Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 16, 2011, 02:06PMIn another vein, is the fact that an argument has a large amount of logical properties somehow inherently better then one that does not have that much logic? And if so, is that not a logical argument?
Yes, it is not true that your statement is not a logical argument if so and a logical argument if not so.
The logical complexity of an argument does not necessarily mean that an argument is logically sound. Either an argument is sound or it is not, much like the formulas on either side of an equal sign are equivalent or they are not in which case the math is wrong.
But I don't see what this has to do with logic vs. emotion.
Yes, it is not true that your statement is not a logical argument if so and a logical argument if not so.
The logical complexity of an argument does not necessarily mean that an argument is logically sound. Either an argument is sound or it is not, much like the formulas on either side of an equal sign are equivalent or they are not in which case the math is wrong.
But I don't see what this has to do with logic vs. emotion.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 16, 2011, 05:34PM...which is precisely why I so intently advocate and focus on the established standards of critical thinking rather than my own, "raw" intellect and the humility and self-discipline to subjugate our own perceptions and sensibilities to those standards. That's more or less what Lawrie's post was about a little while back (I trust Lawrie will correct me on that if I'm mistaken, and will hopefully elaborate on and clarify it in any case).
Hmm, if I understand what you're saying correctly Byron, that wasn't my intent.
"Established standards of critical thinking"... At the end of the day this really means that you are allowing some other fallible human being to define your thought processes. Sheer hubris on the part of the one defining them and, perhaps, a lack of faith in your own capacity?
That is not to say that the opinions of others don't have value, but rather that each of us need to critically consider whether particular opinions have merit, and in what context.
I was simply pointing out that "logic" is not a panacaea. Being a human construct, logic has at least the same flaws as its creators... And probably more.
If I may give some advice, it is usually better to present opinions in the simplest terms so as to minimise misunderstanding by others. It is also wise to try to avoid unnecessary generalisations. E.G. I am a committed Christian. I even consider myself a fundamentalist Christian - but that very description clearly means different things to others than it does to me.
Now, please everybody, I absolutely do NOT want this discussion to degenerate into another fruitless slanging match over "religion". I mention the above only because this is a topic that Byron and myself do not see eye to eye on. Having read much of "that" thread, which is now thankfully locked, it seems apparent that Byron is opposed to a phenomenon I've never even seen - I live in Australia, not the US. That is not to say we don't have our own whack jobs, because we certainly do, but they are not the mainstream. I suspect they aren't in the US either, but being "squeaky wheels" they are probably getting the most "oil" (press coverage).
Judge me by what I do, not what I say (unless what I say is the ACT of "doing" in that context E.G. verbally abusing someone)... My way of saying "..by their fruit you will know them..."
Which leads neatly into the question of honesty: What is honesty?
I know a man who is a pathological liar. Yet, in his own opinion, he is an honest man. Because he actually believes his lies, they are not lies... At least to him. So, if he is telling the truth from his own perspective then is he honest or dishonest?
(Oh good grief - I think I've just validated post-modernism... NOOOOOOOO I must NOT justify that pile of steaming cr@p - although, if it takes a "broken" characteristic then perhaps I really just shown how post modernism is also broken...)
Hmm, if I understand what you're saying correctly Byron, that wasn't my intent.
"Established standards of critical thinking"... At the end of the day this really means that you are allowing some other fallible human being to define your thought processes. Sheer hubris on the part of the one defining them and, perhaps, a lack of faith in your own capacity?
That is not to say that the opinions of others don't have value, but rather that each of us need to critically consider whether particular opinions have merit, and in what context.
I was simply pointing out that "logic" is not a panacaea. Being a human construct, logic has at least the same flaws as its creators... And probably more.
If I may give some advice, it is usually better to present opinions in the simplest terms so as to minimise misunderstanding by others. It is also wise to try to avoid unnecessary generalisations. E.G. I am a committed Christian. I even consider myself a fundamentalist Christian - but that very description clearly means different things to others than it does to me.
Now, please everybody, I absolutely do NOT want this discussion to degenerate into another fruitless slanging match over "religion". I mention the above only because this is a topic that Byron and myself do not see eye to eye on. Having read much of "that" thread, which is now thankfully locked, it seems apparent that Byron is opposed to a phenomenon I've never even seen - I live in Australia, not the US. That is not to say we don't have our own whack jobs, because we certainly do, but they are not the mainstream. I suspect they aren't in the US either, but being "squeaky wheels" they are probably getting the most "oil" (press coverage).
Judge me by what I do, not what I say (unless what I say is the ACT of "doing" in that context E.G. verbally abusing someone)... My way of saying "..by their fruit you will know them..."
Which leads neatly into the question of honesty: What is honesty?
I know a man who is a pathological liar. Yet, in his own opinion, he is an honest man. Because he actually believes his lies, they are not lies... At least to him. So, if he is telling the truth from his own perspective then is he honest or dishonest?
(Oh good grief - I think I've just validated post-modernism... NOOOOOOOO I must NOT justify that pile of steaming cr@p - although, if it takes a "broken" characteristic then perhaps I really just shown how post modernism is also broken...)
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 09:34PMOkay, to use your example of arms, if I flex my bicep, my arm curls. If I flex my tricep, my arm straightens out. Flex both, and which ever wins (unless both apply equal force) causes the arm to curl or straighten. Muscles can be competing. So can different parts of the brain.
Sorry, no. You're not going to be able to flex both a tricep and bicep to their full ability and watch which one wins. The closest you're going to be able to come to that voluntarily is simply flexing to show muscle, in which case your arm will going right where you intend it to. The bicep and tricep are not competing. They are complimentary. If you doubt me, try doing exactly what you suggest here. Ain't gonna happen. How are you saying that logical and non-logical thoughts are competing?
QuoteYes, it is not true that your statement is not a logical argument if so and a logical argument if not so.
The logical complexity of an argument does not necessarily mean that an argument is logically sound. Either an argument is sound or it is not, much like the formulas on either side of an equal sign are equivalent or they are not in which case the math is wrong.
But I don't see what this has to do with logic vs. emotion.Maybe I worded it badly?
Simply a more logical argument is not inherently better then an emotional one. That preference itself is not logical. It is emotional. In order for an argument to be effective it doesn't have anything to do with being logically sound. To be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise. In math, it's like how 2 + 2 can equal 3, 4, or 5 depending on your equasion. As it relates to emotion vs logic, an argument itself is not logical. It is an persuasive appeal. A logical argument simply doesn't care about things outside of it. It simply is. The simple concept of wanting something (which is really the core of an argument), even just to be right or to validate your thoughts, is an emotional pull.
Sorry, no. You're not going to be able to flex both a tricep and bicep to their full ability and watch which one wins. The closest you're going to be able to come to that voluntarily is simply flexing to show muscle, in which case your arm will going right where you intend it to. The bicep and tricep are not competing. They are complimentary. If you doubt me, try doing exactly what you suggest here. Ain't gonna happen. How are you saying that logical and non-logical thoughts are competing?
QuoteYes, it is not true that your statement is not a logical argument if so and a logical argument if not so.
The logical complexity of an argument does not necessarily mean that an argument is logically sound. Either an argument is sound or it is not, much like the formulas on either side of an equal sign are equivalent or they are not in which case the math is wrong.
But I don't see what this has to do with logic vs. emotion.Maybe I worded it badly?
Simply a more logical argument is not inherently better then an emotional one. That preference itself is not logical. It is emotional. In order for an argument to be effective it doesn't have anything to do with being logically sound. To be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise. In math, it's like how 2 + 2 can equal 3, 4, or 5 depending on your equasion. As it relates to emotion vs logic, an argument itself is not logical. It is an persuasive appeal. A logical argument simply doesn't care about things outside of it. It simply is. The simple concept of wanting something (which is really the core of an argument), even just to be right or to validate your thoughts, is an emotional pull.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B Simply a more logical argument is not inherently better then an emotional one.
Agreed. Better is a value judgment. A logical argument may align with one person's values and not another - a scientist may reject an illogical argument with all the horror of actual sin, where a new-ager may not even be able to notice. Without an absolute (religious?) standard, inherently better is not possible.
Factually better is, of course. Analysis based on logic and critical thinking are demonstrably better at assessing reality and determining optimimum courses of action than reactions based on emotion. Emotional judgments occasionally get it right, faster than the logical ones - but as often get it drastically wrong, and are far more resistant to being questioned. See Blink for some examples.
Quote To be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise.
Well, true, but merely nitpicking. The topic is critical thinking, and we have to allow for it to be done correctly.
Agreed. Better is a value judgment. A logical argument may align with one person's values and not another - a scientist may reject an illogical argument with all the horror of actual sin, where a new-ager may not even be able to notice. Without an absolute (religious?) standard, inherently better is not possible.
Factually better is, of course. Analysis based on logic and critical thinking are demonstrably better at assessing reality and determining optimimum courses of action than reactions based on emotion. Emotional judgments occasionally get it right, faster than the logical ones - but as often get it drastically wrong, and are far more resistant to being questioned. See Blink for some examples.
Quote To be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise.
Well, true, but merely nitpicking. The topic is critical thinking, and we have to allow for it to be done correctly.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMHmm, if I understand what you're saying correctly Byron, that wasn't my intent.
I was talking more about the humility aspect there--the active suppression (or discounting ... ?) of your own perceptual and sentimental inclinations in favor of the reservation of judgment and external, more objective measures.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PM"Established standards of critical thinking"... At the end of the day this really means that you are allowing some other fallible human being to define your thought processes. Sheer hubris on the part of the one defining them and, perhaps, a lack of faith in your own capacity?
Sort of, but it's more the consensus of human beings, and I may be thinking in much more general terms than you're thinking I am ... though I'm not entirely sure that really matters to your point at all.
I guess the biggest issue I'm on about is the acceptance of uncertainty and the likelihood of personal error--self doubt in a sense, though I consider it the recognition and acceptance of human nature and the fact that I too am a human more or less like any other, so I'm not special in any truly objective sense--I'm not immune to the fundamental faults and weaknesses to which humans are susceptible, generally speaking. Where humans tend to falter, so do I, and the key is to face up to it and deal with it honestly. In critical thinking I'd argue that, probably, the key is humility--developing the inclination to back off from the presumption of the accuracy of one's own perceptions and sentiments and "raw", unmitigated responses ... and the potential for error in the mitigation as well. When the response to back off like that becomes second nature, that's what I call "internalizing" skepticism (and JFTR I'm not using "skepticism" as more or less a synonym for "cynic", but rather someone who values and practices sound critical thinking to the practicable best of his ability).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMThat is not to say that the opinions of others don't have value, but rather that each of us need to critically consider whether particular opinions have merit, and in what context.
That's why informed and credible consensus is so important to science and sound skepticism/critical thinking. Absolutely.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMI was simply pointing out that "logic" is not a panacaea.
No, but I'd say intellectual responsibility comes as close as you can get.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMBeing a human construct, logic has at least the same flaws as its creators... And probably more.
I dunno. To me that's kinda like saying math has the same flaws as its creators. I'm not sure on what you'd base such an assessment. Logic is pretty sterile--the codified consensus of observations of how reality works, basically. I don't see a whole lot of room for flaws there--certainly not as much room as human nature has. I do see plenty of room for limitations, however--that that are imposed upon the observations due to the fact humans are doing the observing (i.e. it's limited by our five senses, for example).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMIf I may give some advice, it is usually better to present opinions in the simplest terms so as to minimise misunderstanding by others. It is also wise to try to avoid unnecessary generalisations. E.G. I am a committed Christian. I even consider myself a fundamentalist Christian - but that very description clearly means different things to others than it does to me.
Couldn't agree more.
Sometimes it's pretty hard to simplify to the point that the overall text is actually simple and easy to understand (explaining relativity being an obvious example), but I absolutely agree with a sort of rhetorical Occam's Razor approach ... even if I don't always succeed at it (I do far better than some who are very disinclined regarding intellectual labor seem to think though).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMNow, please everybody, I absolutely do NOT want this discussion to degenerate into another fruitless slanging match over "religion". I mention the above only because this is a topic that Byron and myself do not see eye to eye on.
I suspect we disagree less than it seems, but I agree wholeheartedly on avoiding that issue ... as much as we can, anyway.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMWhich leads neatly into the question of honesty: What is honesty?
I know a man who is a pathological liar. Yet, in his own opinion, he is an honest man. Because he actually believes his lies, they are not lies... At least to him. So, if he is telling the truth from his own perspective then is he honest or dishonest?
I'd say the crux, in terms of this topic (in terms of my thinking on this topic/what I'm getting at here may be more accurate), is the humility I mentioned above--the recognition and acceptance of one's flawed nature (2nd section, 2nd paragraph). I'm not saying that's it--the whole deal--not by a long shot, but I'd say that may very well be required in order to be intellectually honest (rather than just not telling lies or stealing and all that).
