Rejection of criticism is a form of evil.

Any non-acceptance of rational criticism is a form of illogic.

Criticisms typically have a point. I.e., an objective. The point and purpose of a criticism is to better and improve the party in which it criticizes. Rejection of any criticism, is a rejection of any kind of improvement. Rejection of criticism is also another form of "I don't want to hear your side of the story," which is also irrational.

Obviously, I find the ability to accept any form of criticism to be noteworthy.

I suppose there are several reasons why people or parties will purposely refuse any criticism, but is it worth going on why?

The moment you refuse to accept any rational criticism, you decided to peak your result, which is of course, more, utter, nonsense.

It's actually meaningless to rank criticisms as "giving the benefit of the doubt" and "giving the disadvantage of the doubt." Because if we go "Oh I don't like this company, so I'll give it some criticism," the intent of giving criticims is not noteworthy, because criticisms should be based on the merit of the criticism. If the reason for giving a legit and rational criticism is to give the disadvantage of the doubt, then that legit criticism should have been done regardless.

Rejecting any form of criticism, is another form of rejecting any ideas for improvement.

Part 2.

Now obviously, I have to mention something else now. The whole 1st part was about knowing there was going to be a criticism, and rejecting to read or hear it.

This 2nd part, is when the criticism is already made and read, therefore, 2 choices are available:

Adjust/amend to the criticism, so it goes away or weakens.

Or.

Ignore it. That is, refuse it.

Obviously, ignoring such a criticism is an evil. If the criticism to Congress in 1864 was "the allowage of slavery in Africans," then ignoring it is an evil. Or a criticism to a water company that poisons their water.

However, I don't want to categorize this as a 4th evil, since, the 2 are quite similar..