Ten years of trying to meditate(ammarmian.substack.com) |
Ten years of trying to meditate(ammarmian.substack.com) |
I like to imagine what the Earth and everything on it looks like to a neutrino.
In the last few years or so I've been practicing letting go the compulsion to be doing Something Else in addition to the Main Thing I'm doing. For example: the urge to listen to a podcast while I'm doing the dishes. Among the worst is the urge to listen to music while I'm listening to music, or the desire to play a videogame while I'm reading a book to my child. Part of this change is because I don't want to break any more dishes for lack of attention, but also because attending to the Main Thing feels more valuable now in that if it doesn't require 100% focus my mind can wander, or just let the neutrinos stream through, and afterwards I appreciate the break.
Btw, I’m a big fan of Shinzen Young who has a secular/scientific(-ish) approach that combines various world traditions in a hybrid sorta MMA does with martial arts.
https://www.shinzen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AnOutline...
After a few years of this I finally bit the bullet and went on a 10-day meditation retreat. ~12 hours a day of meditating, no books or talking or exercise. The first days were tough, all that boredom and irritation was still there and I had to sit with it for many, many hours. But I felt like I'd made a big commitment in going there, so I sat it out. The solidarity of a couple dozen other students going through the same thing helped a lot too, even if we weren't supposed to acknowledge each other's existence.
On the third or fourth day a switch kind of flipped in my brain and it was no longer hard to sit perfectly still for an hour.
At that point I guess I had learned the basic skill of meditating, and it's stuck with me. As long as I'm somewhere reasonably quiet and distraction-free I can get back into that state within a few minutes.
Also, as a side note, some of the Buddhist philosophy was also helpful. I originally perceived mental illness as similar to physical disease: people are generally healthy, and sometimes there's something wrong with you that needs to be treated and corrected, usually by a doctor of some kind. In Buddhism the script is flipped: existence is suffering by default, and most people require some kind of deliberate work to come to terms with their own existence. I get that it won't resonate with everyone, but in my case it helped a lot to view what I was going through as a manifestation of ordinary human suffering rather than some special, unusually intractable mental health condition.
EDIT: Also, shit gets intense when you keep ratcheting up your concentration and introspection. Getting past the boredom and being able to sit still for an hour is just a first step.
I'd recommend trying to find a place with qualified teachers. I went to a Goenka retreat (i.e. dhamma.org) and there were some weird things about it: all the teaching was done through 30-year recordings of a guy who's been dead for 10 years. The facilitators actually present at the retreat were his "assistant teachers", and in my case they didn't seem to have a lot of expertise. They seemed to be following Goenka's script and were reluctant to deviate. I think everyone there really meant well and had no ulterior motives, but there were cult-y vibes nonetheless. If you can put up with that and are willing to work through difficulties largely on your own then maybe I'd recommend it. I had a great experience, in the end. The food and facilities were also quite nice.
Also, I had some intense experiences that I would have thought were only possible with psychedelic drugs. It really scared me at one point: I was sure I was losing my mind. I almost asked to be taken to a hospital and put on antipsychotics. I think there is a chance that if I had done that, things would have gone very badly for me.
The other people on the retreat with me apparently did not have experiences like this. But it's not unique to me. [1]
Just go into it with an appreciation that you're attempting something significant and powerful and probably (at least for now) a bit outside of rational understanding.
It was worthwhile for me. I had a hard time justifying taking 10 days away from everything, but ultimately I convinced myself that it would be exciting to spend 10 days doing something wildly different from what I've done basically every other day for the last couple of years. Variety of experience is a good thing, right? :)
[1] https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/britton/research/varieti...
Thanks!
Really hope you enjoy it :)
“It is not good for people to be alone…”
You need the feedback loop.
I feel like if someone wrote that they wanted to understand computation, and over the course of 10 years they read Godel Escher Bach and some Smullyan puzzles, and occasionally pulled up a python interpreter to play with stuff for minutes at a time, and each time got bored and gave up, we wouldn't find it especially interesting that they hadn't reached any deep and satisfying understanding.
I'd like to be a better cook, and I read through Salt Fat Acid Heat and sometimes I try to make something more planned and effortful than I normally would, but over the past 10 years I have taken no cooking classes, made only sporadic efforts to learn more, and so I'm not surprised that my ability in the kitchen hasn't changed much.
