Critical Matter

[Richard]

Thoughts? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Are you a critical thinker?
Linda Elder, CSM, 12 Mar 2009

How can we hope to thoughtfully address the economic issues, conflicts, world poverty, and many other pressing concerns that trouble our planet, if we don't take the way we think seriously?

We can't. To effectively deal with these issues, we must cultivate the spirit of critical thinking throughout human societies.

Right now we are not even teaching the skills and dispositions of the critical mind in our schools. We are not cultivating the intellect.

Everyone thinks; but we don't always think well. In fact, much of our thinking, left to itself, is sloppy, distorted, partial, uninformed, or prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and all of the decisions we make depend precisely on the quality of our thought. At present, the act of thinking is virtually ignored.

Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking that aims to take the reasoning we all do naturally to a higher level. It is the art of analyzing and evaluating with the goal of improving thought. When making a decision, it is the difference between weighing information to come to a logical conclusion and making snap judgments without understanding the information.

Consider some of the great thinkers: H.L. Mencken, Tom Paine, Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Bertrand Russell, and Jane Austen. They became some of the greatest thinkers by not accepting information at face value, but by thinking deeply for themselves, asking questions, and refining their thinking over time. It wasn't easy. Of his own thinking, Charles Darwin said: "I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time, but it has had the compensating advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of others."

His diligence paid off. Darwin's critical thinking pushed the boundaries of science and society. And isn't the purpose of education to give students the tools to thoughtfully contribute (on a small or large scale) to society? Right now we are not doing that. With few exceptions, we are not teaching them how to fully and deeply comprehend what they read or write with clarity, precision, and purpose. We are not teaching students to integrate ideas within and among subjects. We are not teaching them to entertain (in good faith) viewpoints with which with they disagree.

We are failing them at the most fundamental level.

Some believe that critical thinking was once cultivated in schooling. But it is fair to ask if it has ever really been fostered in a meaningful way in mainstream schooling (and the standardized testing movement is only making it worse). Teachers, like students, live in a nonintellectual culture, one that, for the most part, neither values fair-minded critical thinking nor encourages it.

If we want to effectively deal with the tremendous problems we now face, we must begin teaching students to discipline their own thinking. Teachers must move beyond rote and merely active engagement, and work toward transforming how students reason through complex issues, to look beyond easy answers.

We must teach students that the only way to learn a subject or discipline is to learn to think within the logic of it, to focus on its purposes, questions, information, to think within its concepts and assumptions.

It is true that some students learn some critical thinking implicitly along the way. But, as is evident in the dismal state of affairs, our collective thinking simply isn't good enough.

There is some good news. Many global organizations such as the Peace Corps, UNICEF, and Amnesty International are promoting critical thinking within a particular area of importance. As part of their reaccreditations, the University of Louisville and Eastern Kentucky University are both making concerted efforts to bring critical thinking across the curriculum. But much work is still needed. William Graham Sumner, the Yale academic and essayist may have put it best when, in 1906, he said:

"The critical habit of thought, if usual in society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators.... They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens."

His warning resonates today. Though there is no quick and easy fix, we can all start by beginning to think about how we think. We can question our purposes, our assumptions, our ideas, and our inferences. We can question whether we are considering the views of others to understand them, or to dismiss them. We can open our minds to the larger world with all of its complexities. If we are to reverse the downward spiral we are presently experiencing, we must begin to actively and deliberately foster fair-minded critical thinking in our schools, our homes, our social institutions, in government, and indeed, in every part of human life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090312/cm_csm/yelder

[frostfire]

Some believe that critical thinking was once cultivated in schooling. But it is fair to ask if it has ever really been fostered in a meaningful way in mainstream schooling (and the standardized testing movement is only making it worse). Teachers, like students, live in a nonintellectual culture, one that, for the most part, neither values fair-minded critical thinking nor encourages it.


IMHO, it's not that the academic world is incapable of critical thinking, but the will to do so is lacking. Why? Well, the good feeling of being "right" and the reluctance to be proven wrong are just some of the causes. I am sure you all can figure out more.

For example, I'm doing community health right now. We're being taught that number one problem of a baby born today is hand gun violence and that firearms are second to motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of all injury death. Even further, 270,000 guns go to school every day, one in every household contains handgun, and every six hours a teenager commits suicide with a gun. If that's not enough, we're encouraged to support restriction of firearm sale and availability. People with xyz research requiring critical thinking, phd, etc. take these statements at face value. I, for one, especially hate the last one which I view as statistical scare tactics or simply lying with statistics. It's an average collected from a limited time frame. Generalizing this average must involve assumptions that are conveniently not included. The data actually dates back to 1992! Of course, nobody care enough to look it up. Why should they, life is cozy and nice, and bad guys only exist on TV and in Hollywood :rolleyes:

Having said these, I have been guilty of not thinking critically as well at one time or another. Human is subjective creature by nature, but that's no excuse because there's nature, nurture, then choice. I've learned that it takes courage to have others challenge your thought process, as well as humility to acknowledge a different perspective and sometimes, the right perspective. This may not come as a surprise, but I've gained much of that lesson at ps.com

[Pete]

...... Many global organizations such as the Peace Corps, UNICEF, and Amnesty International are promoting critical thinking within a particular area of importance. ....

I found the quote above as the most interesting part.

Teaching critical thinking in "a particular area of importance" could lead to thinking that way when off work. That could be right interesting for some.

[nmap]

On the one hand, I agree with the assertion of the article that critical thinking is rare, seldom practiced, and almost never taught. I also agree that both the ability and the inclination to apply critical thought processes to existing situations and challenges is both necessary and desirable. However, as Pete suggests, I'm not at all sure that the Peace Corps and other such organizations promote critical thinking any more effectively than would Joe's Bar and Grill. Indeed, I suspect the hypothetical Joe's Bar and Grill might provide an environment more conducive to questioning underlying assumptions than would UNICEF since UNICEF promotes a specific set of values.

Let's consider UNICEF further. One of their goals, stated on their website, is poverty reduction, which they couple with the assertion that poverty reduction starts with children. The organization then proceeds to argue for all people to have rights to health, nutrition, and basic education. As an example of critical thinking, let us ask ourselves why we should consider supporting the specific goals.

An individual might contend that a moral standard, perhaps based in religion, imposes a set of behaviors on individuals that require a policy equivalent to the one UNICEF advocates. However, morality tends to involve a series of unprovable absolutes. Whether they are right or wrong may not be amenable to rational analysis, and could cause strong negative emotional reactions among some. One might appeal to ethical standards, either through utilitarianism, which urges maximization of happiness, or through duty as promulgated by Kant. However, either approach ultimately reduces to values based on some external framework. Civil discussions do not lend themselves to arguments over fundamental and deeply held values.

