本文探讨了对批评的批评的现象，作者分析了人们在面对批评时，倾向于采用一种“批评的批评”模式来反驳，而不是直接面对批评本身。文章还指出，这种模式可能反映了人们对批评的抵触心理，以及对自身观点的过度保护。

🤔 **对批评的批评：一种常见的模式** 在面对批评时，人们倾向于采用“批评的批评”模式来反驳，而不是直接面对批评本身。这种模式通常表现为对批评者的动机、方法或观点进行攻击，而不是直接回应批评的内容。 例如，当有人批评某篇文章的论点时，对方可能会反驳说：“你为什么要写这篇文章？你有什么目的？” 或者 “你使用的方法不正确，所以你的结论不可信。” 这种反驳方式并没有真正回应批评者的观点，而是将批评者的动机或方法作为攻击目标。 这种模式在学术界、政治领域和日常生活中都十分常见。它反映了人们在面对批评时，倾向于采取防御性的姿态，而不是积极地思考和改进。

🤨 **对批评的抵触心理** “批评的批评”模式可能反映了人们对批评的抵触心理。人们往往对批评感到不舒服，因为批评会挑战他们的观点和信念。为了保护自己，他们会本能地寻求反驳批评，而不是认真思考批评的内容。 这种抵触心理可能源于人们对自身观点的过度保护。当人们对自己的观点非常自信时，他们就很难接受批评，因为他们认为自己的观点是正确的，而批评者是错误的。 这种心理状态会阻碍人们的学习和成长。只有当人们能够坦然面对批评，并从中吸取教训时，他们才能不断进步。

🧐 **批评的意义** 批评是社会进步的必要条件。它可以帮助人们发现错误，改进工作，推动社会向前发展。然而，批评也需要遵循一定的原则，才能发挥其积极作用。 首先，批评要客观公正，不能带有个人偏见或恶意。其次，批评要针对具体的问题，不能泛泛而谈。第三，批评要建设性，要提出改进的建议，而不是仅仅进行指责。 只有符合这些原则的批评，才能真正起到促进进步的作用。

🤔 **如何应对批评？** 面对批评，我们应该保持冷静和理性，不要急于反驳。首先，要认真倾听批评者的观点，理解他们的立场。其次，要客观地分析批评的内容，判断其合理性。如果批评是合理的，就应该虚心接受，并改进自己的工作。如果批评是不合理的，就应该据理力争，并说明自己的理由。 重要的是，我们要保持开放的心态，愿意接受批评，并从中学习成长。只有这样，我们才能不断进步，取得更大的成功。

🧐 **超越“批评的批评”** “批评的批评”模式是一种消极的应对方式。为了促进社会进步，我们需要超越这种模式，学会坦然面对批评，并积极地思考和改进。只有这样，我们才能真正从批评中受益，并推动社会向前发展。

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-criticism

1: I said in the original post that I wrote this because I knew someone would write the opposite article (that organizations accept specific criticism in order to fend off paradigmatic criticism), and then later Zvi did write an article kind of like that. He writes:

It is the dream of anyone who writes a post called Criticism of [a] Criticism Contest to then have a sort-of reply called Criticism of Criticism of Criticism.

The only question now is, do I raise to 4?

I [wrote my article the way I did] for several reasons, including (1) a shorter post would have taken a lot longer, (2) when I posted a Tweet instead a central response was 'why don't you say exactly what things are wrong here', (3) any one of them might be an error but if basically every sentence/paragraph is doing the reversal thing you should stop and notice it and generalize it (4) you talk later about how concrete examples are better, so I went for concrete examples, (5) they warn against 'punching down' and this is a safe way to do this while 'punch up' and not having to do infinite research, (6) when something is the next natural narrative beat that goes both ways, (7) things are next-beats for reasons and I do think it's fair that most Xs in EA's place that do this are 'faking it' in this sense, (8) somehow people haven't realized I'm a toon and I did it in large part because it was funny and had paradoxical implications, (9) I also wrote it out because I wanted to better understand exactly what I had unconsciously/automatically noticed.

For 7, notice in particular that the psychiatrists are totally faking it here, they are clearly being almost entirely performative and you could cross out every reference to psychiatry and write another profession and you'd find the same talks at a different conference. If someone decided not to understand this and said things like 'what specific things here aren't criticizing [X]', you'd need to do a close reading of some kind until people saw it, or come up with another better option.

Also note that you can (A) do the thing they're doing at the conference, (B) do the thing where you get into some holy war and start a fight or (C) you can actually question psychiatry in general (correctly or otherwise) but if you do that at the conference people will mostly look at you funny and find a way to ignore you.