What you get out of an endeavor is related to what you put in. But if you have difficulty sticking with it, maybe introduce stuff in your life that helps you maintain that effort? My meditation practice was most consistent when I was doing a class that met weekly. In addition to guidance and instruction, there was always some component of sharing or discussing experiences, asking questions, etc. Even if it's not a "sangha" per se, having a regular, structured, social interaction attached to your practice can really help. As can having a more knowledgeable teacher, rather than just a pile of books.
Thanks for your comment, not a fan of the snark but the content is great.
In all seriousness, I think my snark was in reaction to my impression that the content was really lacking. It feels like the intent was more to bulk out content and cultivate an audience than actually help or usefully inform your readers. You described a very common problem at some length, and some things which _didn't_ resolve your search, and then without reaching a solution, you just tell us to come back next time for more content ... possibly but not necessarily including what actually helped you develop a practice.
I empathize with the unsatisfying search. But I question the value of describing _only_ the unsatisfying portion of the search as a means to promote your next article.
Autogenic training is an easy practice, much easier than traditional meditation practices, the teachings of which are, at least to my Western mind, impenetrable. I have read quite a few books on meditation, breathing, jhanas (sp?), listened to practitioners and teachers, and for the life of me I cannot make sense of 95 percent of it. In part, I think, my confusion occurs because those teachings don't make a lot of sense, there is an intellectual short-circuit that causes people to create concepts and practices that don't make sense because they have to "chase" or follow or build on other concepts and practices that don't make a lot of sense. A vicious circle of nonsense.
Something similar happens in martial arts. Movies and books showed the mystical and magical abilities of traditional martial arts practitioners: breathing, ki energy, horse postures, "watch how the eagle soars." I think, at least for Westerners, the pinnacle and climax was reached with Bruce Lee, who philosophized and kicked (but never on stage against other "experts") at the same time. And not with the brutal methods of Western boxing, but with a single finger. But, as we saw in mixed martial arts fights, empiricism-as usual and as expected-won out against magic, spirits and brutal training that made no sense; fighters who trained following empirical methods of training and fighting (develop the methods, test them, accept them if they work, abandon them if they don't) were throwing traditional martial arts practitioners out the proverbial window.
I would encourage many of those who have tried traditional meditation for years and faced all sorts of problems, from losing months to developing pathological conditions, to try Autogenic Training instead: easy, rewarding, accessible. And it works.
In English, I recommend "Autogenic Training. A Mind-Body Approach to the Treatment of Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Syndrome," by Micah R. Sadigh, Roberto Patarca Montero (Part II and Part III).
These days i will pay attention to my breath at times when i cannot fall asleep. And that's about it.
Meditation can mean many different things, but in the mindfulness sense, it usually means engaging in awareness and observing metacognition instead of cognition. This usually means observing the flow of mind, body, feelings, and truth. It isn't a process of shutting down.
I don't personally care for the spaced out kind of meditation. I tend to focus internally and deeply on something I want to explore or feel.
without purpose.
we ascribe purpose to our abilities and faculties by choice
That is, looking at it as 2500 years of successfully developing what works is hiding a lot of the failure that has accompanied things in that same time span. Is akin to saying that the religions that avoid certain foods are on to something, because no way something like that would stick without a solid reason.
To that end, the folks you know that had a mental breakdown. Is there a counterfactual world where they did not have a breakdown by avoiding meditation? Or by picking it up with a new religion? My priors are low that that is the case, but I would be delighted to learn more.
> I personally know two people who went into severe psychosis and depression by trying to practise meditation in a secular context.
Sorry, but I simply can't believe this. I mean I believe you have two friends with mental health issues, but I don't believe that psychosis can be triggered in a normal person by practicing "secular meditation". That's an extreme claim that requires a lot of evidence.
I don't think the argument is usually "meditation without Buddhism is dangerous" but rather "meditation techniques taken from their context can be dangerous". Regular mindfulness or insight meditation can cause shifts in mental state that a person isn't used to and they may not have the tools required to deal with it in a healthy manner.