If our goal happens to be lower prices to consumers, then maintaining an inexpensive labor force might produce a positive benefit. We notice on CNN that 70% of the world’s cocoa beans are grown in West Africa, with (according to the article) many of the workers underage. ( LINK (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0802/gallery.bloodchocolate.fortune/index.html) )

Therefore, if someone enjoys good chocolate and prefers a low price, then they must surely oppose the ideals advocated by UNICEF. Alternatively, if they embrace the ideals of UNICEF, then they work against their own best interests. We can see such patterns reproduced in a variety of situations. The general solution is to value feeling good above solving problems, with the easiest approach being selective avoidance. We simply ignore conflicts between ideals.

Perhaps the problem is that our society is unwilling to consider or discuss matters that are certain to offend some and distress many. Correction of a problem might necessitate a willingness to examine and consider patterns based on values that many regard as absolutes. Only when people are forced by events to face harsh realities will they willingly consider such questions. An example from current events is the widespread belief in universal home ownership. To suggest that there are those who, due to economics, personality, or background, really ought to rent instead of purchasing their home, smacks of elitism. Elitism, interestingly enough, violates an unspoken value that specifies all are equal. Of course, not all are equal. People have different talents, abilities, and inclinations. The equality so often mentioned is not at all the same as equality in the eyes of the Creator, or equality before the law. However, to suggest that people are not equal, despite the compelling evidence of our own experiences and perceptions, verges on a breach of civility and certainly violates political correctness.

How can we fix the problem? In my opinion, we must first decide to attack our own beliefs and assumptions aggressively and mercilessly. We must learn how to control the inevitable adverse emotional reaction when others assist us in the effort. Finally, we must learn to help others in their own examination of underlying beliefs – but always in a civil manner. None of this sounds easy; but the first step is, I suspect, the most difficult and the most important.

[blowfish]

NMAP, your posts always force me to think more critically about the subjects discussed - and to spend some time researching to keep up. For that, I thank you.

Insofar as improving critical thinking skills, what about starting with fallacies? Studying one fallacy at a time, finding examples in current media, and clearly explaining the error will strengthen one's reasoning ability, not to mention the ability to form cogent arguments.

[bailaviborita]

I think there is an assumption we are making here: that societies would benefit if more people could critically think. Is that a valid assumption? Are there examples where a country with more critical thinkers was more successful than others?

I have often struggled with the concept that "if only we could educate everyone to a certain high level, our country would be so much better off". Is that true? Or, is there only room in a society for so many "critical thinkers"? I mean, really- how many PHD's can one country really afford, anyway? How many politicians, generals, doctors (non-general practicioners), bankers, lawyers (that don't protect corporate productivity, financiers (that don't enable corporate productivity), and non-productive scientists (assuming they work on things that don't translate into increased industrial productivity)- can a nation or "real" workers support?

We'll always need someone to pick up the trash, flip the burgers, put threads on screws, and wash the dishes. Do we want all these people to be critical thinkers? Wouldn't they just quit their mind-numbing jobs and demand to teach multi-cultural sensitivity training at the local university for 60k+? Maybe the reason we have so many illegals is that we have too many critical thinkers who don't want to do menial labor!

Or, maybe there is a "bell-curve" type ceiling we are working against here. Maybe there are only a certain percentage of people in any given population that have the capacity to think critically. To think beyond the level of "survival". That strive not only to exist, but to understand. I've seen people born into wealth who have great educations that are content to eat, sleep, and play. What makes us so convinced that offering some new way of thinking to these folks will make them more inclined to use all of their mental faculties?

I surely don't want to put up a system that discourages people from attaining higher forms of knowledge and thinking abilities. But then again I also don't want to hand the masses an expensive tool with which they will abuse or won't take advantage of. I would think that we have to come up with some way of determining those who will attempt to improve their thinking- and give them the best opportunities and incentives to do so- at any time in their lives, but with the caveat that they reach a certain level afterwards and use that new knowledge to add to industrial productivity, instead of creating work (with the assumption that most new lawyers and their like only end up crimping rises in standards of living). All others who are "content" we should try to institute a system that will incentivize them to work hard and sacrifice some for the future- but also enjoy a certain minimum standard of living. Beyond that, I don't think we will create a utopia around here anytime soon.

[Pete]

......We'll always need someone to pick up the trash, flip the burgers, put threads on screws, and wash the dishes. Do we want all these people to be critical thinkers? .....

This was realized over 100 years ago. They came up with public education to fix the problem.

[bailaviborita]

are you saying public education ensured we would have people doing menial labor? ;)

[Pete]

are you saying public education ensured we would have people doing menial labor? ;)

The founders (people who pushed the idea at the time) of public education saw it as the means to produce the ideal factory worker - not too smart to cause management any problems.

The process was worked far in excess of their wildest dreams. School systems with graduates that can barely read the cetificate of attendance.

Not all teachers, not all systems and not all students but......

[Sigaba]

Bailaviborita--

Sir, your post is food for thought.

Recently, while getting reacquainted with an academic historian, we spent a few moments patting ourselves on the back as we agreed that few can match historians for critical thinking skill sets.;)

A bit later, the conversation (re) turned to the ongoing inability of traditional types of historians to respond to the "Cultural Turn," the deepening rifts within the profession, the continuing decline of the craft (history majors aren't in high demand in the job market), and our respective research projects--both over researched, over thought, and, from our perspectives, long overdue.:o

During my short time in the private sector, my critical thinking skills have contributed in small ways to the development of solutions to complex issues--to the astonishment of some software engineers (a self-confident lot:cool:). But I'd always point out (if someone else didn't beat me to it) that I'd been wrong the previous three dozen times.

Then again, if a certain company had listened to me on the viability of a digital set-top box as a platform for 'digital convergence,' on the short comings of the 'lean back' experience, on the price points of cable modems, and on the advantages of saying 'no' to customers, maybe they'd still be the masters of their own destiny. Or if another company had been a bit more attentive to my observation that the word 'strategy' was being used haphazardly, it would not have needed to lay off about 14% of their workforce and slash the pay of those who remained by as much as a third. (But I'm not bitter.)

[bailaviborita]

I wasn't aware of what the FF envisioned for public education- but makes sense. I've often wondered why industry didn't take up education as their purview- in order to get workers they needed to be successful- remember the "industry towns"? Those towns had nice schools provided by the one factory that employed the town.

Seems to me that some community and technical colleges seem to be making up the slack for our HS's not turning out competent workers. And universities are making up for our HS's not turning out competent thinkers...

[Pete]

I wasn't aware of what the FF envisioned for public education- but makes sense. ...

It was not the Founding Fathers.

Boortz gets on the public education kick about once a month and goes into the "great thinkers" of the late 19th and early 20th century. Names names and quotes from their books and letters. Sounded like they had been sitting at the feet of C. Marx.

