Zen blog post in Russian
https://dzen.ru/a/aav8nnTufAeiBTRM

Have you ever heard the phrase "If we are criticized and scolded, then we are hated and we are doing everything right"?
This design is convenient as a psychological defense and as a tool for mass mobilization, but it does not stand up to elementary analysis.

1. False causality.
The thesis "if we are criticized, then we are doing everything right" replaces the real logic with feedback, in which criticism is seen as proof of correctness. This turns any negative assessment into a confirmation of one's own infallibility. In fact, this is a way to absolve yourself of responsibility.

Criticism happens:
• constructive (indicates real mistakes),
• destructive (emotional, aggressive),
• interested (originating from competitors).

In all cases, it does not at all prove the correctness of the actions of the one being criticized. It only signals that actions trigger a reaction.

2. Substitution of concepts: criticism = hate.
Mixing these concepts is convenient because any disagreement can be declared the result of anger and hostility. Then you don't have to answer the substantive questions.
This is a mechanism known in communication theory as "switching the arrows to motives": it is not the argument that is being discussed, but the alleged hatred of the opponent.

3. "If we are being scolded, then we are strong."
It is a form of self-suggestion and emotional mobilization. In a political and corporate context, it helps:

• suppress inner doubt,
• preserve errors,
• Strengthen group identity through the image of a besieged fortress.
But in reality, strong structures work the other way around: they carefully analyze criticism, because feedback provides a resource for improvement.

4. Why the scheme is convenient for power and propaganda.
It allows you to:
• block a discussion (anyone who disagrees is declared an enemy),
• explain failures by external pressure,
• maintain moral superiority (we are scolded because we are right),
• disable responsibility (there are no mistakes, there are just detractors).

This is a classic technique documented in the research of groupthink by Irving Janis: groups that are afraid to admit mistakes tend to interpret any external assessment as hatred.

5. A sober approach.
The correctness of actions is assessed by results, metrics, and the quality of argumentation.

Criticism is not an indicator of hatred, but a source of information about where your decisions affect the interests, norms, or expectations of others. Sometimes it's a warning. Sometimes it's a reaction to mistakes. Sometimes it's a competition. But it's not proof of correctness.

6. The result.
The formula "we are being scolded, so we are doing the right thing" is a convenient shield that protects against reflection, but makes it impossible to develop. It destroys the ability to engage in dialogue and degrades the quality of solutions. In personal and political communication, this logic precludes any opportunity to adjust the course.
Well, if you follow this logic, then you can justify a lot of different crimes.

Life is not a game

I write and shoot. Join me

Author's video content
https://www.youtube.com/c/ViolettaWennman

Political trash
https://www.youtube.com/@Ship-Shard

I invite you to the telegram channel
https://t.me/shipshard

Highly Social on Zen
https://dzen.ru/shipshard

Gingerbread support
https://dzen.ru/shipshard?donate=true

My hobbies are history, philosophy, psychology, music, economics, politics, and sociology. I write about this and much more. Professional model. She has performed at international music festivals. I dance, I sing, I parody the voices of the performers. I am studying in the Netherlands at the Academy of Arts, Faculty of Film Industry and Arts. Co-owner of a video studio in St. Petersburg.

I am glad to see all of you in my blogs.

Please support me, like-minded people, join the telegram channel https://t.me/shipshard