I was talking more about the humility aspect there--the active suppression (or discounting ... ?) of your own perceptual and sentimental inclinations in favor of the reservation of judgment and external, more objective measures.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PM"Established standards of critical thinking"... At the end of the day this really means that you are allowing some other fallible human being to define your thought processes. Sheer hubris on the part of the one defining them and, perhaps, a lack of faith in your own capacity?
Sort of, but it's more the consensus of human beings, and I may be thinking in much more general terms than you're thinking I am ... though I'm not entirely sure that really matters to your point at all.
I guess the biggest issue I'm on about is the acceptance of uncertainty and the likelihood of personal error--self doubt in a sense, though I consider it the recognition and acceptance of human nature and the fact that I too am a human more or less like any other, so I'm not special in any truly objective sense--I'm not immune to the fundamental faults and weaknesses to which humans are susceptible, generally speaking. Where humans tend to falter, so do I, and the key is to face up to it and deal with it honestly. In critical thinking I'd argue that, probably, the key is humility--developing the inclination to back off from the presumption of the accuracy of one's own perceptions and sentiments and "raw", unmitigated responses ... and the potential for error in the mitigation as well. When the response to back off like that becomes second nature, that's what I call "internalizing" skepticism (and JFTR I'm not using "skepticism" as more or less a synonym for "cynic", but rather someone who values and practices sound critical thinking to the practicable best of his ability).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMThat is not to say that the opinions of others don't have value, but rather that each of us need to critically consider whether particular opinions have merit, and in what context.
That's why informed and credible consensus is so important to science and sound skepticism/critical thinking. Absolutely.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMI was simply pointing out that "logic" is not a panacaea.
No, but I'd say intellectual responsibility comes as close as you can get.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMBeing a human construct, logic has at least the same flaws as its creators... And probably more.
I dunno. To me that's kinda like saying math has the same flaws as its creators. I'm not sure on what you'd base such an assessment. Logic is pretty sterile--the codified consensus of observations of how reality works, basically. I don't see a whole lot of room for flaws there--certainly not as much room as human nature has. I do see plenty of room for limitations, however--that that are imposed upon the observations due to the fact humans are doing the observing (i.e. it's limited by our five senses, for example).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMIf I may give some advice, it is usually better to present opinions in the simplest terms so as to minimise misunderstanding by others. It is also wise to try to avoid unnecessary generalisations. E.G. I am a committed Christian. I even consider myself a fundamentalist Christian - but that very description clearly means different things to others than it does to me.
Couldn't agree more.
Sometimes it's pretty hard to simplify to the point that the overall text is actually simple and easy to understand (explaining relativity being an obvious example), but I absolutely agree with a sort of rhetorical Occam's Razor approach ... even if I don't always succeed at it (I do far better than some who are very disinclined regarding intellectual labor seem to think though).
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMNow, please everybody, I absolutely do NOT want this discussion to degenerate into another fruitless slanging match over "religion". I mention the above only because this is a topic that Byron and myself do not see eye to eye on.
I suspect we disagree less than it seems, but I agree wholeheartedly on avoiding that issue ... as much as we can, anyway.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 16, 2011, 11:27PMWhich leads neatly into the question of honesty: What is honesty?
I know a man who is a pathological liar. Yet, in his own opinion, he is an honest man. Because he actually believes his lies, they are not lies... At least to him. So, if he is telling the truth from his own perspective then is he honest or dishonest?
I'd say the crux, in terms of this topic (in terms of my thinking on this topic/what I'm getting at here may be more accurate), is the humility I mentioned above--the recognition and acceptance of one's flawed nature (2nd section, 2nd paragraph). I'm not saying that's it--the whole deal--not by a long shot, but I'd say that may very well be required in order to be intellectually honest (rather than just not telling lies or stealing and all that).
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMSimply a more logical argument is not inherently better then an emotional one. That preference itself is not logical. It is emotional.
Using "emotional" in a fairly broad sense, I agree, but an argument must be logical in order to be sound or even just accurate. Without any preference though ... absolutely, there's nothing "better" about an overwhelmingly logical vs. an overwhelmingly emotional argument. If the goal of the argument is soundness, however, the logic must be correct, whereas I think the emotion involved is irrelevant (at least unless/until it compromises the logic and/or any other aspect of making the argument sound).
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMIn order for an argument to be effective it doesn't have anything to do with being logically sound.
"Effective" depends entirely upon purpose. The purpose of "sound" critical thinking is accuracy in a complete sense. "Sound" is a very different thing than "correct" though. "Correct" is one part of the "sound" equation. A sound argument must be correct, but it must also be accurate and account for all available pertinent information. "Sound" logic is a much more limited matter. It seems misleading to use "sound" applied solely to logic here (your intent is not to mislead, I of course realize), because "sound" arguments are accurate in a complete sense and not merely in terms of logic. If the topic were only logic then that would be fine, because within that established and understood limitation "sound" has no implications beyond. Given that the topic is one that encompasses logic, and in an integral sense, using "sound" restricted solely to logic can very easily be misapplied beyond it's actual purview. Also, unless I'm mistaken, when restricted only to logic "sound" effectively just means "correct", for which simply "logical" also works. So using "sound" in this way rather than "correct" or "logical" (etc) really doesn't seem very ... well, sound ... eh? It's almost certain to create a lot of confusion and categorical parameter errors (i.e. shifting fluidly and unaware between the category of "critical thinking" and the sub-category of "logic").
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMTo be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise. In math, it's like how 2 + 2 can equal 3, 4, or 5 depending on your equasion.
One of the very good reasons I chose to make the issue in here critical thinking rather than just logic.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMAs it relates to emotion vs logic, an argument itself is not logical. It is an persuasive appeal. A logical argument simply doesn't care about things outside of it. It simply is. The simple concept of wanting something (which is really the core of an argument), even just to be right or to validate your thoughts, is an emotional pull.
I don't think an argument is inherently emotional at all. Perhaps the motive behind creating an argument is inherently emotional (if only the desire/need to get a cognitive grip on something), but the formulation and nature of the resulting argument can be completely sterile and free of emotion (as in a mathematical equation).
Using "emotional" in a fairly broad sense, I agree, but an argument must be logical in order to be sound or even just accurate. Without any preference though ... absolutely, there's nothing "better" about an overwhelmingly logical vs. an overwhelmingly emotional argument. If the goal of the argument is soundness, however, the logic must be correct, whereas I think the emotion involved is irrelevant (at least unless/until it compromises the logic and/or any other aspect of making the argument sound).
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMIn order for an argument to be effective it doesn't have anything to do with being logically sound.
"Effective" depends entirely upon purpose. The purpose of "sound" critical thinking is accuracy in a complete sense. "Sound" is a very different thing than "correct" though. "Correct" is one part of the "sound" equation. A sound argument must be correct, but it must also be accurate and account for all available pertinent information. "Sound" logic is a much more limited matter. It seems misleading to use "sound" applied solely to logic here (your intent is not to mislead, I of course realize), because "sound" arguments are accurate in a complete sense and not merely in terms of logic. If the topic were only logic then that would be fine, because within that established and understood limitation "sound" has no implications beyond. Given that the topic is one that encompasses logic, and in an integral sense, using "sound" restricted solely to logic can very easily be misapplied beyond it's actual purview. Also, unless I'm mistaken, when restricted only to logic "sound" effectively just means "correct", for which simply "logical" also works. So using "sound" in this way rather than "correct" or "logical" (etc) really doesn't seem very ... well, sound ... eh? It's almost certain to create a lot of confusion and categorical parameter errors (i.e. shifting fluidly and unaware between the category of "critical thinking" and the sub-category of "logic").
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMTo be logically sound simply means that the logic is consistent and that has nothing to do with accuracy. ie: you can make a logically sound argument off of a false premise. In math, it's like how 2 + 2 can equal 3, 4, or 5 depending on your equasion.
One of the very good reasons I chose to make the issue in here critical thinking rather than just logic.
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMAs it relates to emotion vs logic, an argument itself is not logical. It is an persuasive appeal. A logical argument simply doesn't care about things outside of it. It simply is. The simple concept of wanting something (which is really the core of an argument), even just to be right or to validate your thoughts, is an emotional pull.
I don't think an argument is inherently emotional at all. Perhaps the motive behind creating an argument is inherently emotional (if only the desire/need to get a cognitive grip on something), but the formulation and nature of the resulting argument can be completely sterile and free of emotion (as in a mathematical equation).
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 05:25AM<snip>
I dunno. To me that's kinda like saying math has the same flaws as its creators. I'm not sure on what you'd base such an assessment. Logic is pretty sterile--the codified consensus of observations of how reality works, basically. I don't see a whole lot of room for flaws there--certainly not as much room as human nature has. I do see plenty of room for limitations, however--that that are imposed upon the observations due to the fact humans are doing the observing (i.e. it's limited by our five senses, for example).
It would seem that I'm actually more skeptical than you... I find that somewhat surprising.
As for your counter example of math, does it not have flaws? If you think not, how certain are you? Given that it is a human construct, are we actually capable seeing the flaws? Can we truly see our own flaws? Is this not one of your own points?
For myself, I like to have some absolutes in my life. Kinda like the musical I'm currently playing the 'bone part in: "Fiddler on the Roof". In particular I'm thinking of the song "Tradition", though I hope that I'm wise enough to see past simple traditions to the purpose behind them. Of course, this requires study of lots of things in order to understand the context as well as possible.
I dunno. To me that's kinda like saying math has the same flaws as its creators. I'm not sure on what you'd base such an assessment. Logic is pretty sterile--the codified consensus of observations of how reality works, basically. I don't see a whole lot of room for flaws there--certainly not as much room as human nature has. I do see plenty of room for limitations, however--that that are imposed upon the observations due to the fact humans are doing the observing (i.e. it's limited by our five senses, for example).
It would seem that I'm actually more skeptical than you... I find that somewhat surprising.
As for your counter example of math, does it not have flaws? If you think not, how certain are you? Given that it is a human construct, are we actually capable seeing the flaws? Can we truly see our own flaws? Is this not one of your own points?
For myself, I like to have some absolutes in my life. Kinda like the musical I'm currently playing the 'bone part in: "Fiddler on the Roof". In particular I'm thinking of the song "Tradition", though I hope that I'm wise enough to see past simple traditions to the purpose behind them. Of course, this requires study of lots of things in order to understand the context as well as possible.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMIt would seem that I'm actually more skeptical than you... I find that somewhat surprising.
I'm not so much surprised as I am pleased, actually. The relative absence of your participation in Chit-Chat is retroactively sorely missed, man!
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMAs for your counter example of math, does it not have flaws? If you think not, how certain are you? Given that it is a human construct, are we actually capable seeing the flaws? Can we truly see our own flaws? Is this not one of your own points?
You sure you're not arguing post-modernism?
Eh?
Sorry ...
Flaws or errors? Then errors or problems? I'm not sure how much flaws are mitigated by accepting uncertainty, or maybe if accepting uncertainty actually changes that particular equation such that flaws are significantly less pertinent ... kind of like "wrong" vs. "right". If you accept that you're making your best guess (which imposes more personal responsibility), "wrong" and "right" become more of an estimated target range kinda thing, or even a distraction from what's really going on.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMFor myself, I like to have some absolutes in my life.
You kinda broad-sided me there. Didn't see that coming--don't know where it came from ... ?
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMKinda like the musical I'm currently playing the 'bone part in: "Fiddler on the Roof". In particular I'm thinking of the song "Tradition", though I hope that I'm wise enough to see past simple traditions to the purpose behind them. Of course, this requires study of lots of things in order to understand the context as well as possible.
Substance over form. Nice!
I'm not so much surprised as I am pleased, actually. The relative absence of your participation in Chit-Chat is retroactively sorely missed, man!
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMAs for your counter example of math, does it not have flaws? If you think not, how certain are you? Given that it is a human construct, are we actually capable seeing the flaws? Can we truly see our own flaws? Is this not one of your own points?
You sure you're not arguing post-modernism?
Eh?
Sorry ...
Flaws or errors? Then errors or problems? I'm not sure how much flaws are mitigated by accepting uncertainty, or maybe if accepting uncertainty actually changes that particular equation such that flaws are significantly less pertinent ... kind of like "wrong" vs. "right". If you accept that you're making your best guess (which imposes more personal responsibility), "wrong" and "right" become more of an estimated target range kinda thing, or even a distraction from what's really going on.
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMFor myself, I like to have some absolutes in my life.
You kinda broad-sided me there. Didn't see that coming--don't know where it came from ... ?
Quote from: Lawrie on Nov 17, 2011, 06:30AMKinda like the musical I'm currently playing the 'bone part in: "Fiddler on the Roof". In particular I'm thinking of the song "Tradition", though I hope that I'm wise enough to see past simple traditions to the purpose behind them. Of course, this requires study of lots of things in order to understand the context as well as possible.
Substance over form. Nice!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 17, 2011, 05:25AMFactually better is, of course. Analysis based on logic and critical thinking are demonstrably better at assessing reality and determining optimimum courses of action than reactions based on emotion. Emotional judgments occasionally get it right, faster than the logical ones - but as often get it drastically wrong, and are far more resistant to being questioned. See Blink for some examples.
