

Bill Powers (2001.04.13.1028 MDT)

The trouble with criticism is that too easily the goal becomes
that of crushing the other person with irrefutable arguments and
forcing the other to admit that (a) he is wrong, and (b) you are
right. This is why criticism seldom has any effects you want.

This _criticism_ of criticism is appropriate because it addresses the
problems of using criticism to _control_ other people. But I think
criticism (such your criticism of criticism above) can be a very good
thing when it is used as a means of _educating_. Control is certainly
involved to some extent in education. But I think criticism (and a great
deal of educating) can be done without doing too much controlling at
all.

Criticism can be given with the aim of _communcating_ what one thinks is
right or wrong about an idea and why one thinks it is right or wrong.
For example, if a child tells me that x+y/2 = (x+y)/2, I would criticize
that idea (saying "no, that equality is not true") and I would explain
why I think it's not true and what I think _is_ true. I believe I could
do this without controlling (with too high gain anyway) the child's
behavior (that is, without acting to get the child to say the "right
thing" -- x+y/2 = x+(y/2) -- no matter what).

When I give criticism like this I am also aware that I could be wrong.
People are fallible but they are the only source of criticism we've got
(other than the results of properly executed experiments). So if the
child in the example above convinces me that I've got the algebra wrong
then I will have to accept that it was my criticism, not the child's
behavior, that was wrong.

So I think criticism, solicited or unsolicited, is a good thing; it's
the basis for learning. Without criticism everything that is done is all
right; there is no true and false, only true. Without criticism there is
no evaluation; no basis for the learner (at least the ones who want to
learn) to move closer to the truth. Without criticism the learner is not
in control of what he or she is trying to learn. Every action is
"successful"; reorganization is never necessary. If reorganization takes
place the result is always the same: success.

No one likes to get negative criticism, even when criticism is
solicited. I don't like to hear that I am wrong. And I have been
_correctly_ told that I was wrong on many occasions. But I have
benefited from the criticism -- particularly criticism that comes from
you, Bill, but criticism from others as well -- and I have learned from
the criticism. I have not agreed with all the criticism I have received
and much of the criticism has, indeed, turned out to be wrong. But I
don't think the fact that criticism is sometimes wrong means that it
should be avoided. The person who gives the wrong criticism can learn
from the correction of the criticism; and the person who receives the
incorrect criticism can learn from having to construct an explanation of
why the criticism is wrong.

Also, no one has to do anything about criticism. People are free to
avoid it or ignore it. Only those interested in pursuing some hoped for
truth really "have to" deal with criticism. For the rest -- such as
those who are sure they already know the truth -- criticism should be
irrelevant. Still, when criticism is given, whether it's solicited or
not, it should be given politely and carefully. And criticism should
take into account the skill level of the person being criticized. I
think one should be far more gentle in criticizing the novice than the
expert. I think it's good for one to go out of one's way to celebrate
what the novice has done right before criticizing what one believes was
done wrong.

I also think it's good to celebrate what one can agree with in anything
produced by a novice or expert. But failure to do anything other than
celebrate what seems right -- and doing one's best to ignore what seems
wrong -- detracts from the value of that celebration when given to those
who seek honest criticism.

It's always seemed to me that you, Bill, have been honest in your
criticism of my work (research, modeling, discussion) on PCT. That's why
I have treasured your positive comments when they have come. If you had
always only nice things about everything I did I wouldn't be as thrilled
as I am when you do say nice things about it.

You might be inclined to criticize this discussion of criticism. If so,
your criticism is most welcome. I just hope it is honest, whether it's
positive or negative.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2001.04.15.0900 MDT)]

Rick Marken (01.04.14.1815)--

This _criticism_ of criticism is appropriate because it addresses the
problems of using criticism to _control_ other people. But I think
criticism (such your criticism of criticism above) can be a very good
thing when it is used as a means of _educating_. Control is certainly
involved to some extent in education. But I think criticism (and a great
deal of educating) can be done without doing too much controlling at
all.

Educating someone is, as you say, controlling that person. It doesn't
usually take into account any request by that person to be educated,
especially either a very young person or a mature one past school age.

