Chapter 6 is about how we can deal with criticism and is one of the most useful techniques the book has to offer. This technique is applicable nearly every day and in most social situations we are in. Burns begins by identifying the cause of worthlessness is one’s internal self-criticism in the form of a conversation we have with ourselves in our mind. In an unhealthy context, people will talk down to themselves in harsh, unrealistic ways that can easily be triggered by other peoples comments. This can lead to not wanting to hear criticism from others at all to avoid being put into a negative personal spiral. If we learn healthy and effective ways to deal with criticism, we can deal with verbal abuse and disapproval in a non-defensive way without losing self-esteem. (131) 

          Burns recognizes that it does take some practice to learn to implement the skills he shows in dealing with criticism. Once mastered, our self-esteem will never be subject to the criticism of others. Fundamentally, this is because other people and their comments don’t have the power to actually upset us. Burns says, “No matter how vicious, heartless, or cruel these comments may be, they have no power to disturb you or to create even a little bit of discomfort.” (132) The only person who has this power is you. 

When others criticize us, negative automatic thoughts become triggered and we react emotionally to our own thoughts and not the comments of others. It is our own thoughts that are filled with distortions and mental errors that upset us, even if they are catalyzed by someone else’s words. (132) 

          The first step in this process of accepting criticism is to identify the automatic thought and use the written double column technique to enable awareness and analyze the illogical thinking pattern. Burns offers an example of the double column technique on page 134. Then, write a rational response beside the automatic thought to create a sense of empowering balance in how we process criticism. For example, we can shift catastrophizing distortions into goal-oriented, problem solving approaches. This can boost our self-confidence and help us overcome our fears of imperfections. (133)

          In criticism, others can be correct or incorrect in their evaluation of us. If they are incorrect, we need not be upset. It is their mistake in evaluation or perception that is the problem. There is no need for us to be upset if someone else makes a mistake with an incorrect criticism. (134) If the criticism is accurate, we do not need to be upset about it. No one expects us to be perfect because that is completely unrealistic. Burns states, “Just acknowledge your error and take whatever steps you can to correct it.” (135) It may be difficult at first to learn how to transform other’s insight into emotional reality but if we do, we will open new doors of growth for every person who offers it to us. (135) 

          Sometimes, the fear of criticism can be caused by an over reliance on love and approval from others for self-esteem and happiness. This leads into an imbalance of investing energy into other’s perceptions instead of proactive motivation that we are in control of. At the end of the day, it is our thoughts that upset us and by thinking realistically, we can be less upset. If we write down our negative thoughts, identify the distortions, and create rational responses we can be less angry, threatened and upset. (135) 

 

          Step One - Empathy: When we are being criticized, the person may have malicious intentions or want to help us. The criticism itself can be correct, false or somewhat accurate. It is important to be socratic first by asking clarification questions of the person criticizing you to find out exactly what they mean. It is important to not allow ourselves to be defensive or judgmental during this step and focus on finding specific information to future your understanding of the other person’s perspective. (135) 

          If the criticism is vague, insulting, distorted with labels, etc, ‘unpack’ these terms with the socratic method by getting them to expand on what they mean by them or what they refer to. What was it that made the other person upset or triggered the criticism in the first place?  It is important to make an effort to not engage in an attack/defense fight but to communicate in a collaborating and respectful way. Burns shows a role-playing approach to practice this method on page 136-7. 

          When we ask specific questions, we lessen the probability that the other person will disengage and reject the conversation. From there, both of you can focus on solving concrete problems when you listen to the other person’s perspective and make an effort to understand it. Most often, any anger and hostility will be defused towards a problem solving orientation. Blaming each other or debating usually doesn’t lead to a constructive outcome. (137) 

          Even if the criticism seems completely wrong, being empathetic through socratic questioning and being specific will help determine what the other person really means. Asking for more information helps exemplify what the words mean or what your actions meant to them. Being empathetic essentially is making an effort to see through the other person’s perspective. (137) 

 

          Step Two - Disarming the Critic: We have three options when being criticized: 1. Criticize in response, leading to an unproductive fight, 2. Being avoidant and trying to escape, which can be humiliating or a reduction in our self-esteem, and 3. a skillful means of disarming the person criticizing you by removing the motivation that sprouted the criticism in the first place. (137) Burns states, “Whether your critic is right or wrong, initially find some way to agree with [them].” (137-8) 

          If the criticism is correct, agree with it, be appreciative that the person shared it with you and communicate that you did not intend to cause harm to their feelings or be insensitive. Burns gives a good example on page 138 where he develops a collaborating approach to the criticism given. If it is the case that the criticism is unfair and invalid, it isn’t realistic for a change to occur. If it is nonsense, one can “agree in principle with the criticism, or …find some grain of truth in the statement and agree with that, or…acknowledge that the person’s upset is understandable because it is based on how they view the situation.” (Burns 138) 

 

The steps are:

          1) find how to agree with whatever they say

          2) avoid being sarcastic and defensive 

          3) commit yourself to speaking the truth (138) 

 

          Burns gives a dialogue on pages 138-9 that show how to do this process. He demonstrates that he does not fight back, but finds a way to agree with the other person. This removes antagonistic motivation from them, disarming them successfully. Burns conceptualizes this as ‘winning through avoiding a fight.’ Once the other person is calm, they will be in a state of mind conducive to communication. (139) 