I'm in my car driving while I'm listening so I don't take notes.

[bailaviborita]

Oh- I read "Founders" and scanned the rest. That makes even more sense. Critical thinking probably would be good to a certain extent. Causality might help. And it would probably get our voters to stop being swayed by terrible rhetoric. Beyond that- I've seen how a little education has made people more dangerous...

[Sigaba]

I wasn't aware of what the FF envisioned for public education- but makes sense. I've often wondered why industry didn't take up education as their purview- in order to get workers they needed to be successful- remember the "industry towns"? Those towns had nice schools provided by the one factory that employed the town.

Alas, the objective of many companies was to turn artisans into workers in order to maximize opportunities for greater efficiencies. In their resistance, members of the working classes quickly came to view their interests as being divergent from their employers'.

Fast forward to the twenty first century and one could see legacies of this cultural divide. Union electricians in Chicago's McCormick Place were utterly baffled on how to hang and to hook up plasmas and in absolutely no rush to figure it out. Members of the digital class turning red, politely asking their traffic coordinator "How are things going?" every ten minutes. Somehow, the answer was often the same: "They're on their break...." The electricians availed themselves of every minute of the four days they had to do four hours worth of work. The digital cable industry danced the dance again a couple of years later before deciding, along with other industries, that trade shows did not have to happen in Chicago, at least not for a few years. (It was telling that the bosses were pining for New Orleans, where plasmas were known to grow legs and walk away.)

Seems to me that some community and technical colleges seem to be making up the slack for our HS's not turning out competent workers. And universities are making up for our HS's not turning out competent thinkers...

This dynamic was daunting to behold. The question "What do you think?" was frequently parried with "Is this going to be on the midterm?" :munchin

[swpa19]

Im not the prettiest talker, or most eloquent writer. And, truth be known, I just mastered the light switch yesterday. Im just one of those products of public schooling that lives in the holler next to the crick. (litterally)

Its nice to watch the thinkers peruse the "Big Bang" theory, or to ruminate science and politics.

We will always need thinkers, the planners the inventors. Its these thinkers that use their intellect to provide us with the modern conveniences that we so adore.

But it is also the multitude of graduates of public schooling that constructs, repairs, rebuilds and replenishes us with niceties that these same thinkers have provided us with.

Just my opinion.

[dennisw]

I think the author is falling into the trap where education is viewed as a panacea. Where the shortfalls of a society can be cured if only the education is tweaked in a certain way or a particular subject is emphasised. Our education system is a reflection of our society, not the other way around.

I was in Las Vegas recently and was blown away by the everpresent digital images and sounds. From the restroom in our room to the crap table, it was a constant stimulus. That's our world. There's no time to think critically. Everything is a deadline, and most of them are artificial and unrealistic.

The lack of critical thinking is an expression of our culture, and what we value. I remember when I first watched Ken Burns' documentary on the War between the states. Many of the letters written to loved ones by the soldiers were read. I was amazed at not only the quality of the writing, but of the soldiers' ability to express the quality of their thoughts and emotions.

Maybe our world is a souless world where the main deficiency is not the lack of critical thinking, but the lack of quality souls.

[nmap]

I'm not at all sure that education and critical thinking are equivalent. There are people with little education who are excellent critical thinkers, and the converse is true as well.

Let us consider the student who asks "Will this be on the midterm?" Now it's possible to suppose that the student wishes to minimize learning to the barest essentials. However, perhaps we should look more deeply. Perhaps we should look at the students, at education, and at the reason students ask such things.

Some years ago, I was asked a question. Perhaps rhetorical; but I reflected on it for some time. The question was: "Why do people want more of everything for their money, except education? If we offer food, they want more. If we offer cars, they want more. But offer a student additional education for their tuition dollar, and they object. Why?"

The answer I came up with is that groups of people tend to behave in a rational manner; therefore, somehow the students are doing whatever they are doing for a good reason. Education is not something our society particularly values, in my opinion. As Dennisw points out, we delight in stimulation of the senses. We do not spend our days pondering a problem, reading about the issues, and perhaps writing letters on the subject. However, we do value educational credentials. A college degree may suffice to get a job, whereas a mere high school diploma will not. This does not speak to the amount of learning that may (or may not) have occurred.

What does it take to get educational credentials, also known as a degree? The cost seems to include some time, some money, and some effort. Therefore, additional time in class or working on academic material represents an increased cost in terms of both time and effort. Notice that this fits the usual behavior pattern - people want to either get more for their money, or at least minimize the cost of what they buy. As an ironic aside, one university has the slogan: "To get a good job, get a good education." Notice the emphasis on the monetary rewards, and the complete absence of any suggestion of intellectual rewards.

So - perhaps the student who frets about how little he (or she) can get by with is actually exercising critical thinking by disposing of all but the minimum essential tasks to get to the end result since the education is not valued but the degree is.

I think that critical thinking is valuable in any task. Of course we want a doctor or lawyer to exercise such capabilities. We also want a mechanic or plumber to do so. Does this extend to the waiter who brings a meal to our table? Of course it does. It also applies to everyone else we interact with - and those who exhibit such skills are generally appreciated. Those without them tend to be an annoyance at best. Perhaps there is some sort of distribution curve, such that a portion of the society lacks the intellectual horsepower to exercise critical thinking. I suspect, however, that it is a skill which can be improved.

I think that critical thinking can be applied to any number of things that have nothing to do with the big bang, the impact of hyperdeminsional branes, and the hyperbolic curvature of the universe. I think it can be applied with good effect to the ordinary tasks of everyday life. I suspect our society would be richer if the trait were more common.

I suspect that the lack of critical thinking skills does make people, and by extension the society, easier to control and manipulate. In a sense, perhaps this is desirable for some. But I suspect that such a people create fertile conditions for tyrants who hunger for power and control. And once the vacant-eyed masses accept the tyrant, they will not have the capacity to discern where the path leads. I question whether an unthinking people can remain a free people.

[jasonglh]

1st semester nursing instructors are good at weeding out non critical thinkers and are more than happy to tell you to pursue a career in something else.

[bailaviborita]

Maybe we should define what we're all talking about- just so that we aren't talking about two different things.

I would imagine nurses are very competent at what they do. Unfortunately, I'm not sure competence is the same as thinking critically. I am immediately reminded of the very smart nurse who I watched the movie "JFK" with. When it was over she said, "I believe it."

Now, I would say that she wasn't a critical thinker. She had no desire to look beyond the movie, investigate the historical record, and see if the movie's theories had some merit. She loved JFK and hated Vietnam, and that the military would have killed JFK made total sense to her. That, to me, is not a critical thinker. Critical thinkers approach all subjects- ESPECIALLY those they don't know much about with an open mind and an almost obsession with tracing causality.

From criticalthinking.org:

Definition: Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it.