The question is not whether arbitrarily deciding to educate someone is a
good thing. It's what is likely to happen as a result. If you decide that
another person needs to be taught something, and the other person doesn't
agree, you are not very likely to teach anything. So no matter how good for
that person some education might be, no education will take place, at least
not regarding the lesson you have in mind. When you think it through, isn't
that more or less what you would conclude, too?

Best,

Bill P.

···

Criticism can be given with the aim of _communcating_ what one thinks is
right or wrong about an idea and why one thinks it is right or wrong.
For example, if a child tells me that x+y/2 = (x+y)/2, I would criticize
that idea (saying "no, that equality is not true") and I would explain
why I think it's not true and what I think _is_ true. I believe I could
do this without controlling (with too high gain anyway) the child's
behavior (that is, without acting to get the child to say the "right
thing" -- x+y/2 = x+(y/2) -- no matter what).

When I give criticism like this I am also aware that I could be wrong.
People are fallible but they are the only source of criticism we've got
(other than the results of properly executed experiments). So if the
child in the example above convinces me that I've got the algebra wrong
then I will have to accept that it was my criticism, not the child's
behavior, that was wrong.

So I think criticism, solicited or unsolicited, is a good thing; it's
the basis for learning. Without criticism everything that is done is all
right; there is no true and false, only true. Without criticism there is
no evaluation; no basis for the learner (at least the ones who want to
learn) to move closer to the truth. Without criticism the learner is not
in control of what he or she is trying to learn. Every action is
"successful"; reorganization is never necessary. If reorganization takes
place the result is always the same: success.

No one likes to get negative criticism, even when criticism is
solicited. I don't like to hear that I am wrong. And I have been
_correctly_ told that I was wrong on many occasions. But I have
benefited from the criticism -- particularly criticism that comes from
you, Bill, but criticism from others as well -- and I have learned from
the criticism. I have not agreed with all the criticism I have received
and much of the criticism has, indeed, turned out to be wrong. But I
don't think the fact that criticism is sometimes wrong means that it
should be avoided. The person who gives the wrong criticism can learn
from the correction of the criticism; and the person who receives the
incorrect criticism can learn from having to construct an explanation of
why the criticism is wrong.

Also, no one has to do anything about criticism. People are free to
avoid it or ignore it. Only those interested in pursuing some hoped for
truth really "have to" deal with criticism. For the rest -- such as
those who are sure they already know the truth -- criticism should be
irrelevant. Still, when criticism is given, whether it's solicited or
not, it should be given politely and carefully. And criticism should
take into account the skill level of the person being criticized. I
think one should be far more gentle in criticizing the novice than the
expert. I think it's good for one to go out of one's way to celebrate
what the novice has done right before criticizing what one believes was
done wrong.

I also think it's good to celebrate what one can agree with in anything
produced by a novice or expert. But failure to do anything other than
celebrate what seems right -- and doing one's best to ignore what seems
wrong -- detracts from the value of that celebration when given to those
who seek honest criticism.

It's always seemed to me that you, Bill, have been honest in your
criticism of my work (research, modeling, discussion) on PCT. That's why
I have treasured your positive comments when they have come. If you had
always only nice things about everything I did I wouldn't be as thrilled
as I am when you do say nice things about it.

You might be inclined to criticize this discussion of criticism. If so,
your criticism is most welcome. I just hope it is honest, whether it's
positive or negative.

Best regards

Rick
--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (01.04.15.1000)]

Bill Powers (2001.04.15.0900 MDT)--

If you decide that another person needs to be taught something,
and the other person doesn't agree, you are not very likely to
teach anything. So no matter how good for that person some
education might be, no education will take place, at least
not regarding the lesson you have in mind. When you think it
through, isn't that more or less what you would conclude, too?

Of course! That's why I have never decided that another person needs to
be taught something. I think I reply to posts on the net for the same
reason you do; to work towards an accurate understanding of human
nature. This can look like an effort to educate someone who "needs to be
taught something" but that's just an interpretation of the superficial
appearance of the behavior A naive observer might have seen this as what
you were doing in past conversations with Martin Taylor, Bruce Abbott,
Hans Blom and Tim Carey about information theory, reinforcement theory,
modern control theory and coersion, respectively. But it looked to me
like you were doing the same thing I do; trying to work toward a more
accurate understanding of the nature of behavior.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com