So to reduce this at a moment to say two basic types of thought: logical and illogical. Any analysis based on logic and critical thinking will be assessed through logical methods and well as "analysis" on illogical methods. Is it really any surprise that using logic to assess logical thought performs better then using logic to assess non logical thought? Given that, putting much weight on a one-sided assessment is actually pretty foolish and could hardly be considered valid even through logical evaluation.
QuoteWell, true, but merely nitpicking. The topic is critical thinking, and we have to allow for it to be done correctly.
The fact that an something can be completely logical and yet completely inaccurate is not nitpicking. What do you think you use to perform "critical thinking"? Do you think getting an emotional "gut feel" for something would pass as critical thinking, or would it be almost entirely relegated to a higher level thought process that actually relies much more on consistency and patterns then accuracy (aka logic)? Most every definition of "critical thinking" uses logical methods almost exclusively. In which case, the flaw that logic can be both sound and wrong is VERY relevant.
After all, just think back to the culture that really put logic on a pedestal, the ancient Greeks. And using logic, they deduced that essentially there were four elements that made up everything: fire, air, earth, and water. Oops...
So to reduce this at a moment to say two basic types of thought: logical and illogical. Any analysis based on logic and critical thinking will be assessed through logical methods and well as "analysis" on illogical methods. Is it really any surprise that using logic to assess logical thought performs better then using logic to assess non logical thought? Given that, putting much weight on a one-sided assessment is actually pretty foolish and could hardly be considered valid even through logical evaluation.
QuoteWell, true, but merely nitpicking. The topic is critical thinking, and we have to allow for it to be done correctly.
The fact that an something can be completely logical and yet completely inaccurate is not nitpicking. What do you think you use to perform "critical thinking"? Do you think getting an emotional "gut feel" for something would pass as critical thinking, or would it be almost entirely relegated to a higher level thought process that actually relies much more on consistency and patterns then accuracy (aka logic)? Most every definition of "critical thinking" uses logical methods almost exclusively. In which case, the flaw that logic can be both sound and wrong is VERY relevant.
After all, just think back to the culture that really put logic on a pedestal, the ancient Greeks. And using logic, they deduced that essentially there were four elements that made up everything: fire, air, earth, and water. Oops...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 06:58AM<snip>
Flaws or errors? Then errors or problems? I'm not sure how much flaws are mitigated by accepting uncertainty, or maybe if accepting uncertainty actually changes that particular equation such that flaws are significantly less pertinent ... kind of like "wrong" vs. "right". If you accept that you're making your best guess (which imposes more personal responsibility), "wrong" and "right" become more of an estimated target range kinda thing, or even a distraction from what's really going on.
Aren't they essentially the same thing? I.E. less than perfection (whatever that is)? The idea of simply accepting uncertainty leads into the next part about absolutes:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 06:58AMYou kinda broad-sided me there. Didn't see that coming--don't know where it came from ... ?
Without absolutes, post modernism becomes an essential part of this train of thought. Uncertainty; or your truth is not necessarily my truth... If we accept the same set of absolutes then our perspective shifts to a common world view rather than one coloured solely by our individual opinions and prejudices. Surely this then becomes an environment that fosters commonality of purpose amongst groups of individuals? Where, for example, altruism and charity can have meaning, where teams can achieve their goals and so on.
The "logical" and absurd extreme of post modernism is surely an individualistic world view that gives no other person any value whatsoever (if your truth is not my truth then it, and by extension you, are irrelevant to me)? Core values become lost in a meaningless sea of divergent opinions and society ultimately breaks down altogether because there can be no commonality of purpose...
One method we use to create absolutes is a legal system, but as we all know "the law is a ass", because, particularly these days, laws are flawed constructs of flawed human beings (who too often have a personal agenda to pursue)...
The set of absolutes I choose to live by are.., well, I'm sure you know where they come from. They are not really complicated, nor truly open to debate - in fact a certain historical figure condensed them to a single statement:
"Love one another as I have loved you".
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 06:58AMSubstance over form. Nice!
IMHO form should always be dictated by function. Anything else is either frippery or misdirection. However the connection can be lost in time if the purpose is not adequately communicated.
Flaws or errors? Then errors or problems? I'm not sure how much flaws are mitigated by accepting uncertainty, or maybe if accepting uncertainty actually changes that particular equation such that flaws are significantly less pertinent ... kind of like "wrong" vs. "right". If you accept that you're making your best guess (which imposes more personal responsibility), "wrong" and "right" become more of an estimated target range kinda thing, or even a distraction from what's really going on.
Aren't they essentially the same thing? I.E. less than perfection (whatever that is)? The idea of simply accepting uncertainty leads into the next part about absolutes:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 06:58AMYou kinda broad-sided me there. Didn't see that coming--don't know where it came from ... ?
Without absolutes, post modernism becomes an essential part of this train of thought. Uncertainty; or your truth is not necessarily my truth... If we accept the same set of absolutes then our perspective shifts to a common world view rather than one coloured solely by our individual opinions and prejudices. Surely this then becomes an environment that fosters commonality of purpose amongst groups of individuals? Where, for example, altruism and charity can have meaning, where teams can achieve their goals and so on.
The "logical" and absurd extreme of post modernism is surely an individualistic world view that gives no other person any value whatsoever (if your truth is not my truth then it, and by extension you, are irrelevant to me)? Core values become lost in a meaningless sea of divergent opinions and society ultimately breaks down altogether because there can be no commonality of purpose...
One method we use to create absolutes is a legal system, but as we all know "the law is a ass", because, particularly these days, laws are flawed constructs of flawed human beings (who too often have a personal agenda to pursue)...
The set of absolutes I choose to live by are.., well, I'm sure you know where they come from. They are not really complicated, nor truly open to debate - in fact a certain historical figure condensed them to a single statement:
"Love one another as I have loved you".
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 17, 2011, 06:58AMSubstance over form. Nice!
IMHO form should always be dictated by function. Anything else is either frippery or misdirection. However the connection can be lost in time if the purpose is not adequately communicated.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 02:01AMSorry, no. You're not going to be able to flex both a tricep and bicep to their full ability and watch which one wins. The closest you're going to be able to come to that voluntarily is simply flexing to show muscle, in which case your arm will going right where you intend it to. The bicep and tricep are not competing. They are complimentary. If you doubt me, try doing exactly what you suggest here. Ain't gonna happen. How are you saying that logical and non-logical thoughts are competing?
Maybe I worded it badly?
Normally, both of those muscles are under voluntary control. This does not mean that they do not oppose each other. And there are times whem under involuntary direction when the opposition is clear. For example, someone with Parkinson's Disease. To cite some other opposing muscle groups and involuntary problems: hiccups, tendonitis (watch a piano player with this problem trying to deal with his fingers curling up), and focal dystonia. In the brain, this is called cognitive dissonance, at least in terms of the parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning.
Maybe I worded it badly?
Normally, both of those muscles are under voluntary control. This does not mean that they do not oppose each other. And there are times whem under involuntary direction when the opposition is clear. For example, someone with Parkinson's Disease. To cite some other opposing muscle groups and involuntary problems: hiccups, tendonitis (watch a piano player with this problem trying to deal with his fingers curling up), and focal dystonia. In the brain, this is called cognitive dissonance, at least in terms of the parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Hate to say it Andrew, but now you're just reaching. Is there are point to all of that?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:37 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 17, 2011, 08:56AMNormally, both of those muscles are under voluntary control. This does not mean that they do not oppose each other. And there are times whem under involuntary direction when the opposition is clear. For example, someone with Parkinson's Disease. To cite some other opposing muscle groups and involuntary problems: hiccups, tendonitis (watch a piano player with this problem trying to deal with his fingers curling up), and focal dystonia. In the brain, this is called cognitive dissonance, at least in terms of the parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning.
Don't forget Tetanus, where every muscle in the body contracts at the same time.
Don't forget Tetanus, where every muscle in the body contracts at the same time.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Yup, it's right up there with discussions about brain functions in someone who had a stroke or just got shot in the head or has a nice brain parasite...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 12:26PMHate to say it Andrew, but now you're just reaching. Is there are point to all of that?
It was about an analogy for different aspects of reasoning ... no?
Since when do the subjects of analogies have to be practical, normal or even realistic anyway?
It was about an analogy for different aspects of reasoning ... no?
Since when do the subjects of analogies have to be practical, normal or even realistic anyway?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 12:26PMHate to say it Andrew, but now you're just reaching. Is there are point to all of that?
Because I said this:
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 02:00PMIn a conflict between emotion and logic in the brain, emotion always wins.
And you took exception.
Because I said this:
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 16, 2011, 02:00PMIn a conflict between emotion and logic in the brain, emotion always wins.
And you took exception.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Anyone actually check out any of the links in the OP?
There's a lot of cool schtuff in there ...
There's a lot of cool schtuff in there ...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Nov 17, 2011, 04:20PMBecause I said this:
And you took exception.
Well yes, though you have still not said how they are in conflict...
And you took exception.
Well yes, though you have still not said how they are in conflict...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Some excellent Carl Sagan essays:
The Burden of Skepticism
The Dragon In My Garage
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
The Burden of Skepticism
The Dragon In My Garage
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: B0B on Nov 17, 2011, 06:57PMWell yes, though you have still not said how they are in conflict...
Are you looking for MRI scan results or something?
To name another effect that results from a conflict in the brain: seizures. That's obviously not the same, but it does show another way in which different parts of the brain don't always work together.
I don't have the specific reference right off hand, but a month or two ago I read in one of the science periodicals (Scientific American Mind, probably) that MRI scans clearly showed different patterns in the brain when someone tried to use reason in an unemotional context versus an emotional context, and specifically, the emotionally driving brain centers always activated before the logic-centers.
Are you looking for MRI scan results or something?
To name another effect that results from a conflict in the brain: seizures. That's obviously not the same, but it does show another way in which different parts of the brain don't always work together.
I don't have the specific reference right off hand, but a month or two ago I read in one of the science periodicals (Scientific American Mind, probably) that MRI scans clearly showed different patterns in the brain when someone tried to use reason in an unemotional context versus an emotional context, and specifically, the emotionally driving brain centers always activated before the logic-centers.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Awesome!
A personification of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. A demonstration of a Dunning-Kruger Effect attitude--self-perpetuating incompetence. A very simple and concrete demonstration of what the failure to think responsibly or at all critically looks like and the results it tends to produce, whether the results are this concrete or more abstract (physically or intellectually or rhetorically).
Besides, she's hilarious--I can't help but appreciate people like this, to be honest, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to work with them in any kind of team situation.
A personification of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. A demonstration of a Dunning-Kruger Effect attitude--self-perpetuating incompetence. A very simple and concrete demonstration of what the failure to think responsibly or at all critically looks like and the results it tends to produce, whether the results are this concrete or more abstract (physically or intellectually or rhetorically).
Besides, she's hilarious--I can't help but appreciate people like this, to be honest, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to work with them in any kind of team situation.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Critical thinking explained in six kid-friendly animations
QuoteIf you've been looking for a crash course in basic logic or just want to explain to a friend exactly what a logical fallacy is turn your attention to these simple, easy-to-understand videos, which lay out the basics of critical thinking. Creative solutions agency Bridge 8 created these animations to offer a basic overview of critical thinking. The videos were designed for an audience of [Australian] grades 8-10, but they're handy for anyone who wants to brush up on their logic.
The first video (up top), provides an introduction to critical thinking and how we form judgments and opinions. The second video introduces formal logic and explains logical fallacies. The third video explains straw man arguments and false premises. The fourth video reminds us to separate the person from the argument. That's always a tough one to remember in the moment. Video five describes the gambler's fallacy, while acknowledging that the human brain is always looking for patterns. Not a bad way to warn kids off gambling. The final video looks at the utility (and limits) of the precautionary principle and notes that theories do not mean "I reckon this is probably true." I wonder what they could possibly be referring to.
Here are the links in the OP again:
Scientific Skepticism
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Open-mindedness
Critical Thinking - How To:
Critical Thinking 101
Wikipedia's List of Fallacies
Popular Fallacies (should be very familiar to everyone here, esp. PP, or any other forum, or those who live amongst humans)
Austhink: Critical Thinking on the Web
The Fallacy Zoo
Logic & Fallacies: Constructing Logical Arguments
Logical Fallacies Handlist
Virtual School: Constructing A Logical Argument
Test and hone your reasoning skills:
Argument analysis practice
Critical thinking blog with exercises and real world tests and examples
QuoteIf you've been looking for a crash course in basic logic or just want to explain to a friend exactly what a logical fallacy is turn your attention to these simple, easy-to-understand videos, which lay out the basics of critical thinking. Creative solutions agency Bridge 8 created these animations to offer a basic overview of critical thinking. The videos were designed for an audience of [Australian] grades 8-10, but they're handy for anyone who wants to brush up on their logic.