The result: a person who:

- 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
- communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

I would submit the thought that complex problems are those on such a higher level than most work- that critical thinking is not needed for most people, most of the time. Voting would be one time that I could think that ALL people should be able to think critically. You don't, however, need to critically think to master complicated problems- those that are multi-faceted, but not bordering on the impossible.

I was a little tongue-in-cheek when talking about how to structure a system that rewards those who want to think critically and allows a minimal existence for all others. I think most monetary rewards should be tied to the market- whatever jobs are needed the most and provide the most to increased productivity should get paid the most IMO.

But, I also agree with the above statement that education is not always a panacea. Critical thinking can be done by those with little education- but I'd submit that it is much rarer. I don't think it comes naturally. Most people I know don't naturally try to look at things from all sides. That usually takes some form of systems thinking training and/or education.

[Richard]

JMO and experience as a high school principal - many schools actually do teach critical thinking skills - however, not everyone in high school or even college are developmentally ready or capable of such higher levels of thinking and the productive synthesis of information/data - honors classes do a good job of teaching critical thinking; AP classes, which are highly structured, do not but are often presented or perceived as doing so - and then there are the on-going norms of the teenagers themselves...disinterest, diverted interest, self-interest, etc...which dramatically affect any attempts at teaching and engaging students at any of the higher levels of thinking.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[bailaviborita]

I just have to wonder how many HS kids have the requisite experience and contextual knowledge to put the ideas behind critical thinking to use. I haven't met many collegiate level students who can.

I see a different problem, though- too many who DO have that knowledge/experience and who SHOULD learn to think critically (graduate level students, mid-level managers) aren't interested in learning how to or aren't offered the chance in their education.

[bravo22b]

To borrow Richard's tagline for a second:

"Of every One-Hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle. Ah, but the One, one of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back."


IMHO, the same statistics apply to people in general. As Bailaviborita points out, being competent is not the same thing as being a critical thinker. So, to paraphrase Richard's quote and apply it to the civilian sector, "of every hundred workers, ten should be fired, eighty are just taking up space, nine are basically competent and get most of the work done, and the One, he/she is a critical thinker...".

My experience in the building trades, and my guess is that it applies to most other careers, is that the truly proficient and effective people are good critical thinkers. They might not be well educated, and they might not know what critical thinking is, but they have the ability to look at a fairly complex problem, tease it apart, weigh their options, and move forward on the best path. Also, they have the ability to recognize early on when the path they have chosen isn't going where they want it to go, and adjust course to get the desired outcome in the least amount of time. Partly these skills are a function of experience, because a good critical thinker can look at a task he/she hasn't performed before, use relevant experience from the past, and extrapolate a good COA.

To me, it sounds the same as what any good NCO or officer does, and I imagine what any good QP does on an everyday basis. As is frequently pointed out here, it's hard to divorce these skills from experience, because making the right choices often depends so heavily on a reservoir of knowledge built up over a long period of time.

Now, I don't know whether there would be more critical thinkers if it was taught more effectively in school. I do know that it is very hard to find people with these skills, and it would certainly increase the productivity of the nation as a whole if there were more people capable of critical thinking skills.

As a disclaimer, I'll say that I haven't really applied a great deal of critical thought to the following theory, but I'll throw it out there to be kicked around: I would argue that part of what makes America great is that, to a greater degree than any other country, we have allowed those with critical thinking skills to excel. I think a large part of what is loosely called "American ingenuity" is really just the freedom of those with the requisite talent to take the ball and run with it. In a way, the beauty of our system is that it is self-selecting. Those with the skills have the opportunity to succeed, and those without find a place to take up space. It could be argued that ingenuity and critical thinking are not the same thing, but I would bet that in most cases of ingenuity, there are some critical thinking skills involved.

[dennisw]

Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens."

I’m not sure if I can agree with the above statement. To say that our education system should not be concerned with teaching or assisting students to develop resources which allow for critical thinking cannot be supported. However, there must be a realistic framework where the critical thinking takes place, otherwise the result of the critical thinking will be flawed. Education may provide the tools or techniques used in critical thinking, but I do not believe education can be solely responsible for the framework. It may be useful to apply these tools to a construction project or doing tasks like automating a plant, etc., but in applying critical thought to larger problems, techniques alone are not enough.

Bailaviborita said: I just have to wonder how many HS kids have the requisite experience and contextual knowledge to put the ideas behind critical thinking to use.
This contextual knowledge is what I’m referring to as the framework. For example, if we take the current economic situation in our country and apply critical thinking to the situation, but one of the core beliefs which comprise our framework is that FDR was successful in spending our way out of the depression, any result of our analysis is going to be flawed IMHO. I personally believe the product of Darwin’s critical thinking was wrong. If that’s true, what is the worth?

I do not believe that it’s the responsibility of our system of education to provide the contextual framework. Additionally, I don’t believe they can. This contextual framework comprises understanding of mores, history, people, etc. and any solutions must be leavened in fairness, honor and justice. If your framework is flawed, how can the product of critical thought be valuable? For arguments sake we say there is a God and his existence is a reality, but our critical thinking about global and national problems does not consider this parameter, within this context, is the result of critical thinking which ignores valuable or absolute parameters going to solve anything?

My wife is a professor. Occasionally the good doctor is required to teach a class on Stress Management. One of the tasks she requires of her students is to keep a daily journal. When you read these journals what you see is that these students barely have time study let alone explore critical thinking. Most work 30 or more hours a week because they have to have nice car or they won’t get the hot girlfriend. They have to have money to take the hot girlfriend to nice dinners because she wants to post pictures of their expensive outings on Myspace. These students are so stressed out, they can barely concentrate on one task at a time. They expect to have it all when they are going to college and a good job when they graduate.

When I went to college, people understood you were a starving student. You were spending your time studying. I don’t believe it is that way now, and it has nothing to do with education teaching critical thought. It has everything to do with our current culture and unrealistic expectations on behalf of our society.

In management classes they advised us to set aside one hour a day to do nothing but think. I personally believe it’s a good idea, but who has the time, and most employers are going to wonder why Bob is just sitting in his office not doing anything for an hour each day. When they start cutting back on personnel, Bob is going to be the first one who goes. I mean if he can do nothing for an hour everyday, he’s not doing his share, etc.

I guess what I'm saying, how can you foster critical thinking in a culture and society that doesn't provide an adequate framework and doesn't value or provide the time required to think.

[Sigaba]

I agree with the view held by cognitive psychologists and others that all forms of human behavior are skills and that all skills are learned.

It is my thought that critical thinking, like teaching, is a skill that can be viewed in two complimentary ways.

Critical thinking can be viewed as a domain of knowledge--a skill set--unto itself. This skill set can be applied to any situation.
Or, critical thinking can be viewed as a subset within a domain of knowledge--such as carpentry. In this configuration, the skill set can be applied to develop innovative solutions to existing problems or to develop solutions to novel problems.

