People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.

The author of the statement above ties the commitment of individuals to being critical of a policy or idea. However, we cannot tell it for sure that the commitment and being critical toward a policy or idea come together. Although on some occasions it may hold true, the author has made a fallacy of hasty generalization linking the commitment and the being critical to a cause.

People adhere to a policy or idea no matter they are critical of it or not. The first main reason is the money. Especially in the poor nations, always there are people who do things to earn money regardless that they are critical of it or not. Consider the assassins. Are they as critical to the idea of killing people as they are commit to murdering? Most of them do this merely for money. The thirst of money and power made people to commit to ideas. Such a commitment is a way toward meeting their quenchless thirst of power and money, rather than something they intellectually hold as valid and being critical of it.

Secondly, one might commit to a cause because he or she is brainwashed not to think otherwise. One of the main pillars of such systems is to block the target's mind in order not to think critically. Still nowadays, many “legitimate villainies” are done in terms of ideological laws. The religious terrorists are taught that it is the will of God to take the other lives. As the God is depicted in their mind as an irritable entity, they do not dare to question the killing orders, under the title of God’s will. It is the scare of a false God that such people perpetrate the most vicious things blindly, not that they are a bit critical toward it.

However, we should also maintain that it is possible that commitment and being critical toward a cause can come together. When an advocate knows that there are lots of problems with a policy, and the problems are least by taking such a policy, he/she is also the most committed person to that cause as there is not any better way to take. But, there is no way to prove this by an example; obviously, when one openly criticizes a cause, can barely be a defender of that cause either. For instance, it is possible that Gandhi was the most critical person toward social disobedience, but there is no evidence affirming that.

In short, as discussed, there is no firm relation between the commitment to a cause and being critical toward it, as the author wrongly assumes. However, it is tenable that someone be both adherent to a policy or idea, and at the same time, be the most critical of it. But, even this cannot be proved by examples, since one who backs a cause cannot also criticize about it publicly.