It's like the mental equivalent of a normal person suddenly starting the same workout routine as an professional athlete, or even just an experienced weightlifter. They might be able to do the exercises, but they don't have the context provided by having a coach/being in the sport/etc to provide them with tools like "how to fall properly" or "knowing a torn muscle versus a normal sprain". That doesn't mean that doing the exercises in general are bad or that you need to do sport foo in order to exercise.
For what it's worth, I Don't think it's an extreme claim at all.
The potential for ill-effects from more extreme efforts in Meditation is starting to be documented by western scientists. A lot of adverse outcomes aren't only possible, but actually quite common.
I personally had ZERO prior mental health issues, but after 3-4 months of meditating 30-90 minutes everyday in addition to fairly intense mindfulness practice throughout the day, I started to experience a lot of issues: strange emotional outbursts disconnected from any memory or thought, anger management issues, tension headaches, depression, etc.
These ultimately only resolved by stopping meditation entirely for a long time and only carefully reintroducing it in smaller less frequent doses.
It's really not all sunshine and rainbows.
I’m sorry that you don’t believe (edit typo) me, nothing I can do about that
Since we're in "my personal experience"-land, I've been meditating and have been around people who meditate daily for 26 years. Never seen or heard about anything close to what you describe.
Now, that included everything from "feeling sad" to full blown panic attack.
I'll see if I can dig up that particular study. Here is a similar one which tracked longterm meditators:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1428622/
> However, of the twenty-seven subjects, seventeen (62.9%) reported at least one adverse effect, and two (7.4%) suffered profound adverse effects.
I actually think that some of the benefits of meditation are adjacent to psychosis, in a way: as you get closer to the "insight" that is the intended result of Buddhist meditation, you are also flirting with losing your grip on reality.
In my case, it went fine. I resolved the experience and integrated it. But I could see how it might go the other way for some.
Professor Britton at Brown has made a career of studying these kinds of experiences, plenty of examples here:
https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/britton/research/varieti...
EDIT: I find it quite horrifying that doctors prescribe it now. If you follow the doctors advice, mindfulness meditation every day, properly, then the doctor does not understand where that will take you. It is not a known thing for them. It only is “safe” because most people don’t actually bother doing it regularly or put effort in
In a deeply meditative state you can open up yourself to a spiritual state of perception. In this transcendental state you can attract other spiritual and ethereal entities. Not all of which are benevolent.
Lots of the meditative mantras, prayers and rituals perhaps are meant to ward off negative entities and even perhaps attract compassionate and positive spiritual forces
In a sense train yourself to open the door to different states of mind … this and of itself doesn’t equal enlightenment or happiness.
After reading Bhagwad Geeta I realised that yoga/meditation is all about discharging your duties with no expectations. I won't say I am transformed but my life do change for good by a huge margin after realising this.
It’s a useful approach for treating various medical problems. Anything, even nothing, can cause psychosis.
Meditation is not “as safe as sitting down”. It has strong life altering risks
Question away! If I don’t stick the landing on the follow-up email (which I’m still working on - original email got too long hence the truncation), you can say that you were right ;)
Some friends/teachers of mine will maybe do 2-4 weeks solitary each year, but sangha is still important.
The majority of monastic ascetic traditions include a small number of hermits, and Tibetian buddhists are no exception.
Those hermits do, occasionally, see other people, and it is important.
It kind of feels like an all-or-nothing thing: once you start to "see through the illusion of self", you have to follow that through to its logical conclusion or you'll be stuck living with intense cognitive dissonance.
I don't generally like to talk about this stuff too much because it sounds absolutely nuts to people who haven't experienced it.
Note that I'm fine pushing for caution on folks wanting to take up any practice. This would go as well for folks that think a running practice will help them. Maybe. At best.
There are plenty of apps out there with millions of daily active users. What percentage of those users do you expect to suffer negative mental health side effects? Where is the evidence that they exist at all?
I would guess that about 5 to 10% of people who seriously try the practise for an extended period experience very scary and potentially trauma inducing effects
So the lower bound of your estimate gives us ~200,000 people who would be adversely affected. Looking through negative reviews, it's all complaints about pricing and paywalls. The same is true for Headspace, the second biggest app in this space (I don't have DAUs for them, but it's got about half as many downloads and reviews, so let's assume less than half as big).