          Burns does a role reversal (139-40) to allow the patient practice in the method of asking clarification questions to increase empathy and a valid agreement via the disarming technique. He suggests practicing this method with a friend in a role-playing model to develop mastery of skills necessary for real life situations. Another way to practice is to actually write out imaginary dialogues between oneself and some hostile critic. You can prepare empathetic questions and agreement disarming statements in advance. (140) 

          It is a major mistake if we feel the tendency to defend ourselves when being unjustly accused. If we give into this predisposition, the opponent can increase the intensity of their attack because of our inability to ‘read through the lines’ of their criticism. They may up the volume of their speech because we have shown an inability to listen. We can also harm the relationship if we reactively attack back and result in them exiting communication. This is not good for we lose the opportunity to distill out the truth from their perspective or state of mind. (141) 

          Responding with empathy and disarming though agreement reduces hostility in the other person and they will feel we are listening and respecting them. If we make a mistake by not applying these techniques, it is important to analyze those mistakes and review how to act differently in handling the situation. Role-playing can be a great help to help correct mistakes made in previous conversations until we master a comfortable approach. (141-2) 

​

          Step Three - Feedback and Negotiation: After empathetic listening and disarming through agreement, it is then appropriate to explain your position and emotions in a tactful and assertive manner and negotiate differences. If the criticism is incorrect, it can be identified constructively through an objective acknowledgement that we may see things incorrectly. If the issue is based on facts rather than ego or pride, we can avoid harmful labels and fighting. We can acknowledge that we do make errors as well, even if we ‘know’ they made the mistake, and suggest both of us fact-check the situation. The evidence will show itself and your confidence is only meaningful when backed by evidence. This non-polarizing approach allows the person who is wrong to save-face by avoiding a confrontation that puts one’s self-respect in question. (142)

          The difference can be an issue of taste rather than a matter of fact. To come to a collaborative perspective together, we are more likely to be successful by communicating our position with diplomacy. If they continually continue to attack you, you can simply repeat an assertive response in a kind but firm way until the other person gets tired of being aggressive or upset. (143)

           Solutions may need to be negotiated or compromised in between both positions by each person settling for part of what they want. The more we are empathetic and disarm the other person, the higher chances we will get more of what we want. It may also be the case that we are wrong and the other person is right. If we agree with their criticism, thank them for the information, and apologize for any harm we caused, we can expect that their respect for us will also increase. (143) 

          Burns identifies that we do have the right to defend ourselves from criticism and we can even get angry if we want to. The important thing to remember is not that we have feelings, like anger, but how we express our feelings. It is important to be mindful not to damage our relationship with the other person by becoming defensive and vengeful. In the moment, an angered outburst may feel good but there will often be negative consequences to that relationship and anyone who observes the outburst. (144) 

 

          The Anti-Heckler Technique: Burns offers a very useful method when being criticized in front of an audience. When being heckled, the heckler usually has three primary characteristics: 

          1) The comments are intensely critical, are inaccurate and irrelevant to the content 

          2) the heckler is not well regarded amongst their peer group

          3) the comments are aggressive and abusive 

 

Burn’s response to this kind of pressure is to: 

          1) Begin by thanking the person for their comments 

          2) recognize that the points brought up are important 

          3) focus on the need for more knowledge needed about the points and direct the heckler to pursue further research on the topics              identified 

          4) invite the heckler to discuss the points in detail after the presentation 

​

Burns recognizes that any technique has limitations and will not necessarily bring about an intended result but at the same time often hecklers end up being the most appreciative participants at public talks. (145) 

 

          Summary: When being criticized, we can go down one of three paths: sad, mad and the glad route. Either option will be a ‘total experience,’ involving our thinking, feelings, behaviour, and how our body functions. On page 146, Burns shows a flow chart of either option, how it affects our thoughts, feelings and behaviour. If someone is depressed, they usually will follow the sad route, automatically believing the critic is correct without systematically inquiring if a mistake was made. They can be distorted by jumping to conclusions, magnify, label themselves, evaluate themselves from a perfectionistic framework, determine an error means they are worthless and result in a loss of self-esteem.  (145-7)

          If one becomes angry from criticism, they can defend themselves from a perceived horror that they are imperfect and refuse to admit you made an error. They tend to respond with accusations in a temporary sense of ‘self-righteous indignation’ that ultimately poisons the relationship. (147) 

          The best option is where one acts from a position of self-esteem, a sense that no matter what criticism comes your way, you have value. Burns states, “It is based on the premise that you are a worthwhile human being and have no need to be perfect. When you are criticized, your initial response is to investigate.” It is important to determine if the criticism has any grain of truth in it, if there are any reasonable objections to it and if it is true that we did make a mistake. When we ask nonjudgmental questions, we can put ourselves in a position to find a solution. 

          If we are wrong, we can come to terms with our mistake and make a commitment to correcting what is in our control for the future. If the critic is incorrect, we can identify how their evidence or perspective was off and help them understand or develop greater empathy. When we know our self-esteem is never in question, it doesn't matter if we were right or wrong when we make an effort to understand what the other person is saying and make efforts to collaborate. (147-8)