The first video (up top), provides an introduction to critical thinking and how we form judgments and opinions. The second video introduces formal logic and explains logical fallacies. The third video explains straw man arguments and false premises. The fourth video reminds us to separate the person from the argument. That's always a tough one to remember in the moment. Video five describes the gambler's fallacy, while acknowledging that the human brain is always looking for patterns. Not a bad way to warn kids off gambling. The final video looks at the utility (and limits) of the precautionary principle and notes that theories do not mean "I reckon this is probably true." I wonder what they could possibly be referring to.
Here are the links in the OP again:
Scientific Skepticism
"Skepticism" and Ignorance
Open-mindedness
Critical Thinking - How To:
Critical Thinking 101
Wikipedia's List of Fallacies
Popular Fallacies (should be very familiar to everyone here, esp. PP, or any other forum, or those who live amongst humans)
Austhink: Critical Thinking on the Web
The Fallacy Zoo
Logic & Fallacies: Constructing Logical Arguments
Logical Fallacies Handlist
Virtual School: Constructing A Logical Argument
Test and hone your reasoning skills:
Argument analysis practice
Critical thinking blog with exercises and real world tests and examples
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:09 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Feb 28, 2012, 01:57PMCritical thinking explained in six kid-friendly animations
Thanks for these. I'll be showing them to my wife.
Thanks for these. I'll be showing them to my wife.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Mathbone on Feb 28, 2012, 04:16PMThanks for these. I'll be showing them to my wife.
Be careful ... that can be dangerous, man!
I advise establishing the context and then reassessing, very cautiously, to see if you want to proceed.
Be careful ... that can be dangerous, man!
I advise establishing the context and then reassessing, very cautiously, to see if you want to proceed.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 07, 2012, 07:37AMScience Education is No Guarantee of Skepticism
Agreed in principle, and I completely agree with the article's criticism of how science is traditionally taught. Teaching physical laws by rote is no more useful than teaching history by rote. It teaches students to accept information uncritically and doesn't teach them how to ask interesting questions and to be able to evaluate the validity of claims.
Agreed in principle, and I completely agree with the article's criticism of how science is traditionally taught. Teaching physical laws by rote is no more useful than teaching history by rote. It teaches students to accept information uncritically and doesn't teach them how to ask interesting questions and to be able to evaluate the validity of claims.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Interesting article.
Were those all Christian affiliated colleges?
I would not have expected those results.
I tend to think that science courses have a cumulative effect, and actually do improve critical thinking and reduce pseudo beliefs, but it's not the specific content of any one course. Might be wrong though.
Were those all Christian affiliated colleges?
I would not have expected those results.
I tend to think that science courses have a cumulative effect, and actually do improve critical thinking and reduce pseudo beliefs, but it's not the specific content of any one course. Might be wrong though.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 07, 2012, 09:38AMI tend to think that science courses have a cumulative effect, and actually do improve critical thinking and reduce pseudo beliefs, but it's not the specific content of any one course. Might be wrong though.
Acquiring a skill and applying it are two very different things, and the equitable application of a skill to that which it's applicable is still another.
Acquiring a skill and applying it are two very different things, and the equitable application of a skill to that which it's applicable is still another.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:25 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 07, 2012, 11:38AMAcquiring a skill and applying it are two very different things, and the equitable application of a skill to that which it's applicable is still another.
If we (as a society) wanted to improve this, how to do it? Based on that article, it seems to me that one place to start would be to change what schools are expected to deliver in science education. But how? So much of the public perception of what science is revolves around exactly the kind of rote instruction that the article decries. And an awful lot of the public likes the concept of standardized tests, as much as they don't actually help. Is it possible to design a standardized test that actually tests scientific critical thinking instead of rote knowledge, in a way that the public would accept?
And, of course, would this change in approach actually help the problem demonstrated in that study?
If we (as a society) wanted to improve this, how to do it? Based on that article, it seems to me that one place to start would be to change what schools are expected to deliver in science education. But how? So much of the public perception of what science is revolves around exactly the kind of rote instruction that the article decries. And an awful lot of the public likes the concept of standardized tests, as much as they don't actually help. Is it possible to design a standardized test that actually tests scientific critical thinking instead of rote knowledge, in a way that the public would accept?
And, of course, would this change in approach actually help the problem demonstrated in that study?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 07, 2012, 11:38AM
Acquiring a skill and applying it are two very different things, and the equitable application of a skill to that which it's applicable is still another.
Agreed, but I was going somewhere different with that.
Sorry I didn't explain well, my idea on this is not fully formed.
But I think what happens with learning to think more skeptically or more critically is more of a culture shift than acquisition of a skill set.
I think back to my experiences as a graduate student in clinical psychology. We talked about the differences between "soft" and "hard" psychologists. I was, naturally, near the hard end. But then I went to engineering school, and my worldview changed. What I noticed and found curious is that I used to have a casual acceptance that some borderline supernatural things might be true - maybe some psychic powers for some people, maybe some ufos, alternative medicine, I dunno. Engineering school changed that to "what, are you nuts????" without ever directly addressing any specific item. (at the same time my attitude towards math changed subtley, I think I've discussed before) It was a cultural shift imposed by, I think, course after course working with reality, and association with peers who thought the same way.
Acquiring a skill and applying it are two very different things, and the equitable application of a skill to that which it's applicable is still another.
Agreed, but I was going somewhere different with that.
Sorry I didn't explain well, my idea on this is not fully formed.
But I think what happens with learning to think more skeptically or more critically is more of a culture shift than acquisition of a skill set.
I think back to my experiences as a graduate student in clinical psychology. We talked about the differences between "soft" and "hard" psychologists. I was, naturally, near the hard end. But then I went to engineering school, and my worldview changed. What I noticed and found curious is that I used to have a casual acceptance that some borderline supernatural things might be true - maybe some psychic powers for some people, maybe some ufos, alternative medicine, I dunno. Engineering school changed that to "what, are you nuts????" without ever directly addressing any specific item. (at the same time my attitude towards math changed subtley, I think I've discussed before) It was a cultural shift imposed by, I think, course after course working with reality, and association with peers who thought the same way.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Scientific American: Opting Out of Overoptimism
Sounds like what I call the failure to adequately account for confirmation bias (which is pretty much a certainty for those who are flat out unaware of it, who deny it, and/or who cherish and defend it, over accepting reality) and accounting for confirmation bias to a reasonable degree is, I would argue, a fundamental measure of actual (psychological/emotional) adulthood.
Sounds like what I call the failure to adequately account for confirmation bias (which is pretty much a certainty for those who are flat out unaware of it, who deny it, and/or who cherish and defend it, over accepting reality) and accounting for confirmation bias to a reasonable degree is, I would argue, a fundamental measure of actual (psychological/emotional) adulthood.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Mar 07, 2012, 12:10PMIf we (as a society) wanted to improve this, how to do it? Based on that article, it seems to me that one place to start would be to change what schools are expected to deliver in science education. But how? So much of the public perception of what science is revolves around exactly the kind of rote instruction that the article decries. And an awful lot of the public likes the concept of standardized tests, as much as they don't actually help. Is it possible to design a standardized test that actually tests scientific critical thinking instead of rote knowledge, in a way that the public would accept?It seems that part should be easy, but if academia were interested in addressing the obvious problems that article points out, it would already be done. Well, in fact it is done in many cases, but the quality of science education students receive is heavily dependent upon instructors who/programs which focus on research design and methodology and critical thinking in general. This is another area for future research focus. I'd like to see it applied to the research Larson did when he wrote Summer for the Gods. How prevalent is a critical thinking/study design background to NAS types vs. standard issue scientist types (and such), whether as part of their education or just in their past experience?
In any case it really seems an easy adjustment to the standard curriculum, but that still leaves the question of how to get it actually implemented (an important part of that question is how much of an obstacle the far right wing will likely pose when they realize the implications).
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Mar 07, 2012, 12:10PMAnd, of course, would this change in approach actually help the problem demonstrated in that study?As the aforementioned Summer for the Gods indicates, it already does, but the real disparity only starts to show up among the better (more accomplished/successful) scientists. That suggests an element that's missing in the standard issue American science education, but that makes scientists better at what they do when it's present. As far as the candidates go (IQ, social networking skills, etc) I'd say a solid foundation in applied critical thinking (which is a fair, very generalized description of sound research design and methodology) is probably the frontrunner. Once it's present it still has to then be combined with ambition and/or enthusiasm toward excellence (i.e. excelling) in their field, but we're trying to focus here on the critical thinking schtick, and how much of a factor it actually is in the whole cocktail, given that science education doesn't very often seem to provide that particular tool (i.e. to the point that its absence is so notable people write articles, do research, and even create topics on Interwebs fora about it).
Anyway ... I'd say further research is indicated, but that's where I'd start looking.
In any case it really seems an easy adjustment to the standard curriculum, but that still leaves the question of how to get it actually implemented (an important part of that question is how much of an obstacle the far right wing will likely pose when they realize the implications).
Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Mar 07, 2012, 12:10PMAnd, of course, would this change in approach actually help the problem demonstrated in that study?As the aforementioned Summer for the Gods indicates, it already does, but the real disparity only starts to show up among the better (more accomplished/successful) scientists. That suggests an element that's missing in the standard issue American science education, but that makes scientists better at what they do when it's present. As far as the candidates go (IQ, social networking skills, etc) I'd say a solid foundation in applied critical thinking (which is a fair, very generalized description of sound research design and methodology) is probably the frontrunner. Once it's present it still has to then be combined with ambition and/or enthusiasm toward excellence (i.e. excelling) in their field, but we're trying to focus here on the critical thinking schtick, and how much of a factor it actually is in the whole cocktail, given that science education doesn't very often seem to provide that particular tool (i.e. to the point that its absence is so notable people write articles, do research, and even create topics on Interwebs fora about it).
Anyway ... I'd say further research is indicated, but that's where I'd start looking.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 07, 2012, 12:22PMI think what happens with learning to think more skeptically or more critically is more of a culture shift than acquisition of a skill set.A social climate, perhaps?
Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 07, 2012, 12:22PMI think back to my experiences as a graduate student in clinical psychology. We talked about the differences between "soft" and "hard" psychologists. I was, naturally, near the hard end. But then I went to engineering school, and my worldview changed. What I noticed and found curious is that I used to have a casual acceptance that some borderline supernatural things might be true - maybe some psychic powers for some people, maybe some ufos, alternative medicine, I dunno. Engineering school changed that to "what, are you nuts????" without ever directly addressing any specific item. (at the same time my attitude towards math changed subtley, I think I've discussed before) It was a cultural shift imposed by, I think, course after course working with reality, and association with peers who thought the same way.Sounds very much like the process of my apostasy, actually. I was also already at least inclined toward critical thinking, but for me the academic discipline factor was simply critical thinking/philosophy (I'm curious if that would constitute a more direct approach or not, or vice-versa), and the applied, hard core reality/pragmatism came from military experience. That's where I decided that, unlike the rest of our world view, religious beliefs didn't have to hold up to as high a standard of scrutiny. I realized it couldn't but it was still years before I was ready to even recognize the implications, much less accept them. Once I came to terms with the fact that I was making an arbitrary/ad-hoc special exemption that had no valid basis, it all came apart and I jettisoned the whole religious faith schtick, which pretty much ruled out any kind of traditional religious belief or practice.
Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 07, 2012, 12:22PMI think back to my experiences as a graduate student in clinical psychology. We talked about the differences between "soft" and "hard" psychologists. I was, naturally, near the hard end. But then I went to engineering school, and my worldview changed. What I noticed and found curious is that I used to have a casual acceptance that some borderline supernatural things might be true - maybe some psychic powers for some people, maybe some ufos, alternative medicine, I dunno. Engineering school changed that to "what, are you nuts????" without ever directly addressing any specific item. (at the same time my attitude towards math changed subtley, I think I've discussed before) It was a cultural shift imposed by, I think, course after course working with reality, and association with peers who thought the same way.Sounds very much like the process of my apostasy, actually. I was also already at least inclined toward critical thinking, but for me the academic discipline factor was simply critical thinking/philosophy (I'm curious if that would constitute a more direct approach or not, or vice-versa), and the applied, hard core reality/pragmatism came from military experience. That's where I decided that, unlike the rest of our world view, religious beliefs didn't have to hold up to as high a standard of scrutiny. I realized it couldn't but it was still years before I was ready to even recognize the implications, much less accept them. Once I came to terms with the fact that I was making an arbitrary/ad-hoc special exemption that had no valid basis, it all came apart and I jettisoned the whole religious faith schtick, which pretty much ruled out any kind of traditional religious belief or practice.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:09 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 07, 2012, 07:36AM
Be careful ... that can be dangerous, man!
I advise establishing the context and then reassessing, very cautiously, to see if you want to proceed.
I'm not sure what you were worried about, but in context it made sense for us. We mostly talked about it in terms of my in-laws, who I'd describe as devout Mormon hippies. They hold a nearly fundamentalist line on church issues, and vote conservatively, but also accept any charlatan that comes their way. My mother-in-law has a naturopath whose advice she holds over any doctor, to the point that she adopted a gluten-free diet because her Hashimoto's *doubles* her chance (from 1.5% to 3%) of having a gluten sensitivity, without ever actually testing for a it. My father-in-law has always taken part in MLMs despite losing money on all of them and has lately been pushing his new miracle "drug" of choice, Protandim, despite our both telling him that we believe it to be an absolute fraud.