I can't find a single complaint about adverse mental health effects, which doesn't mean it never happens, but it's not anywhere close to 5%.
[1] https://blog.apptopia.com/calm-app-outperforms-headspace-dur...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584749/ (online survey, 84 respondants)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820538/ (meta analysis, 6703 total participants across 55 studies)
My reading of this is we can't make claims like X% practicioners have negative outcomes - the numbers are too messy. We can definitely say a significant amount of practictioners do have negative outcomes.
But, those negative outcomes are wide and while they include suicide, depression and panic attacks, the majority of them are things like anxiety.
You are digging into and tinkering with your psyche. Of course there are going to be negative outcomes. I would be more skeptical if the claim was meditation did something and never had negative effects.
Bold statement that piqued my interest. Do you have backing sources or pointers to this topic?
The Buddhists definitely know about this, but a lot of their writing is pretty impenetrable and interlaced with weird metaphysics. Here's some modern, secular words on the subject (from the admittedly controversial author Daniel Ingram):
https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight...
Here's a more traditional buddhist description of the same thing:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress....
I think a very small fraction of people actually meditate enough to get to that point. Meditating 90 minutes a day (plus the constant mindfulness practice) is pretty extreme by most people's standards (at least in US secular culture).
After that, for months, the head pressure / headaches would reappear and then they'd be relieved by me crying. Feeling the intense feelings and going away.
But... I really wasn't expecting any of that. I just wanted to be able to focus better and think more clearly. I didn't sign up for THIS. So I just let it go and fade. I didn't really want to accidentally screw my brain up. So, unfortunately, I haven't started a daily practice again since. It all did feel pretty cathartic though.
I've dabbled here and there with meditating again. When I do it with any real regularity though, the head pressure tends to come back.
Also, I'm not very fond of taking the traditional advice so literally. These sources focus solely on training new Buddhist monks, and most people doing secular practice just want some peace of mind while they continue their, productivity focused, western lifestyle.
We need to take these sources with a grain of salt and reorient our practice so that it cultivates more peace of mind without making us implode when the cultivated buddhist mindset creates a conflict with our western lifestyle
I've experienced intense emotional swings like you describe but not the pain or pressure. The emotional swings at least were something I was able to get through, eventually. They were strong for a while but stopped with continued practice. I'm definitely still more sensitive than I was before. I feel both positive and negative feelings more intensely, but hold onto them less.
This and linking MCTB (of all things) are the exact dangerous taking out of context I’m warning against. Daniel Ingram is a terrible resource, he should not be recommended
Here's where I think we differ: a lot of people in secular western culture are intensely put off by all the religious stuff that comes with Buddhism. The metaphysics and reincarnation stuff is, in my view, a reflection of the culture that Siddhartha Gautama grew up in and taught in, rather than a necessary part of eliminating suffering. I think that retelling these lessons in a way that's accessible to modern audiences is important. Some people simply will not accept something taught in the form of ancient mysticism. Should those people be denied insight just because they didn't grow up in India during the Iron Age?
I get that Ingram is polarizing. I'll add a link to Mahasi Sayadaw as well, but I just don't think he explains things in a way that's as clear to someone with my cultural background.
One big takeaway I had was realizing that outside the west, these types of things are well known. Here though, it seems almost no one who purports to be a "teacher" knows much about them or what to do with them.
The claimed hypothesis is absurd on its face. It's a wild and strong claim that needs strong evidence, so we don't need to be super precise here, if the effects were nearly as strong as 5-10%, we would see it.
We don't have to engage in crude methodology. We have tons of research.
I agree that the goals of Buddhism contradict the goals we have in western society though. That said, Steve Jobs was a devout Zen Buddhist, so he sat many thousands of hours of zazen
I do find it funny though when companies train their employees in mindfulness. It’s almost like they want workers who have less emotional connection with their work. As I said elsewhere, it’s all a matter of whether you follow the instructions. If you do, it will have adverse effects.
Looks like mindfulness to 15 or 20 minutes a day is a sensible choice then.
> Steve Jobs was a devout Zen Buddhist, so he sat many thousands of hours of zazen
Steve Jobs was a powerful and a very influential man. He didn't have a boss urging him to be productive 24/7 like a field employee has. Investors expected his company to deliver working products. And it delivered all of that.