[ZooKeeper]

I agree with the view held by cognitive psychologists and others that all forms of human behavior are skills and that all skills are learned.

It is my thought that critical thinking, like teaching, is a skill that can be viewed in two complimentary ways.

Critical thinking can be viewed as a domain of knowledge--a skill set--unto itself. This skill set can be applied to any situation.
Or, critical thinking can be viewed as a subset within a domain of knowledge--such as carpentry. In this configuration, the skill set can be applied to develop innovative solutions to existing problems or to develop solutions to novel problems.



I don't know that I believe all forms of human behavior are skills, as much as they are talent. You have to have talent before you can learn/acquire a skill. We all start out with different types and quantity of talent. Some people do not have the talent to learn the skill of critical thinking. I agree with what most have been getting at in this thread - that there are many more people who have the ability to learn how to think critically, but do not.

In hindsight, I can relate to what dennisw said about college students. Like many others at that stage in life, my priorities were not in line.

Great thread.

[Sigaba]

I don't know that I believe all forms of human behavior are skills, as much as they are talent. You have to have talent before you can learn/acquire a skill. We all start out with different types and quantity of talent. Some people do not have the talent to learn the skill of critical thinking. I agree with what most have been getting at in this thread - that there are many more people who have the ability to learn how to think critically, but do not.

In hindsight, I can relate to what dennisw said about college students. Like many others at that stage in life, my priorities were not in line.

Great thread.

ZooKeeper--

Sir, the cognitive psychologists address how the concept of 'talent' developed over the centuries in Western civilization. As it turns out, the concept of 'talent' was a product of religious and philosophical writing that is used to exert normative behavior on certain types of individuals and groups. For example, so extremely successful entrepreneurs will practice philanthropy. (FWIW, it took me a while to get my head around this interpretation. Fortunately, the professor teaching the class was patient.)

In contrast to the religious/philosophical interpretation, cognitive psychologists examined a number of skill to determine that it is
increasingly clear that individuals could dramatically increase their performance [through] education and training, if they had the necessary drive and motivation....[T]he evidence from systematic laboratory research on prodigies and savants provides no evidence for giftedness or innate talent but shows that exceptional abilities are acquired often under optimal environmental conditions.
These "optimal environmental conditions" include 'directed practice' in which skills are practiced for short intervals and in these sessions errors are corrected the moment they occur. In short, practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.*

The implications of this approach are that if a person has a sufficient level of motivation and has access to expert instruction, he or she can learn anything and, with enough time, become experts within a domain of knowledge.


_______________________________________
* K. Anders Ericsson and Neil Charness, “Expert Performance: Its Structure and Acquisition,” American Psychologist 49:8 (August 1994): 725-747; K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Th. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer, “ The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance,” Psychological Review 100:3 (1993): 363-406; Geoffrey R. Norman and Henk G. Scmidt, “The Psychological Basis of Problem-based Learning: A Review of the Evidence,” Academic Medicine 67:9 (September 1992):557-565 provide the information used in this post.

[GratefulCitizen]

Maybe our world is a souless world where the main deficiency is not the lack of critical thinking, but the lack of quality souls.

On target.

There is a major assumption in the original article that if people can think critically and understand more, they will make decisions which are better for the whole society.
I beg to differ with that assumption.

Having a society where everyone has greater knowledge and thinking skills may just make all of the individuals better at pursuing individual interests.
Increasing the power of a selfish person usually doesn't make them less selfish.

[ZooKeeper]

Sigaba - as always, I admire your wealth of knowledge. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that concept. I need to do more reading and thinking about this. ZK

[Sigaba]

Sigaba - as always, I admire your wealth of knowledge. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that concept. I need to do more reading and thinking about this. ZK

Sir--

Thank you. Once again, Google Desktop comes through.:lifter

For me, an upside to this approach to thinking about skill acquisition in this manner is that raises the possibility that we are surrounded by experts in our everyday lives. This possibility means that opportunities to learn how to learn and how to think critically surround us.:munchin

[bravo22b]

There is a major assumption in the original article that if people can think critically and understand more, they will make decisions which are better for the whole society.
I beg to differ with that assumption.

Having a society where everyone has greater knowledge and thinking skills may just make all of the individuals better at pursuing individual interests.
Increasing the power of a selfish person usually doesn't make them less selfish.

To argue this point is to debate the concept of Objectivism. I know that the mere mention of Ayn Rand raises the hackles of many, and I don't know that there is room in this thread for that debate. However, I would suggest that being "selfish" is not inherently bad, especially if one has critical thinking skills, and is able to make decisions that incorporate both the individual's needs, as well as the need for a stable society.

As far as the existence of "talent", I seem to remember reading an article much like the one Sigaba references. I think it was in Scientific American. It was certainly thought-provoking to consider that there may not be such a thing as "talent". I think I came away not entirely convinced that this is true, but feeling that talent may not be one particular thing, such as skill at playing the piano, as it is a set of innate skills that happen to complement each other, and are then reinforced by a learning environment that happens to favor a given talent. As a simplistic example, a "talented" piano player may be someone who happens to have a good ear (perfect pitch), as well as good manual dexterity, and grows up in a household where he/she is exposed to music at an early age, and has access to a piano. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but having tried to teach difficult skills to people in my trade, it's hard for me to believe that some people just don't have "it".

[GratefulCitizen]

if one...is able to make decisions that incorporate both the individual's needs, as well as the need for a stable society

I would suggest that being "selfish" is not inherently bad


If someone doesn't act selfish >> being selfish is not inherently bad.

This is begging the question.

[nmap]

Along the same line suggested by Sigaba, there is a brief item in the WSJ that suggests mastery of any skill requires about 10,000 hours of effort.

Of course, given the time constraints of the modern world, we seldom have so many hours to devote to anything, much less honing our intellectual skills.

LINK (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/leisure-arts.html)

Two recent business books concur, provided we drop that phrase "a little" from the supposition. The common thesis of "Outliers," by Malcolm Gladwell, and "Talent Is Overrated," by Geoff Colvin, is that super-high achievers are not fundamentally different from you and me, they just work harder and smarter.

Both books, for instance, debunk the myth that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a born supernatural. The musical works he composed as a child were not particularly good (and were suspiciously written in the hand of his father, Leopold, a well-known composer). Most of them, even into his late teens, were rearrangements of other composers' pieces. As for his precocious skills on stage, modern musicologists estimate that his abilities were actually only about half as advanced as those of a run-of-the-mill prodigy today.

So why the reputation as a boy genius? Because he did start early, at 3, under the expert tutelage of a father who was not only a gifted musician but also a specialist in the education of young talent. Leopold Mozart pushed his son to practice and perform nonstop, even though it was mostly drudgery, and gave him constant reliable feedback, as did audiences. By 21 Wolfgang was composing works that will live forever, but by that age he had been working diligently at the task for 18 years.