So the videos were helpful in clarifying for her why she felt so uncomfortable with her parents choices, while also having the tangential benefit of helping her understand how my experience with her parents pushed me towards a science-based perspective that made it impossible for me to believe in God.
Be careful ... that can be dangerous, man!
I advise establishing the context and then reassessing, very cautiously, to see if you want to proceed.
I'm not sure what you were worried about, but in context it made sense for us. We mostly talked about it in terms of my in-laws, who I'd describe as devout Mormon hippies. They hold a nearly fundamentalist line on church issues, and vote conservatively, but also accept any charlatan that comes their way. My mother-in-law has a naturopath whose advice she holds over any doctor, to the point that she adopted a gluten-free diet because her Hashimoto's *doubles* her chance (from 1.5% to 3%) of having a gluten sensitivity, without ever actually testing for a it. My father-in-law has always taken part in MLMs despite losing money on all of them and has lately been pushing his new miracle "drug" of choice, Protandim, despite our both telling him that we believe it to be an absolute fraud.
So the videos were helpful in clarifying for her why she felt so uncomfortable with her parents choices, while also having the tangential benefit of helping her understand how my experience with her parents pushed me towards a science-based perspective that made it impossible for me to believe in God.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: Mathbone on Mar 08, 2012, 08:06AMI'm not sure what you were worried about, but in context it made sense for us.
I was just playing with you, actually--the mock insinuation being that you were going to use the videos as a corrective kinda thing directed at your wife.
I was just playing with you, actually--the mock insinuation being that you were going to use the videos as a corrective kinda thing directed at your wife.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
I just realized I should've posted this here instead of in PP, but it applies there as well ... actually it applies to just about any discussion or any analysis of any idea or event, and it certainly applies to consuming media information.
Anyway--hereyago:
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. -- Francis Bacon (1605)
Becoming A Critic Of Your [Own] Thinking
--
The brain wreckage in the US "public square" (and in PP) is getting pretty thick, and I just found some great critical thinking material on the interwebs.
Again, here's The Real Issue:
An Introduction to Critical Thinking
Weak or Strong?
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual [Moral] Courage
Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual Perseverance
Intellectual Autonomy
Sound Reasoning
If you don't have at least some significant degree of these things going on (i.e. honesty and integrity), you don't have the minimal requirements for a genuine or honest dialog. You can only hurl words back and forth.
Here's the first one: Critical Thinking 101: An Introduction
Posted on November 27, 2011 by Valhall
After a discussion with the moderating staff I have decided to begin a series of articles on Sundays that will serve as a primer to the skills and practical application of critical thinking. I am by no means an expert in this area, nor have I perfected my critical thinking skills, but I have worked for some time to apply critical thinking concepts in how I approach problems, make decisions, and analyze information. So I felt I could at least share the journey I continue to be on in my own efforts to be as good a critical thinker as I can be. In other words, what better way to learn than to learn together and discuss the concepts and application. More eyes on the problem, so to speak.
In this series of articles well just take little bite-sized chunks each week and discuss the little nugget reviewed. I have created a new page in the Hinky Library that will contain all links on that one page to the articles written about critical thinking, so that you can review any given article whenever you want. For today, lets just introduce ourselves to what critical thinking is. While the majority of the concepts I will review will come from Richard Paul and Linda Elders book Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life, I will also draw from and provide links to online sources for anyone who would like to read more on the subject.
What is critical thinking?
Paul and Elder define critical thinking as:
the art of thinking about thinking while thinking in order to make thinking better. It involves three interwoven phases: it analyzes thinking, it evaluates thinking, it improves thinking.
Okay, so that might sound a little esoteric for some, so lets look at another definition that may bring it down to the ground for us a little. Michael Scriven & Richard Paul define critical thinking as:
the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. [Emphasis added by Valhall]
I have bolded the one statement above because this starts getting, in a more understandable form, to what the constructs of critical thinking are. It is working within a value system for thinking, and that value system or set of standards applies irrespective of the subject matter.
We all think but a lot of thinking is done as lower level thinking. In other words, we have allowed our thinking to become almost an involuntary response which means we dont analyze the thoughts that are driving us to make decisions, form conclusions, formulate beliefs, etc. Lower level thinking, or first-order thinking is done at the subconscious level and remains unevaluated. It is a thought that occurs that we really dont know weve had or at least we dont know why we have had it.
A critical thinker moves their thinking to higher level thinking or second-order thinking. In other words, a critical thinker works toward bringing every thought to the conscious level, analyzing that thought for whether it meets the intellectual value system, or standards, in which the critical thinker has chosen to operate and then assesses that thought for whether it meets the requirements of sound thinking; and if it does not, makes corrections.
Paul and Elder state that to analyze a thought you need to identify the following aspects of that thought:
its purpose,
question,
information,
conclusions,
assumptions,
implications,
main concepts,
and its point of view.
Then to assess a thought you must check it for:
clarity,
accuracy,
precision,
relevance,
depth,
breadth,
significance,
logic,
and fairness.
Please note that last one because critical thinkers strive toward being fair-minded thinkers, as you will learn in short-order.
You may look at those two lists of the analyzing and assessing of thoughts in critical thinking and say, Val, thats a lot of work and could really take some time. Yes, it could! And if you are just starting the practice of analyzing and assessing your thoughts, it can be cumbersome and a bit daunting. But with practice it will become a habit and it will become natural. As with all traits that are accepted as lifelong processes practice makes perfect!
What is there to gain from applying critical thinking practices?
You will find that if you begin to apply the critical thinking practices to your decision-making processes, your analysis of the cases we cover here at The Hinky Meter, and hopefully, eventually, in everything you do, you will begin to ask the important questions and note the important problems in a situation and do so with clarity and precision. You will gather and assess the relevant information in a situation and interpret it more effectively by applying abstract ideas during interpretation. Your conclusions will be based on logical and well-reasoned thoughts and you will have tested those conclusions against criteria and standards in critical thinking. You will become a fair-minded thinker who keeps an open mind and looks at alternative systems of thought and points of view and will be self-aware through assessment of any assumptions, implications and practical consequences of your point of view, and youll become a more effective communicator when expressing how you thought through a problem when discussing with others! (Paul & Elder)
Let me give you a couple of examples that I have created to show lower level or first-order thinking, just from a trend that happens on the Hinky board. Neither of these examples is intended to pick on someone, it is just to show that the normal habit for us is to think at the lower or first level, nonreflective form of thinking. WE ALL DO IT so we all have to work NOT TO DO IT.
Lets take the Lisa Irwin case to provide an example. About 2 weeks into the case of missing Lisa Irwin a vigil was to be held for Lisa. At first it appeared that her parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, were not to be in attendance. There were comments made to the effect of I cant believe they would not attend their own missing babys vigil. But in short order it was learned via broadcasts that they were at the vigil. Comments then became I cant believe they came to that vigil. or I cant believe they are acting as they are [fill in the blank - didn't cry, did cry, how they were dressed, did speak, didn't speak, how they were standing, etc.].
Both sets of statements above are first-order, non-evaluated thoughts. They are based on the posters own egocentric biases. I would never do that. They have not been evaluated for an alternative point of view. They are prejudicial statements based solely on using the individual posters own what I think Id do in that situation. While its perfectly alright to blather out scathing opinions about how you think a persons behavior is not right based on what you think you would do, it doesnt really add any value to an analysis of the case. Why? Because I assure you if you would do it one way, I can easily find two people who would do it the opposite way and I might be one of them. People react, respond and behave differently. Formulating an opinion of someones involvement in a case based solely on their behavior without additional evidence to support that conclusion is first-order, low-level, non-reflective thinking. In short, it leads to openly sharing a position that cannot be backed with logic.
A second example: The Kyron Horman case. There was a press conference shortly after Kyron went missing. In it Terri Horman acted odd to some people. There were some people who immediately started talking about her being involved in Kyrons disappearance based solely on how she acted during that press conference. Did I notice her odd behavior? Yes, I did. Did I take it as indication she might be involved in his disappearance? Yes, I did. Did I draw the conclusion at that time that she was? No, I did not.
I then openly asked that people stop jumping to that conclusion based solely on her behavior at that press conference. Why did I do that? Because in analyzing that conclusion it did not meet the intellectual value constructs of critical thinking in which I choose to operate. There was no supporting evidence at that time that Terri Horman was involved in Kyrons disappearance. Therefore, that she acted oddly in that press conference was not sufficient foundation, and further more, I found, was based primarily on an egocentric thought process (i.e. I wouldnt act that way, or I dont expect to see someone act that way). I found the conclusion she was involved based on that behavior as illogical and first-level unfounded thinking.
Now, ultimately information began to come out from the investigation into Kyrons disappearance and lo and behold we learned that: Terri failed two polygraphs and refused to take a third one; that her activities and timeline did not jive with cell phone pings; and that her story did not pass a critical-thinking analysis. Since then I have firmly come to believe that Terri not only knows what happened to Kyron that morning, I have come to believe that she was either directly involved in what happened to him, or coordinated what happened to him.
So the question becomes: Does that make me wrong for not concluding she was involved based solely on her behavior at that early press conference? No, it doesnt because at that time there was insufficient supporting information to take only her behavior and draw a conclusion. Do I now accept that her behavior at the press conference could have been the behavior of a person involved in Kyrons disappearance? Yes, because since that time there has been a totality of information that when assessed in an open-minded, fair-minded and logical fashion leads to what I find is a sound conclusion that Terri at least appears to have knowledge, if not direct involvement in Kyrons disappearance.
Those are just two examples of how critical thinking can assist in the quality and value of analyzing some of the cases that we follow here at The Hinky Meter. It can help all of us produce comments that further the intellectual and logical analysis of the information coming to us. And since critical thinking is a lifelong commitment, we can take this journey together from now on.
Valhall.
References:
Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life
Anyway--hereyago:
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. -- Francis Bacon (1605)
Becoming A Critic Of Your [Own] Thinking
--
The brain wreckage in the US "public square" (and in PP) is getting pretty thick, and I just found some great critical thinking material on the interwebs.
Again, here's The Real Issue:
An Introduction to Critical Thinking
Weak or Strong?
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual [Moral] Courage
Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual Perseverance
Intellectual Autonomy
Sound Reasoning
If you don't have at least some significant degree of these things going on (i.e. honesty and integrity), you don't have the minimal requirements for a genuine or honest dialog. You can only hurl words back and forth.
Here's the first one: Critical Thinking 101: An Introduction
Posted on November 27, 2011 by Valhall
After a discussion with the moderating staff I have decided to begin a series of articles on Sundays that will serve as a primer to the skills and practical application of critical thinking. I am by no means an expert in this area, nor have I perfected my critical thinking skills, but I have worked for some time to apply critical thinking concepts in how I approach problems, make decisions, and analyze information. So I felt I could at least share the journey I continue to be on in my own efforts to be as good a critical thinker as I can be. In other words, what better way to learn than to learn together and discuss the concepts and application. More eyes on the problem, so to speak.
In this series of articles well just take little bite-sized chunks each week and discuss the little nugget reviewed. I have created a new page in the Hinky Library that will contain all links on that one page to the articles written about critical thinking, so that you can review any given article whenever you want. For today, lets just introduce ourselves to what critical thinking is. While the majority of the concepts I will review will come from Richard Paul and Linda Elders book Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life, I will also draw from and provide links to online sources for anyone who would like to read more on the subject.
What is critical thinking?
Paul and Elder define critical thinking as:
the art of thinking about thinking while thinking in order to make thinking better. It involves three interwoven phases: it analyzes thinking, it evaluates thinking, it improves thinking.
Okay, so that might sound a little esoteric for some, so lets look at another definition that may bring it down to the ground for us a little. Michael Scriven & Richard Paul define critical thinking as:
the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. [Emphasis added by Valhall]
I have bolded the one statement above because this starts getting, in a more understandable form, to what the constructs of critical thinking are. It is working within a value system for thinking, and that value system or set of standards applies irrespective of the subject matter.
We all think but a lot of thinking is done as lower level thinking. In other words, we have allowed our thinking to become almost an involuntary response which means we dont analyze the thoughts that are driving us to make decisions, form conclusions, formulate beliefs, etc. Lower level thinking, or first-order thinking is done at the subconscious level and remains unevaluated. It is a thought that occurs that we really dont know weve had or at least we dont know why we have had it.
A critical thinker moves their thinking to higher level thinking or second-order thinking. In other words, a critical thinker works toward bringing every thought to the conscious level, analyzing that thought for whether it meets the intellectual value system, or standards, in which the critical thinker has chosen to operate and then assesses that thought for whether it meets the requirements of sound thinking; and if it does not, makes corrections.
Paul and Elder state that to analyze a thought you need to identify the following aspects of that thought:
its purpose,
question,
information,
conclusions,
assumptions,
implications,
main concepts,
and its point of view.