> I do find it funny though when companies train their employees in mindfulness. It’s almost like they want workers who have less emotional connection with their work. As I said elsewhere, it’s all a matter of whether you follow the instructions. If you do, it will have adverse effects.
IMHO they want their employees to become stoic productivity machines that make no demands and cope with whatever shitty working condition they set up.
Then he has this book that is supposed to distil all of the powerful insight practises into a secular path, but everyone I’ve spoken to in his pragmatic dharma community is extremely toxic. It’s literally like the 4chan of Buddhism, huge amounts of racism, lots of depressed teens, very online, lots of people who think they are enlightened (one of which suddenly “rated my capacity for awakening” as zero, and when I said I didn’t care flew into a rage)
It’s exactly what you expect to happen when you take Buddhism, try and condense it down into a path for having the strongest and most intense experience, and market it to terminally online young adult men
Ingram was also heavily involved in this “fire kasina” stuff where you just stare at a flame for days until you start seeing things and go kind of crazy, which is a controversial practise in Buddhism
Finally he’s just not a qualified Buddhist teacher
For what it's worth, Ingram himself recommends Kornfield's "A Path with Heart" as one of his favorite books, which is largely about how the goal is to be a better person and that's not the same thing as developing incredible concentration abilities and having intense experiences.
I don’t really think it matters what Ingrams favourite books are if his methodology has been so destructive
Of course the teachings must be made to appeal to westerners. This does not mean totally gutting them
People who won’t accept anything spiritual or religious don’t need this practise. In Buddhism we don’t try to convert, for some people it is simply not their time
The illusion of self can be observed directly. Perhaps it's even an inevitable conclusion of sufficiently intense introspection. I'd consider observing this to be a spiritual practice.
The metaphysics of realms of reincarnation, hungry ghosts, etc. is religious thought (and it was the dominant worldview when Siddhartha was born). These are not ideas that I can discover independently through introspection; if I believe them it's because someone told me to.
We might be talking past each other, though: if you're saying that the benefits of meditation are inherently inextricable from a Vedic worldview, I don't agree. But if you are just saying we haven't yet figured out which parts of the religion are actually necessary, then I agree. I personally learned meditation in a fairly Buddhist context, and naturally there are parts that resonate with me and parts that don't.
Actually, he mostly invented them, they aren’t present in Vedic texts afaik. Also, he did perceive it independently: his insight became so great that he could see his past lives, and he taught that we can too if we follow the 8fp
Ibuprofen is a great drug and I recommend it. It also kills people, is toxic, and can have severe side effects especially when misused.
If something is powerful and has an effect.. it will have side effects and negative outcomes.
Even as a secularist, I think we lost some of safety practices that were encoded in religious meditative practices.
I should say that I'm fine with the idea of pushing for caution. I just have major suspicions when a practice is pushed with a mentality that you need expert guidance to get layman benefits.
I should also state that my personal stance is that the majority of meditation, if it is working, is not working for the reasons that the practitioners think it is working.
I think we need to stop telling people meditation is a perfect little peaceful practice and instead treat it like ibuprofen.
If you are meditating and you start feeling anxious or in a bad way.. stop. Stop meditating and go do something else. Maybe talk with a therapist.
If you start feeling depersonalization.. stop meditating.
You should inform your medical practicioners that you meditate, the same way you tell them if you take ibuprofen on the regular. They probably don't care, but it's good to know.
You probably should ask yourself "is the benefit from meditation exceeding the side effects?" If no.. then stop doing it.
Taking more ibuprofen is not always the right course. The goal of meditating should not be to meditate more.
Meditation research generally is low quality, as is suffers from lack of defined methodology, lack of a consensus definition of what meditation is, and the general subjective experience of meditation. (Concretely, if you want to do brain scans on someone meditating, how do you know they're actually meditating? This extends to scans on people who are "experienced practitioners", how do you know they are experienced practitioners?)
Regardless, the vast body of research does not point to negative effects, most point to mild positive effects, and the medical field considers it perfectly safe for healthy people. If you want to use research, don't pick and choose the studies that find adverse effects, look at the overall body of research.