[Mitch]

When I retired from the army in 87, I went back to school – went to the University of North Texas to take Manufacturing Engineering.

That first semester, I had two memorable professors, who both taught in the same department. One was Dr. Foster – he was a by-the-book guy, very Type-A person. His class was full of information, full of canned exercises, full of detail – learned a lot of facts in his class – some I still remember today.

Dr. Dobson on the other hand was a strange type of guy – the first thing he told us was to forget the book. I found his methods bewildering – there was no structure – he rambled, he got off track and told stories, he seemed to actually change the syllabus from class to class.

But, bit by bit – Dr. Dobson started to sink in – his nonsense made us think – he didn’t care about facts one iota. Each week, he would give us a short list of questions that he wanted us to work on – I still remember some of them – for example:

“If a one-ounce ball falls from a 50 foot high roof into a 1-gallon bucket of water, how much warmer will the water get?”

Or – if you were to feed a hungry 200 lb pig a 1 lb potato and then send him running up the stairs of the Empire State Building – how high would the pig get before he got tired?

We had dozens of these (these I just happen to remember, I’ll see if I can find the others).

Dr. Dobson also taught us how to estimate things, and the value of looking at facts and quickly getting a useful answer; for example: Once, I was trying to calculate the shear strength of some materials that had been glued together (this was related to another class, not his). He quickly asked me the type of materials, the type of glue, and number of square inches of bonded surface area. And before I could show him my calculations, and the answer that I thought was correct (18,700 PSI), he quickly did the problem in his head (really) and said 20,000 PSI. When I claimed that the two answers were off a bit, he said: “You want correct answers, take a math class – this is engineering – get it close and add a little.” (We all remember P for Plenty!)

Between Dr. Foster & Dr. Dobson, who was the critical thinker? I don’t know, but I do know that Dr. Foster is still there today - 20 years later. Dr. Dobson lasted only 3 years - he was removed from the university because he refused to follow even his own syllabus. Dr. Dobson left and now lives on a mountain in New Mexico.

[frostfire]

Dobson also taught us how to estimate things, and the value of looking at facts and quickly getting a useful answer; for example: Once, I was trying to calculate the shear strength of some materials that had been glued together (this was related to another class, not his). He quickly asked me the type of materials, the type of glue, and number of square inches of bonded surface area. And before I could show him my calculations, and the answer that I thought was correct (18,700 PSI), he quickly did the problem in his head (really) and said 20,000 PSI. When I claimed that the two answers were off a bit, he said: “You want correct answers, take a math class – this is engineering – get it close and add a little.” (Do you remember P for Plenty?)
Between Dobson and Foster – who was the critical thinker? I don’t know, but I do know that Foster was successful in getting Dobson removed from the university because he refused to follow even his own syllabus. Dobson left and now lives on a mountain in New Mexico – as far as I know, Foster is still teaching from the same lesson plans he had 20 years ago.

He must have gone through many shearing charts. The skill to immediately see practical answer in the big picture and not get lost in the facts is one of the best thing I learned from engineering. Fudge factor, guesstimate, the "f word", usw. Thanks for the memories, Mitch :) Once an engineer, always an engineer.

More information and scenario are required to evaluate their critical thinking capacity and performance. However, one thing is clear to me: Dobson is the engineer, Foster is the academian

[Sigaba]

However, one thing is clear to me: Dobson is the engineer, Foster is the academian

Sir--or did Dobson understand the difference between teaching engineering and engineering?

[Mitch]

More information and scenario are required to evaluate their critical thinking capacity and performance. However, one thing is clear to me: Dobson is the engineer, Foster is the academian

You had them pegged - Dobson actually had just come to the University that same semester - he had been in industry and got laid off - so I guess he thought teaching might be somthing he could do. Foster, on the other hand had been in Industry for a while, but had jumped to the University about 10 years earlier.

I actually learned from both - Foster was a task master, was constantly making us write magazine reviews, short papers, and major term papers. His grading was tough on those (we could be weak on content) but the format and all citations had to be perfect.

Dobson taught us to think outside the box, to see things in practical ways. He also got about a dozen of us to enter the Solar Car Contest - we actually designed, built and entered a Solar Car into the 1990 Sunrayce Solar Car Challange - From Disneyworld to Detroit. We didn't come close to winning - but we did finish the race - that was a learning experiance. (Some of the results below - UNT was 18th out of the 31 who actually finished).


Position Team Total Elapsed Time
1st University of Michigan 72:50:47
2nd Western Washington University 74:10:06
3rd University of Maryland 80:10:55
4th California State University - Los Angeles 81:03:44
5th Crowder College, MO 81:06:18
6th Massachusetts Institute of Technology 84:17:37
7th Stanford University, CA 93:56:06
8th Western Michigan University-Jordan College 96:55:20
9th Colorado State University 97:55:06
10th California Polytechnic University-Pomona 99:05:57
11th Drexel University, PA 100:03:40
12th Rochester Institute of Technology, NY 104:21:18
13th Stark Technical College, OH 105:06:47
14th Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MA 106:34:60
15th Auburn University, AL 107:24:35
16th Mankato State University, MN 108:18:45
17th Iowa State University 109:08:29
18th University of North Texas 110:48:04
19th California State University-Northridge 110:49:57

[bailaviborita]

Bravo22b: I think a large part of what is loosely called "American ingenuity" is really just the freedom of those with the requisite talent to take the ball and run with it.

I agree with that- both critical thinking and competency IMO, have been rewarded in this country more than most. We'll see if that continues to be the case...

Dennisw: For arguments sake we say there is a God and his existence is a reality, but our critical thinking about global and national problems does not consider this parameter, within this context, is the result of critical thinking which ignores valuable or absolute parameters going to solve anything?

I struggle with whether critical thinking leaves one an agnostic, or whether critical thinkers can start from absolutes that they cannot prove/disprove and move on from there to attempt to understand complex problems in environments we can attempt to prove/disprove. In other words, a person who accepts a certain faith for no reason other than "intuition" or tradition- are they being critical about their underlying beliefs? I'm not sure.

As for "solving" anything- probably not. Most writers I've read say that you attempt to understand more, but you never solve- as critical thinkers. They say that critical thinking applies to complex problems- not problems like putting together a building, but problems that have to do more often that not with people. Semi-rational beings who react to their environment and learn and adapt.

Now- if you included the workers, future tenants, etc.- into your concept of building a skyscraper, then maybe THAT could be approached critically, but the engineering problem dealing with just the building itself doesn't seem to me to rise to the level that critical thinking is required. Definitely engineering knowledge- but not critical thinking- I'd argue.