Then to assess a thought you must check it for:
clarity,
accuracy,
precision,
relevance,
depth,
breadth,
significance,
logic,
and fairness.
Please note that last one because critical thinkers strive toward being fair-minded thinkers, as you will learn in short-order.
You may look at those two lists of the analyzing and assessing of thoughts in critical thinking and say, Val, thats a lot of work and could really take some time. Yes, it could! And if you are just starting the practice of analyzing and assessing your thoughts, it can be cumbersome and a bit daunting. But with practice it will become a habit and it will become natural. As with all traits that are accepted as lifelong processes practice makes perfect!
What is there to gain from applying critical thinking practices?
You will find that if you begin to apply the critical thinking practices to your decision-making processes, your analysis of the cases we cover here at The Hinky Meter, and hopefully, eventually, in everything you do, you will begin to ask the important questions and note the important problems in a situation and do so with clarity and precision. You will gather and assess the relevant information in a situation and interpret it more effectively by applying abstract ideas during interpretation. Your conclusions will be based on logical and well-reasoned thoughts and you will have tested those conclusions against criteria and standards in critical thinking. You will become a fair-minded thinker who keeps an open mind and looks at alternative systems of thought and points of view and will be self-aware through assessment of any assumptions, implications and practical consequences of your point of view, and youll become a more effective communicator when expressing how you thought through a problem when discussing with others! (Paul & Elder)
Let me give you a couple of examples that I have created to show lower level or first-order thinking, just from a trend that happens on the Hinky board. Neither of these examples is intended to pick on someone, it is just to show that the normal habit for us is to think at the lower or first level, nonreflective form of thinking. WE ALL DO IT so we all have to work NOT TO DO IT.
Lets take the Lisa Irwin case to provide an example. About 2 weeks into the case of missing Lisa Irwin a vigil was to be held for Lisa. At first it appeared that her parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, were not to be in attendance. There were comments made to the effect of I cant believe they would not attend their own missing babys vigil. But in short order it was learned via broadcasts that they were at the vigil. Comments then became I cant believe they came to that vigil. or I cant believe they are acting as they are [fill in the blank - didn't cry, did cry, how they were dressed, did speak, didn't speak, how they were standing, etc.].
Both sets of statements above are first-order, non-evaluated thoughts. They are based on the posters own egocentric biases. I would never do that. They have not been evaluated for an alternative point of view. They are prejudicial statements based solely on using the individual posters own what I think Id do in that situation. While its perfectly alright to blather out scathing opinions about how you think a persons behavior is not right based on what you think you would do, it doesnt really add any value to an analysis of the case. Why? Because I assure you if you would do it one way, I can easily find two people who would do it the opposite way and I might be one of them. People react, respond and behave differently. Formulating an opinion of someones involvement in a case based solely on their behavior without additional evidence to support that conclusion is first-order, low-level, non-reflective thinking. In short, it leads to openly sharing a position that cannot be backed with logic.
A second example: The Kyron Horman case. There was a press conference shortly after Kyron went missing. In it Terri Horman acted odd to some people. There were some people who immediately started talking about her being involved in Kyrons disappearance based solely on how she acted during that press conference. Did I notice her odd behavior? Yes, I did. Did I take it as indication she might be involved in his disappearance? Yes, I did. Did I draw the conclusion at that time that she was? No, I did not.
I then openly asked that people stop jumping to that conclusion based solely on her behavior at that press conference. Why did I do that? Because in analyzing that conclusion it did not meet the intellectual value constructs of critical thinking in which I choose to operate. There was no supporting evidence at that time that Terri Horman was involved in Kyrons disappearance. Therefore, that she acted oddly in that press conference was not sufficient foundation, and further more, I found, was based primarily on an egocentric thought process (i.e. I wouldnt act that way, or I dont expect to see someone act that way). I found the conclusion she was involved based on that behavior as illogical and first-level unfounded thinking.
Now, ultimately information began to come out from the investigation into Kyrons disappearance and lo and behold we learned that: Terri failed two polygraphs and refused to take a third one; that her activities and timeline did not jive with cell phone pings; and that her story did not pass a critical-thinking analysis. Since then I have firmly come to believe that Terri not only knows what happened to Kyron that morning, I have come to believe that she was either directly involved in what happened to him, or coordinated what happened to him.
So the question becomes: Does that make me wrong for not concluding she was involved based solely on her behavior at that early press conference? No, it doesnt because at that time there was insufficient supporting information to take only her behavior and draw a conclusion. Do I now accept that her behavior at the press conference could have been the behavior of a person involved in Kyrons disappearance? Yes, because since that time there has been a totality of information that when assessed in an open-minded, fair-minded and logical fashion leads to what I find is a sound conclusion that Terri at least appears to have knowledge, if not direct involvement in Kyrons disappearance.
Those are just two examples of how critical thinking can assist in the quality and value of analyzing some of the cases that we follow here at The Hinky Meter. It can help all of us produce comments that further the intellectual and logical analysis of the information coming to us. And since critical thinking is a lifelong commitment, we can take this journey together from now on.
Valhall.
References:
Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 14, 2012, 06:56PMI feel like I'm in a street fight surrounded by libs ...
I suspect that pretty much explains the problem. That and the fact that you see and read what you want to see and read--doesn't seem to matter too much what's really posted.
I do appreciate you extrapolating on your point--addressing your point of contention, but you're still street fighting with a group of "libs", and I'm not a group of "libs". My points aren't about conservatives or Republicans, they're focused on you--your bad behavior and deeply flawed thinking and disruptive, combative, obstructionist mentality, not "them" and "theirs". Most conservatives aren't wingnuts. I don't have much of an issue with most conservatives.
The standards I often mention aren't "my" standards, they're the standards of reasoning--critical thinking, the first and foremost of which, I would argue, is not to fool yourself (same with science, in fact I'd argue that science is merely critical thinking regarding data collection, processing and interpretation).
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-mission/405
QuoteCritical thinking is essential if we are to get to the root of our problems and develop reasonable solutions. After all, the quality of everything we do is determined by the quality of our thinking.
Whereas society commonly promotes values laden with superficial, immediate "benefits," critical thinking cultivates substance and true intellectual discipline. Critical thinking asks much from us, our students, and our colleagues. It entails rigorous self-reflection and open mindedness the keys to significant changes.
Critical thinking requires the cultivation of core intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility. Nothing of real value comes easily; a rich intellectual environment alive with curious and determined students is possible only with critical thinking at the foundation of the educational process.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-every-domain-of-knowledge-and-belief/698
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/open-minded-inquiry/579
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861
Those standards and this website explain pretty much the entirety of my issue with you, and with all Wingnuts, liberal, conservative or otherwise.
I suspect that pretty much explains the problem. That and the fact that you see and read what you want to see and read--doesn't seem to matter too much what's really posted.
I do appreciate you extrapolating on your point--addressing your point of contention, but you're still street fighting with a group of "libs", and I'm not a group of "libs". My points aren't about conservatives or Republicans, they're focused on you--your bad behavior and deeply flawed thinking and disruptive, combative, obstructionist mentality, not "them" and "theirs". Most conservatives aren't wingnuts. I don't have much of an issue with most conservatives.
The standards I often mention aren't "my" standards, they're the standards of reasoning--critical thinking, the first and foremost of which, I would argue, is not to fool yourself (same with science, in fact I'd argue that science is merely critical thinking regarding data collection, processing and interpretation).
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-mission/405
QuoteCritical thinking is essential if we are to get to the root of our problems and develop reasonable solutions. After all, the quality of everything we do is determined by the quality of our thinking.
Whereas society commonly promotes values laden with superficial, immediate "benefits," critical thinking cultivates substance and true intellectual discipline. Critical thinking asks much from us, our students, and our colleagues. It entails rigorous self-reflection and open mindedness the keys to significant changes.
Critical thinking requires the cultivation of core intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility. Nothing of real value comes easily; a rich intellectual environment alive with curious and determined students is possible only with critical thinking at the foundation of the educational process.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-every-domain-of-knowledge-and-belief/698
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/open-minded-inquiry/579
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861
Those standards and this website explain pretty much the entirety of my issue with you, and with all Wingnuts, liberal, conservative or otherwise.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.
Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of ones own, or one's groups, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.
Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world. ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.
A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.
The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker:
raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)
Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser
In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
(Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941)
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.
Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of ones own, or one's groups, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.
Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world. ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.
A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and
imposing intellectual standards upon them.
The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker:
raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)
Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser
In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
(Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941)
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/becoming-a-critic-of-your-thinking/478
Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
by Dr. Linda Elder and Dr. Richard Paul
Learning the Art of Critical Thinking
There is nothing more practical than sound thinking. No matter what your circumstance or goals, no matter where you are, or what problems you face, you are better off if your thinking is skilled. As a manager, leader, employee, citizen, lover, friend, parent in every realm and situation of your life good thinking pays off. Poor thinking, in turn, inevitably causes problems, wastes time and energy, engenders frustration and pain.
Critical thinking is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances. The general goal of thinking is to figure out the lay of the land in any situation we are in. We all have multiple choices to make. We need the best information to make the best choices.
What is really going on in this or that situation? Are they trying to take advantage of me? Does so-and-so really care about me? Am I deceiving myself when I believe that . . .? What are the likely consequences of failing to . . .? If I want to do . . . , what is the best way to prepare for it? How can I be more successful in doing . . .? Is this my biggest problem, or do I need to focus my attention on something else?
Successfully responding to such questions is the daily work of thinking. However, to maximize the quality of your thinking, you must learn how to become an effective "critic" of your thinking. And to become an effective critic of your thinking, you have to make learning about thinking a priority.
Ask yourself these rather unusual questions: What have you learned about how you think? Did you ever study your thinking? What do you know about how the mind processes information? What do you really know about how to analyze, evaluate, or reconstruct your thinking? Where does your thinking come from? How much of it is of good quality? How much of it is of poor quality? How much of your thinking is vague, muddled, inconsistent, inaccurate, illogical, or superficial? Are you, in any real sense, in control of your thinking? Do you know how to test it? Do you have any conscious standards for determining when you are thinking well and when you are thinking poorly? Have you ever discovered a significant problem in your thinking and then changed it by a conscious act of will? If anyone asked you to teach them what you have learned, thus far in your life, about thinking, would you really have any idea what that was or how you learned it?
If you are like most, the only honest answers to these questions run along the lines of, Well, I suppose I really dont know much about my thinking or about thinking in general. I suppose in my life I have more or less taken my thinking for granted. I dont really know how it works. I have never really studied it. I dont know how I test it, or even if I do test it. It just happens in my mind automatically.
It is important to realize that serious study of thinking, serious thinking about thinking, is rare. It is not a subject in most colleges. It is seldom found in the thinking of our culture. But if you focus your attention for a moment on the role that thinking is playing in your life, you may come to recognize that, in fact, everything you do, or want, or feel is influenced by your thinking. And if you become persuaded of that, you will be surprised that humans show so little interest in thinking.
To make significant gains in the quality of your thinking you will have to engage in a kind of work that most humans find unpleasant, if not painful intellectual work. Yet once this thinking is done and we move our thinking to a higher level of quality, it is not hard to keep it at that level. Still, there is the price you have to pay to step up to the next level. One doesnt become a skillful critic of thinking over night, any more than one becomes a skillful basketball player or musician over night. To become better at thinking, you must be willing to put the work into thinking that skilled improvement always requires.
This means you must be willing to practice special acts of thinking that are initially at least uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and difficult. You have to learn to do with your mind moves analogous to what accomplished athletes learn to do (through practice and feedback) with their bodies. Improvement in thinking, in other words, is similar to improvement in other domains of performance where progress is a product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice.
Consider the following key ideas, which, when applied, result in a mind practicing skilled thinking. These ideas represent just a few of the many ways in which disciplined thinkers actively apply theory of mind to the mind by the mind in order to think better. In these examples, we focus on the significance of thinking clearly, sticking to the point (thinking with relevance), questioning deeply, and striving to be more reasonable. For each example, we provide a brief overview of the idea and its importance in thinking, along with strategies for applying it in life. Realize that the following ideas are immersed in a cluster of ideas within critical thinking. Though we chose these particular ideas, many others could have instead been chosen. There is no magic in these specific ideas. In short, it is important that you understand these as a sampling of all the possible ways in which the mind can work to discipline itself, to think at a higher level of quality, to function better in the world.
.
1. Clarify Your Thinking
Be on the look-out for vague, fuzzy, formless, blurred thinking. Try to figure out the real meaning of what people are saying. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Try to figure out the real meaning of important news stories. Explain your understanding of an issue to someone else to help clarify it in your own mind. Practice summarizing in your own words what others say. Then ask them if you understood them correctly. You should neither agree nor disagree with what anyone says until you (clearly) understand them.