Will I become more self-absorbed and grow feelings of superiority as I continue to meditate? I don't know. But I will still try and see for myself.
It feels a lot like the goalposts are being moved here, the original claim was that meditation is extremely dangerous unless you're doing Buddhism right, now we're asking if there's evidence that it's completely safe.
I explicitly noted that there are probably rare cases where meditation leads to negative experiences (and I am not distinguishing between traditional methods and so-called secular methods, the risk should be the same for both, according to my model). But that is my point: these will be rare, and not extreme, except in people with pre-existing mental health issues. Normal, healthy people simply do not develop psychosis from meditation practice. Furthermore, there is no body of research or evidence known to me that shows that the (small in both effect size and frequency) risks are changed by the meditation practice or tradition. The research that we have shows small effects for meditation in any direction, but is overall positive regardless of tradition. My proposed experiment was an attempt at distinguishing between secular methods and traditional Buddhist methods, in an attempt to find any evidence of the massive effect size you claimed (5-10%!). This is the crux if the disagreement, not "can meditation EVER be dangerous in ANY circumstances", but "Under what circumstances, and how dangerous". I say, "Only in rare cases where there are underlying mental health issues regardless of tradition". You say, "Commonly (5-10%), for people who don't do Buddhism, and almost(?) never for those following Buddhist teachings". (I'm not actually sure if you think Buddhism removes all risk or is just much less risky, but either way I disagree.)
You made an outrageous claim that you've still provided no evidence for, and you've constructed a straw man of my argument to knock down. You're not arguing in good faith.
I'd be happy to reset if you want to discuss the relative difference in risks between Buddhist and secular methods (evidence on other meditation traditions would also be welcome), but I'm not going to argue with you about the words I've written and their plain meaning.
Again, this is a huge bold statement, on what basis are you making it? You are the one making outrageous claims, and constructing strawmen. If I am a bad discussion partner, you are a dire one.
Comparing it to ibuprofen strikes me as begging the question that it has a mechanism. Something I am not quite ready to cede.
I take it as similar to inversion tables. Could it help some folks with their back pain? Absolutely. Does it do so for the reasons they put forward? Highly unlikely. (Acupuncture is similar. Homeopathy? Maybe...)
The spiritual part is how to frame the results and shifts that come from long-term meditation in a helpful worldview.
Have you tried it by the way? It sounds like you aren't quite aware what it even is
I have tried meditation before. Never did a weekend retreat, but used to do guided classes. They left me a bit high and dry. And they felt exactly the same as old religious acquaintances on how that helps guide and inform. I /do not/ doubt that it works for the folks it works for. I clearly have doubts that it is a general thing that even can work for everyone.
Loosening it to most people, I mean, maybe? But then why does the nature of what you focus your thought onto matter? I suppose the mechanism is that you are effectively forcing a wiring of whatever in your mind is responsible for consciousness? Makes sense that you can effectively train your consciousness by rote in much the same way that you can train your arms/hands to juggle.
But, at this point, we have to establish that consciousness is the same between us. Certainly plausible. I'd go so far as to say likely. But not guaranteed.
> Makes sense that you can effectively train your consciousness by rote in much the same way that you can train your arms/hands to juggle.
It does, so why are you arguing against it? You claimed it only has an effect by some kind of vague suggestion.
Of course, strictly, it's also false that working out with weights will increase muscle mass. You are just being needlessly pedantic. Your claim has shifted from "I think all effects of meditation are just a kind of self-propaganda" to arguing some crap about the nature of consciousness.
Why do we even need to speak of consciousness? If it confuses you that focussing on a meditation object for 30 mins a day might do something, I dread to think of how the concept of learning or memorisation sends your head into a spin
And don't take my claim too strong, here. I obviously don't /know/. I have some strong doubts, sure; but doubts are not themselves evidence against. Your very point on weights not absolutely working is essentially my point.
I bring in consciousness, as that is what it sounds like when you say that one needs to think on something. Consciously and deliberately. Otherwise, I can think a lot on a program I'm wanting to write, but make zero progress on it.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
There is also the fact that this is a forum for discussing/debating ideas. Not just to affirm them with agreement, but to strengthen them through criticism.