Sigaba: I agree with the view held by cognitive psychologists and others that all forms of human behavior are skills and that all skills are learned.

It is my thought that critical thinking, like teaching, is a skill that can be viewed in two complimentary ways.
1. Critical thinking can be viewed as a domain of knowledge--a skill set--unto itself. This skill set can be applied to any situation.
2. Or, critical thinking can be viewed as a subset within a domain of knowledge--such as carpentry. In this configuration, the skill set can be applied to develop innovative solutions to existing problems or to develop solutions to novel problems.

A skill- or a way of thinking? I guess it depends on your definition of "skill". I'd argue "skills" can be learned on the job by doing something over and over. I can do the lay-up really well because I saw Dr. J do it on TV once and then I went to the gym and practiced it over and over. I am now an expert "lay-upper".

But different ways of approaching thinking is something that I would argue don't come naturally to humans- we aren't built that way. Critical thinking would require not only knowledge of how the world works and a large accumlution of factual knowledge (thus the requirement for both schooling and experience in the real world)- but then the exposure in an academic setting to the concepts behind critical thinking.

In sum- you can build skills through mostly repitition and a little education, new ways of thinking would require some basic knowledge, some experience, some education on the new approach to thinking, and then a ton of practice and continued self-education.

This would take you into systems thinking, Complexity Theory, Causality, and the like. The Army is actually starting to build this into Doctrine- they call it "Design", but it is still new and the applicability is an issue.

As for a subset of knowledge- I'd argue against labeling critical thinking in this way. I would take the position that a very competent carpenter can break down "novel" problems and be innovative- especially if they are creative. But, I've seen competent people usually do become creative WITHIN their realm of expertise- over time. The problem would be- if they don't apply the same type of thinking to other problems- then I would argue they aren't critical thinkers. In other words, if it is an approach to life, as opposed to an approach in a learned skill set (carpentry, for instance), then I wouldn't label it critical thinking.

To me critical thinking is best applied to a complex problem. One that it hard to define- much less recognize. If you struggle all day to figure out how to define a problem or set the boundaries of the problem- then you are perhaps dealing with a complex one that requires critical thinking.

I would argue that for most problems- critical thinking would be a waste of time or just an academic exercise. If you approached putting together a bicycle as a complex problem requiring critical thinking, you might spend a week just staring at your tools and materials wondering about the place of a bicycle in the greater universe in the first place. ;)

Mitch-

I agree with Frostfire- not enough information to figure out which was the critical thinker. Creativity is definitely needed to be a critical thinker- but is not sufficient. Likewise, discipline also has its place- but again, not sufficient. I would argue BOTH are needed at some point to be a critical thinker- maybe neither of these guys was. Flexibility is something that doesn't come natural to humans either- especially as we get older and set in our ways...

If anyone is really interested in where the Army is going with all this, check out this discussion on the Combined Arms Center's blog. If you are limited on time- focus on Chris Paparone's and "Pape's" postings- as well as LTG Caldwell's initial post. (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/why_i_serve/archive/2009/03/06/design-and-the-art-of-battle-command.aspx)

[bravo22b]

As for "solving" anything- probably not. Most writers I've read say that you attempt to understand more, but you never solve- as critical thinkers. They say that critical thinking applies to complex problems- not problems like putting together a building, but problems that have to do more often that not with people. Semi-rational beings who react to their environment and learn and adapt.

Now- if you included the workers, future tenants, etc.- into your concept of building a skyscraper, then maybe THAT could be approached critically, but the engineering problem dealing with just the building itself doesn't seem to me to rise to the level that critical thinking is required. Definitely engineering knowledge- but not critical thinking- I'd argue.

Fair enough - I may not be talking about critical thinking in terms of what may be a commonly accepted definition. In my defense, I've never studied philosophy or any related fields. I'm not even sure I was aware that there is a codified concept of "critical thinking".

However, when I read the previously posted outline below, to me, it reads like a checklist of how I've learned to solve problems.

- 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
- communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

Granted, not every problem requires such a rigorous exercise of thought to solve. In fact, I would argue that quickly identifying "red herring" avenues of inquiry is crucial to effective problem solving. I would also argue that identifying "unknowable unknowns" like "is there a God?" early on is essential so that those factors can be taken into account. I personally don't believe that by definition, lacking such a piece of information means you cannot reach a reasonable and well-thought out conclusion. However, you do have to keep in mind at all times throughout the process that you are missing that piece of information and allow flexibility in both the thought process and in the conclusion for the possibility that with new information you could change the outcome.

To me, this all seems pretty normal. Any good leader should be able to look at a complex problem objectively, take into account missing information, weigh the alternatives using both objective and abstract criteria, consider first and second order consequences, and pick a course of action without getting bogged down by spurious information, thought processes, or missing information (unless he/she deems that the missing information renders the decision useless).

Now, maybe I'm talking about a horse of another color. After all, I don't have a lot of higher education.;) But it seems to me that the same critical thinking skills apply whether you're debating the meaning of life, or planning how to build something where there are a lot of complex variables and both the finish product and the means you get there are completely up to you. I see a lot of first and second order consequences from bad thought processes almost every day.

[Surf n Turf]

Jumped in late.
Good thread, but I have not read any discussion on the subject of “logic” as a base for Critical thinking. Logic (as a Liberal Arts course) use to be taught in HS and University, as a basis to understand math (maybe it was the other way around). :D

I'm not even sure I was aware that there is a codified concept of "critical thinking".

bravo22b
Here is the definition I have.
“Critical thinking involves a knowledge of the science of logic, including the skills of logical analysis, correct reasoning, and understanding statistical methods. Critical thinking, however, involves more than just an understanding of logical procedures. A good critical thinker must also understand the sources of knowledge, the nature of knowledge, and the nature of truth.
Logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods, which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth.”
(Lost the source – sorry)


Foster was a task master
Dobson taught us to think outside the box

Mitch,
It must be that every engineer has both a Dr. Foster & Dr. Dobson in their past.
Thanks for the memories :)

SnT

[bailaviborita]

To me, this all seems pretty normal. Any good leader should be able to look at a complex problem objectively, take into account missing information, weigh the alternatives using both objective and abstract criteria, consider first and second order consequences, and pick a course of action without getting bogged down by spurious information, thought processes, or missing information (unless he/she deems that the missing information renders the decision useless).

I'd argue that most leaders don't look at complex problems critically. They use experience and intuition and jump to a response. How many times have you been on a planning staff and the general asks for opinions or differing opinions from the one that is briefed? (not many for me) How many times have superiors fostered a paradigmatic thought in the command that isn't questioned- ever? (lots for me). How many times have you heard of sacred cows for bosses that can't be touched? (lots for me)

In a hierarchy it takes a very confident and smart individual to risk allowing subordinates to weigh in on problems. The Army is changing- but I haven't seen all "good leaders" being able to do this.