Our own thinking usually seems clear to us, even when it is not. But vague, ambiguous, muddled, deceptive, or misleading thinking are significant problems in human life. If we are to develop as thinkers, we must learn the art of clarifying thinking, of pinning it down, spelling it out, and giving it a specific meaning. Heres what you can do to begin. When people explain things to you, summarize in your own words what you think they said. When you cannot do this to their satisfaction, you dont really understand what they said. When they cannot summarize what you have said to your satisfaction, they dont really understand what you said. Try it. See what happens.
Strategies for Clarifying Your Thinking
State one point at a time.
Elaborate on what you mean
Give examples that connect your thoughts to life experiences
Use analogies and metaphors to help people connect your ideas to a variety of things they already understand (for example, critical thinking is like an onion. There are many layers to it. Just when you think you have it basically figured out, you realize there is another layer, and then another, and another and another and on and on)
Here is One Format You Can Use
I think . . . (state your main point)
In other words . . . (elaborate your main point)
For example . . . (give an example of your main point)
To give you an analogy . . . (give an illustration of your main point)
To Clarify Other Peoples Thinking, Consider Asking the Following
Can you restate your point in other words? I didnt understand you.
Can you give an example?
Let me tell you what I understand you to be saying. Did I understand you correctly?
2. Stick to the Point
Be on the lookout for fragmented thinking, thinking that leaps about with no logical connections. Start noticing when you or others fail to stay focused on what is relevant. Focus on finding what will aid you in truly solving a problem. When someone brings up a point (however true) that doesnt seem pertinent to the issue at hand, ask, How is what you are saying relevant to the issue? When you are working through a problem, make sure you stay focused on what sheds light on and, thus, helps address the problem. Dont allow your mind to wander to unrelated matters. Dont allow others to stray from the main issue. Frequently ask: What is the central question? Is this or that relevant to it? How?
When thinking is relevant, it is focused on the main task at hand. It selects what is germane, pertinent, and related. It is on the alert for everything that connects to the issue. It sets aside what is immaterial, inappropriate, extraneous, and beside the point. What is relevant directly bears upon (helps solve) the problem you are trying to solve. When thinking drifts away from what is relevant, it needs to be brought back to what truly makes a difference. Undisciplined thinking is often guided by associations (this reminds me of that, that reminds me of this other thing) rather than what is logically connected (If a and b are true, then c must also be true). Disciplined thinking intervenes when thoughts wander from what is pertinent and germane concentrating the mind on only those things that help it figure out what it needs to figure out.
Ask These Questions to Make Sure Thinking is Focused on What is Relevant
Am I focused on the main problem or task?
How is this connected? How is that?
Does my information directly relate to the problem or task?
Where do I need to focus my attention?
Are we being diverted to unrelated matters?
Am I failing to consider relevant viewpoints?
How is your point relevant to the issue we are addressing?
What facts are actually going to help us answer the question? What considerations should be set aside?
Does this truly bear on the question? How does it connect?
3. Question Questions
Be on the lookout for questions. The ones we ask. The ones we fail to ask. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to how people question, when they question, when they fail to question. Look closely at the questions asked. What questions do you ask, should you ask? Examine the extent to which you are a questioner, or simply one who accepts the definitions of situations given by others.
Most people are not skilled questioners. Most accept the world as it is presented to them. And when they do question, their questions are often superficial or loaded. Their questions do not help them solve their problems or make better decisions. Good thinkers routinely ask questions in order to understand and effectively deal with the world around them. They question the status quo. They know that things are often different from the way they are presented. Their questions penetrate images, masks, fronts, and propaganda. Their questions make real problems explicit and discipline their thinking through those problems. If you become a student of questions, you can learn to ask powerful questions that lead to a deeper and more fulfilling life. Your questions become more basic, essential, and deep.
Strategies for Formulating More Powerful Questions
Whenever you dont understand something, ask a question of clarification.
Whenever you are dealing with a complex problem, formulate the question you are trying to answer in several different ways (being as precise as you can) until you hit upon the way that best addresses the problem at hand.
Whenever you plan to discuss an important issue or problem, write out in advance the most significant questions you think need to be addressed in the discussion. Be ready to change the main question, but once made clear, help those in the discussion stick to the question, making sure the dialogue builds toward an answer that makes sense.
Questions You Can Ask to Discipline Your Thinking
What precise question are we trying to answer?
Is that the best question to ask in this situation?
Is there a more important question we should be addressing?
Does this question capture the real issue we are facing?
Is there a question we should answer before we attempt to answer this question?
What information do we need to answer the question?
What conclusions seem justified in light of the facts?
What is our point of view? Do we need to consider another?
Is there another way to look at the question?
What are some related questions we need to consider?
What type of question is this: an economic question, a political question, a legal question, etc.?
4. Be Reasonable
Be on the lookout for reasonable and unreasonable behaviors yours and others. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to what people say. Look closely at what they do. Notice when you are unwilling to listen to the views of others, when you simply see yourself as right and others as wrong. Ask yourself at those moments whether their views might have any merit. See if you can break through your defensiveness to hear what they are saying. Notice unreasonableness in others. Identify times when people use language that makes them appear reasonable, though their behavior proves them to be otherwise. Try to figure out why you, or others, are being unreasonable. Might you have a vested interested in not being open-minded? Might they?
One of the hallmarks of a critical thinker is the disposition to change ones mind when given good reason to change. Good thinkers want to change their thinking when they discover better thinking. They can be moved by reason. Yet, comparatively few people are reasonable. Few are willing to change their minds once set. Few are willing to suspend their beliefs to fully hear the views of those with which they disagree. How would you rate yourself?
Continued below ...
Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking
by Dr. Linda Elder and Dr. Richard Paul
Learning the Art of Critical Thinking
There is nothing more practical than sound thinking. No matter what your circumstance or goals, no matter where you are, or what problems you face, you are better off if your thinking is skilled. As a manager, leader, employee, citizen, lover, friend, parent in every realm and situation of your life good thinking pays off. Poor thinking, in turn, inevitably causes problems, wastes time and energy, engenders frustration and pain.
Critical thinking is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances. The general goal of thinking is to figure out the lay of the land in any situation we are in. We all have multiple choices to make. We need the best information to make the best choices.
What is really going on in this or that situation? Are they trying to take advantage of me? Does so-and-so really care about me? Am I deceiving myself when I believe that . . .? What are the likely consequences of failing to . . .? If I want to do . . . , what is the best way to prepare for it? How can I be more successful in doing . . .? Is this my biggest problem, or do I need to focus my attention on something else?
Successfully responding to such questions is the daily work of thinking. However, to maximize the quality of your thinking, you must learn how to become an effective "critic" of your thinking. And to become an effective critic of your thinking, you have to make learning about thinking a priority.
Ask yourself these rather unusual questions: What have you learned about how you think? Did you ever study your thinking? What do you know about how the mind processes information? What do you really know about how to analyze, evaluate, or reconstruct your thinking? Where does your thinking come from? How much of it is of good quality? How much of it is of poor quality? How much of your thinking is vague, muddled, inconsistent, inaccurate, illogical, or superficial? Are you, in any real sense, in control of your thinking? Do you know how to test it? Do you have any conscious standards for determining when you are thinking well and when you are thinking poorly? Have you ever discovered a significant problem in your thinking and then changed it by a conscious act of will? If anyone asked you to teach them what you have learned, thus far in your life, about thinking, would you really have any idea what that was or how you learned it?
If you are like most, the only honest answers to these questions run along the lines of, Well, I suppose I really dont know much about my thinking or about thinking in general. I suppose in my life I have more or less taken my thinking for granted. I dont really know how it works. I have never really studied it. I dont know how I test it, or even if I do test it. It just happens in my mind automatically.
It is important to realize that serious study of thinking, serious thinking about thinking, is rare. It is not a subject in most colleges. It is seldom found in the thinking of our culture. But if you focus your attention for a moment on the role that thinking is playing in your life, you may come to recognize that, in fact, everything you do, or want, or feel is influenced by your thinking. And if you become persuaded of that, you will be surprised that humans show so little interest in thinking.
To make significant gains in the quality of your thinking you will have to engage in a kind of work that most humans find unpleasant, if not painful intellectual work. Yet once this thinking is done and we move our thinking to a higher level of quality, it is not hard to keep it at that level. Still, there is the price you have to pay to step up to the next level. One doesnt become a skillful critic of thinking over night, any more than one becomes a skillful basketball player or musician over night. To become better at thinking, you must be willing to put the work into thinking that skilled improvement always requires.
This means you must be willing to practice special acts of thinking that are initially at least uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and difficult. You have to learn to do with your mind moves analogous to what accomplished athletes learn to do (through practice and feedback) with their bodies. Improvement in thinking, in other words, is similar to improvement in other domains of performance where progress is a product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice.
Consider the following key ideas, which, when applied, result in a mind practicing skilled thinking. These ideas represent just a few of the many ways in which disciplined thinkers actively apply theory of mind to the mind by the mind in order to think better. In these examples, we focus on the significance of thinking clearly, sticking to the point (thinking with relevance), questioning deeply, and striving to be more reasonable. For each example, we provide a brief overview of the idea and its importance in thinking, along with strategies for applying it in life. Realize that the following ideas are immersed in a cluster of ideas within critical thinking. Though we chose these particular ideas, many others could have instead been chosen. There is no magic in these specific ideas. In short, it is important that you understand these as a sampling of all the possible ways in which the mind can work to discipline itself, to think at a higher level of quality, to function better in the world.
.
1. Clarify Your Thinking
Be on the look-out for vague, fuzzy, formless, blurred thinking. Try to figure out the real meaning of what people are saying. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Try to figure out the real meaning of important news stories. Explain your understanding of an issue to someone else to help clarify it in your own mind. Practice summarizing in your own words what others say. Then ask them if you understood them correctly. You should neither agree nor disagree with what anyone says until you (clearly) understand them.
Our own thinking usually seems clear to us, even when it is not. But vague, ambiguous, muddled, deceptive, or misleading thinking are significant problems in human life. If we are to develop as thinkers, we must learn the art of clarifying thinking, of pinning it down, spelling it out, and giving it a specific meaning. Heres what you can do to begin. When people explain things to you, summarize in your own words what you think they said. When you cannot do this to their satisfaction, you dont really understand what they said. When they cannot summarize what you have said to your satisfaction, they dont really understand what you said. Try it. See what happens.
Strategies for Clarifying Your Thinking
State one point at a time.
Elaborate on what you mean
Give examples that connect your thoughts to life experiences
Use analogies and metaphors to help people connect your ideas to a variety of things they already understand (for example, critical thinking is like an onion. There are many layers to it. Just when you think you have it basically figured out, you realize there is another layer, and then another, and another and another and on and on)
Here is One Format You Can Use
I think . . . (state your main point)
In other words . . . (elaborate your main point)
For example . . . (give an example of your main point)
To give you an analogy . . . (give an illustration of your main point)
To Clarify Other Peoples Thinking, Consider Asking the Following
Can you restate your point in other words? I didnt understand you.
Can you give an example?
Let me tell you what I understand you to be saying. Did I understand you correctly?
2. Stick to the Point
Be on the lookout for fragmented thinking, thinking that leaps about with no logical connections. Start noticing when you or others fail to stay focused on what is relevant. Focus on finding what will aid you in truly solving a problem. When someone brings up a point (however true) that doesnt seem pertinent to the issue at hand, ask, How is what you are saying relevant to the issue? When you are working through a problem, make sure you stay focused on what sheds light on and, thus, helps address the problem. Dont allow your mind to wander to unrelated matters. Dont allow others to stray from the main issue. Frequently ask: What is the central question? Is this or that relevant to it? How?
When thinking is relevant, it is focused on the main task at hand. It selects what is germane, pertinent, and related. It is on the alert for everything that connects to the issue. It sets aside what is immaterial, inappropriate, extraneous, and beside the point. What is relevant directly bears upon (helps solve) the problem you are trying to solve. When thinking drifts away from what is relevant, it needs to be brought back to what truly makes a difference. Undisciplined thinking is often guided by associations (this reminds me of that, that reminds me of this other thing) rather than what is logically connected (If a and b are true, then c must also be true). Disciplined thinking intervenes when thoughts wander from what is pertinent and germane concentrating the mind on only those things that help it figure out what it needs to figure out.
Ask These Questions to Make Sure Thinking is Focused on What is Relevant
Am I focused on the main problem or task?
How is this connected? How is that?
Does my information directly relate to the problem or task?
Where do I need to focus my attention?
Are we being diverted to unrelated matters?
Am I failing to consider relevant viewpoints?
How is your point relevant to the issue we are addressing?
What facts are actually going to help us answer the question? What considerations should be set aside?
Does this truly bear on the question? How does it connect?
3. Question Questions
Be on the lookout for questions. The ones we ask. The ones we fail to ask. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to how people question, when they question, when they fail to question. Look closely at the questions asked. What questions do you ask, should you ask? Examine the extent to which you are a questioner, or simply one who accepts the definitions of situations given by others.
