>I'd say the same way any criticism hurts the party believing it, not the one it's directed at. That doesn't make any sense. If the criticism is accurate, then

>I'd say the same way any criticism hurts the party believing it, not the one it's directed at. That doesn't make any sense. If the criticism is accurate, then it hurts the criticized party because it's true, whether or not they accept the criticism. > It increases your confidence in yourself without any corresponding increase in you real performance You don't need to increase your performance if the other side is lying about how well it's doing and you know it. Your confidence in yourself is well-founded in this situation. >In this case, public perception of superiority might lead to the US keeping its drug trials slow and expensive, reducing the amount of medical technology invented there compared to China. If China is actually producing a significant amount of fraudulent research, then their development will be hindered by their own fraud, which is the point. If their technological development is premised on fraudulent research, it won't advance. You seem to think this is just a matter of opinion that can be freely ignored. You seem to have a completely backwards understanding of the concept of criticism.