Most people are not skilled questioners. Most accept the world as it is presented to them. And when they do question, their questions are often superficial or loaded. Their questions do not help them solve their problems or make better decisions. Good thinkers routinely ask questions in order to understand and effectively deal with the world around them. They question the status quo. They know that things are often different from the way they are presented. Their questions penetrate images, masks, fronts, and propaganda. Their questions make real problems explicit and discipline their thinking through those problems. If you become a student of questions, you can learn to ask powerful questions that lead to a deeper and more fulfilling life. Your questions become more basic, essential, and deep.
Strategies for Formulating More Powerful Questions
Whenever you dont understand something, ask a question of clarification.
Whenever you are dealing with a complex problem, formulate the question you are trying to answer in several different ways (being as precise as you can) until you hit upon the way that best addresses the problem at hand.
Whenever you plan to discuss an important issue or problem, write out in advance the most significant questions you think need to be addressed in the discussion. Be ready to change the main question, but once made clear, help those in the discussion stick to the question, making sure the dialogue builds toward an answer that makes sense.
Questions You Can Ask to Discipline Your Thinking
What precise question are we trying to answer?
Is that the best question to ask in this situation?
Is there a more important question we should be addressing?
Does this question capture the real issue we are facing?
Is there a question we should answer before we attempt to answer this question?
What information do we need to answer the question?
What conclusions seem justified in light of the facts?
What is our point of view? Do we need to consider another?
Is there another way to look at the question?
What are some related questions we need to consider?
What type of question is this: an economic question, a political question, a legal question, etc.?
4. Be Reasonable
Be on the lookout for reasonable and unreasonable behaviors yours and others. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to what people say. Look closely at what they do. Notice when you are unwilling to listen to the views of others, when you simply see yourself as right and others as wrong. Ask yourself at those moments whether their views might have any merit. See if you can break through your defensiveness to hear what they are saying. Notice unreasonableness in others. Identify times when people use language that makes them appear reasonable, though their behavior proves them to be otherwise. Try to figure out why you, or others, are being unreasonable. Might you have a vested interested in not being open-minded? Might they?
One of the hallmarks of a critical thinker is the disposition to change ones mind when given good reason to change. Good thinkers want to change their thinking when they discover better thinking. They can be moved by reason. Yet, comparatively few people are reasonable. Few are willing to change their minds once set. Few are willing to suspend their beliefs to fully hear the views of those with which they disagree. How would you rate yourself?
Continued below ...
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Strategies for Becoming More Reasonable
Say aloud, Im not perfect. I make mistakes. Im often wrong. See if you have the courage to admit this during a disagreement: Of course, I may be wrong. You may be right.
Practice saying in your own mind, I may be wrong. I often am. Im willing to change my mind when given good reasons. Then look for opportunities to make changes in your thinking.
Ask yourself, When was the last time I changed my mind because someone gave me better reasons for his (her) views than I had for mine? (To what extent are you open to new ways of looking at things? To what extent can you objectively judge information that refutes what you already think?)
Realize That You are Being Close-Minded If You
a. are unwilling to listen to someones reasons
b. are irritated by the reasons people give you
c. become defensive during a discussion
After you catch yourself being close-minded, analyze what was going on in your mind by completing these statements:
a. I realize I was being close-minded in this situation because . . .
b. The thinking I was trying to hold onto is . . .
c. Thinking that is potentially better is . . .
d. This thinking is better because . . .
In closing, let me remind you that the ideas in this article are a very few of the many ways in which critical thinkers bring intellectual discipline to bear upon their thinking. The best thinkers are those who understand the development of thinking as a process occurring throughout many years of practice in thinking. They recognize the importance of learning about the mind, about thoughts, feelings and desires and how these functions of the mind interrelate. They are adept at taking thinking apart, and then assessing the parts when analyzed. In short, they study the mind, and they apply what they learn about the mind to their own thinking in their own lives.
The extent to which any of us develops as a thinker is directly determined by the amount of time we dedicate to our development, the quality of the intellectual practice we engage in, and the depth, or lack thereof, of our commitment to becoming more reasonable, rational, successful persons.
Elder, L. and Paul, R. (2004). Adapted from The Thinkers Guide to the Art of Strategic Thinking: 25 Weeks to Better Thinking and Better Living.
Thinking Gets Us Into Trouble Because We Often:
jump to conclusions
fail to think-through implications
lose track of their goal
are unrealistic
focus on the trivial
fail to notice contradictions
accept inaccurate information
ask vague questions
give vague answers
ask loaded questions
ask irrelevant questions
confuse questions of different types
answer questions we are not competent to answer
come to conclusions based on inaccurate or irrelevant information
ignore information that does not support our view
make inferences not justified by our experience
distort data and state it inaccurately
fail to notice the inferences we make
come to unreasonable conclusions
fail to notice our assumptions
often make unjustified assumptions
miss key ideas
use irrelevant ideas
form confused ideas
form superficial concepts
misuse words
ignore relevant viewpoints
cannot see issues from points of view other than our own
confuse issues of different types
are unaware of our prejudices
think narrowly
think imprecisely
think illogically
think one-sidedly
think simplistically
think hypocritically
think superficially
think ethnocentrically
think egocentrically
think irrationally
do poor problem solving
make poor decisions
are poor communicators
have little insight into our own ignorance
A How-To List for Dysfunctional Living
Most people have no notion of what it means to take charge of their lives. They dont realize that the quality of their lives depends on the quality of their thinking. We all engage in numerous dysfunctional practices to avoid facing problems in our thinking. Consider the following and ask yourself how many of these dysfunctional ways of thinking you engage in:
Surround yourself with people who think like you. Then no one will criticize you.
Dont question your relationships. You then can avoid dealing with problems within them.
If critiqued by a friend or lover, look sad and dejected and say, I thought you were my friend! or I thought you loved me!
When you do something unreasonable, always be ready with an excuse. Then you wont have to take responsibility. If you cant think of an excuse, look sorry and say, I cant help how I am!
Focus on the negative side of life. Then you can make yourself miserable and blame it on others.
Blame others for your mistakes. Then you wont have to feel responsible for your mistakes. Nor will you have to do anything about them.
Verbally attack those who criticize you. Then you dont have to bother listening to what they say.
Go along with the groups you are in. Then you wont have to figure out anything for yourself.
Act out when you dont get what you want. If questioned, look indignant and say, Im just an emotional person. At least I dont keep my feelings bottled up!
Focus on getting what you want. If questioned, say, If I dont look out for number one, who will?
As you see, the list is almost laughable. And so it would be if these irrational ways of thinking didnt lead to problems in life. But they do. And often. Only when we are faced with the absurdity of dysfunctional thinking, and can see it at work in our lives, do we have a chance to alter it. The strategies outlined in this guide presuppose your willingness to do so.
This article was adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.
Say aloud, Im not perfect. I make mistakes. Im often wrong. See if you have the courage to admit this during a disagreement: Of course, I may be wrong. You may be right.
Practice saying in your own mind, I may be wrong. I often am. Im willing to change my mind when given good reasons. Then look for opportunities to make changes in your thinking.
Ask yourself, When was the last time I changed my mind because someone gave me better reasons for his (her) views than I had for mine? (To what extent are you open to new ways of looking at things? To what extent can you objectively judge information that refutes what you already think?)
Realize That You are Being Close-Minded If You
a. are unwilling to listen to someones reasons
b. are irritated by the reasons people give you
c. become defensive during a discussion
After you catch yourself being close-minded, analyze what was going on in your mind by completing these statements:
a. I realize I was being close-minded in this situation because . . .
b. The thinking I was trying to hold onto is . . .
c. Thinking that is potentially better is . . .
d. This thinking is better because . . .
In closing, let me remind you that the ideas in this article are a very few of the many ways in which critical thinkers bring intellectual discipline to bear upon their thinking. The best thinkers are those who understand the development of thinking as a process occurring throughout many years of practice in thinking. They recognize the importance of learning about the mind, about thoughts, feelings and desires and how these functions of the mind interrelate. They are adept at taking thinking apart, and then assessing the parts when analyzed. In short, they study the mind, and they apply what they learn about the mind to their own thinking in their own lives.
The extent to which any of us develops as a thinker is directly determined by the amount of time we dedicate to our development, the quality of the intellectual practice we engage in, and the depth, or lack thereof, of our commitment to becoming more reasonable, rational, successful persons.
Elder, L. and Paul, R. (2004). Adapted from The Thinkers Guide to the Art of Strategic Thinking: 25 Weeks to Better Thinking and Better Living.
Thinking Gets Us Into Trouble Because We Often:
jump to conclusions
fail to think-through implications
lose track of their goal
are unrealistic
focus on the trivial
fail to notice contradictions
accept inaccurate information
ask vague questions
give vague answers
ask loaded questions
ask irrelevant questions
confuse questions of different types
answer questions we are not competent to answer
come to conclusions based on inaccurate or irrelevant information
ignore information that does not support our view
make inferences not justified by our experience
distort data and state it inaccurately
fail to notice the inferences we make
come to unreasonable conclusions
fail to notice our assumptions
often make unjustified assumptions
miss key ideas
use irrelevant ideas
form confused ideas
form superficial concepts
misuse words
ignore relevant viewpoints
cannot see issues from points of view other than our own
confuse issues of different types
are unaware of our prejudices
think narrowly
think imprecisely
think illogically
think one-sidedly
think simplistically
think hypocritically
think superficially
think ethnocentrically
think egocentrically
think irrationally
do poor problem solving
make poor decisions
are poor communicators
have little insight into our own ignorance
A How-To List for Dysfunctional Living
Most people have no notion of what it means to take charge of their lives. They dont realize that the quality of their lives depends on the quality of their thinking. We all engage in numerous dysfunctional practices to avoid facing problems in our thinking. Consider the following and ask yourself how many of these dysfunctional ways of thinking you engage in:
Surround yourself with people who think like you. Then no one will criticize you.
Dont question your relationships. You then can avoid dealing with problems within them.
If critiqued by a friend or lover, look sad and dejected and say, I thought you were my friend! or I thought you loved me!
When you do something unreasonable, always be ready with an excuse. Then you wont have to take responsibility. If you cant think of an excuse, look sorry and say, I cant help how I am!
Focus on the negative side of life. Then you can make yourself miserable and blame it on others.
Blame others for your mistakes. Then you wont have to feel responsible for your mistakes. Nor will you have to do anything about them.
Verbally attack those who criticize you. Then you dont have to bother listening to what they say.
Go along with the groups you are in. Then you wont have to figure out anything for yourself.
Act out when you dont get what you want. If questioned, look indignant and say, Im just an emotional person. At least I dont keep my feelings bottled up!
Focus on getting what you want. If questioned, say, If I dont look out for number one, who will?
As you see, the list is almost laughable. And so it would be if these irrational ways of thinking didnt lead to problems in life. But they do. And often. Only when we are faced with the absurdity of dysfunctional thinking, and can see it at work in our lives, do we have a chance to alter it. The strategies outlined in this guide presuppose your willingness to do so.
This article was adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
U.S. Teens Lag as China Soars on International Test
State Education Rankings: The Best And Worst For Math And Science
Anyone have any guesses as to some of the primary contributors to the problem? Perhaps one or some that may relate to other problems related to thinking and problem solving? Anyone more interested in complaining about whose standards or what reality this really speaks to, or from, than in considering what may actually be going on here?
State Education Rankings: The Best And Worst For Math And Science
Anyone have any guesses as to some of the primary contributors to the problem? Perhaps one or some that may relate to other problems related to thinking and problem solving? Anyone more interested in complaining about whose standards or what reality this really speaks to, or from, than in considering what may actually be going on here?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Brain Waves Encode Rules for Behavior:
Fluctuations in electrical activity may also allow the brain to form thoughts and memories.
Fluctuations in electrical activity may also allow the brain to form thoughts and memories.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Wow!
I didn't know you could fit that many gerbils in one brain.
Learn something new every day.
I didn't know you could fit that many gerbils in one brain.
Learn something new every day.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Yeah, why study the brain or critical thinking ... or anything else for that matter?
We should just break out of our imprisoning little boxes of words and find true freedom of comprehension.
We should just break out of our imprisoning little boxes of words and find true freedom of comprehension.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
"We should just break out of our imprisoning little boxes of words and find true freedom of comprehension"
There is hope!
Do you let them out to go to the bathroom?
There is hope!
Do you let them out to go to the bathroom?
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Quote from: doubleslyde on Nov 23, 2012, 07:18AM"We should just break out of our imprisoning little boxes of words and find true freedom of comprehension"
There is hope!
Except that experience shows it to be unproductive.
There is hope!
Except that experience shows it to be unproductive.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
The question, who's experience comes to mind.
I guess some peoples experience carry's more weight than others.
So much for "critical thinking"!
Carry on!
I guess some peoples experience carry's more weight than others.
So much for "critical thinking"!
Carry on!
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
Good grief. Men are completely ridiculous.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously
RHM,
Check out this site, ridiculous mixed with genius.
http://xkcd.com/1121/
Just keeping hitting random. A significant number of these might have you go "huh?" then you get it.
Check out this site, ridiculous mixed with genius.
http://xkcd.com/1121/
Just keeping hitting random. A significant number of these might have you go "huh?" then you get it.