Most of the time leaders I've seen are hip-shooters who have "been there, done that" more than most and therefore they know what to do 75% of the time. They are "good" in the sense that they care for their soldiers, would do anything for them, project a warrior attitude, are competent, and keep "higher" off everyone's asses. But you can still do all that and do little to understand the underlying problems of your AO- and guarantee that your unit will keep deploying to that AO for the foreseeable future.

[bravo22b]

I'd argue that most leaders don't look at complex problems critically. They use experience and intuition and jump to a response. How many times have you been on a planning staff and the general asks for opinions or differing opinions from the one that is briefed? (not many for me) How many times have superiors fostered a paradigmatic thought in the command that isn't questioned- ever? (lots for me). How many times have you heard of sacred cows for bosses that can't be touched? (lots for me)

In a hierarchy it takes a very confident and smart individual to risk allowing subordinates to weigh in on problems. The Army is changing- but I haven't seen all "good leaders" being able to do this.

Most of the time leaders I've seen are hip-shooters who have "been there, done that" more than most and therefore they know what to do 75% of the time. They are "good" in the sense that they care for their soldiers, would do anything for them, project a warrior attitude, are competent, and keep "higher" off everyone's asses. But you can still do all that and do little to understand the underlying problems of your AO- and guarantee that your unit will keep deploying to that AO for the foreseeable future.

As an 11B E-5, I don't get invited to many staff meetings. I knew there had to be some benefit to being an infantry NCO:D.

But seriously, I am in total agreement with you. That was kind of where I was going in my first post - there is a very small percentage of people who are applying critical thinking skills to their everyday jobs. Whether it is because they lack the training in the skill of critical thinking, or just lack the aptitude and disposition, I'm not sure. To get back to the original theme of the thread, having more education in critical thinking skills might be a advantage to those who have the aptitude but lack the skills, but will be wasted on whatever percentage of people won't use it anyway. I guess the same could be said for most education - trying to teach me calculus would be a complete waste of time.

As has been pointed out, it would be interestingly dangerous to see what the typical man on the street might do with some critical thinking skills. I doubt we'll ever get the chance to see. There are an awful lot of organizations of every type and stripe who have a large vested interest in not seeing a large society exercising too much independent thought.

Maybe the safest course would be just to teach it a little bit. Just enough to get the attention of those with the inclination to pick it up and try it, but not enough to arm the general public with a dangerous tool that they most likely will hurt themselves with.;)

Disclaimer: the above paragraph is mostly partly somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Or not.

[bravo22b]

Put differently, mechanical work has required me to cultivate different intellectual habits. Further, habits of mind have an ethical dimension that we don’t often think about. Good diagnosis requires attentiveness to the machine, almost a conversation with it, rather than assertiveness, as in the position papers produced on K Street. Cognitive psychologists speak of “metacognition,” which is the activity of stepping back and thinking about your own thinking. It is what you do when you stop for a moment in your pursuit of a solution, and wonder whether your understanding of the problem is adequate. The slap of worn-out pistons hitting their cylinders can sound a lot like loose valve tappets, so to be a good mechanic you have to be constantly open to the possibility that you may be mistaken. This is a virtue that is at once cognitive and moral. It seems to develop because the mechanic, if he is the sort who goes on to become good at it, internalizes the healthy functioning of the motorcycle as an object of passionate concern. How else can you explain the elation he gets when he identifies the root cause of some problem?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?hp

There is the possibility that I found it interesting mainly because I tend to agree with the author. YMMV.

[GratefulCitizen]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/beware_the_expert.html


The late French sociologist Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) is not exactly a household name. Yet this iconoclastic academic and veteran of the French Resistance predicted the current "cult of the expert" and its use as a means of directing public policy and silencing dissent.


In The Technological Society, Ellul discusses at length what he calls "technique" -- i.e., the social, political, and economic uses to which science and technology are put.


"Technique" aims to find "the one best means" of performing whatever the task at hand may be. This is the factory method of Henry Ford applied to politics and society. "If there is one best means of making a car," the reasoning goes, then "there must also be one best means of ruling a people."


This thinking is reflected in the cult of the expert, perhaps best exemplified by Woodrow Wilson's exaltation of abstract academic theories over common sense and experience. Wilson often bemoaned what he considered the less-than-salutary restrictions placed on the implementation of the ideas of "experts." Democracy was so inconvenient. Why should the elite have to bother explaining themselves to those hick yokels, who are neither intelligent nor enlightened enough to understand the wisdom of their betters?


Such moronic mouth-breathers should stop clinging so bitterly to their guns and faith and prepare to receive the latest Sermon on the Elitist Mount. Just smile and nod, Gomer. Then sit down and eat your low-fat, sodium-free, FDA-approved plate of crow, you flyover-country Rube.


Anyway, Ellul sees such "experts" as political "technicians," and he warns about the subversion of the democratic process (and of democracy itself) that accompanies their gradual rise to power.


Politicians are decision-makers. They control the levers of power. The trouble, according to Ellul, is that in an increasingly complex environment, they often don't know how to use them.


This is where the expert, the "technician," comes in. At the outset, the expert's role is merely to advise political leaders on how best to accomplish politicians' stated policy goals. The experts' role soon progresses to determining the "one best means" of accomplishing those goals. Finally, the expert technician decides on not merely the means of pursuing the "one best means," but also the policy goal toward which "the one best means" is directed. Once these experts have spoken, "the debate is over" (as our silver-tongued president is wont to say).


As the power of the technician waxes, that of the politician wanes, until he is little more than a rubber stamp.


Thereafter, differences of opinion are effectively banned. From the perspective of political technique and its practitioners, such dissent is nothing more than slander, lies, and deliberate distortion. The expression of differing opinions is dangerous, and it is thus no more justifiable than yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. Just as the Second Amendment is not a license to bring an AR-15 on a tour of the White House, neither does the First Amendment allow one to tell deliberate untruths about something that the experts "know" to be true.


This bizarre new form of anti-intellectualism is most clearly seen today in the global warming/climate change arena. The thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) demands obedience. The "consensus" of "experts" has coalesced around the ludicrous idea that the simple act of breathing, and thereby expelling CO2, can destroy the planet. Case closed.


Thus, there is no point in allowing further questions or debate. The experts have spoken. To put this in Ellul's terms, "the one best means" of avoiding a fantasy apocalypse has been settled. The plebeians need to sit down, shut up, and open their wallets in order to bring to fruition what Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed."


At this stage -- in which we currently find ourselves -- the technicians turn science against itself as part and parcel of a fascist enterprise that actively subverts and undermines the foundations of science itself. Once the basic (false) premise of "settled science" has been accepted, there is a certain perverse logic to it: "We already know the truth, so further discussion is not merely pointless; it is actively pernicious. All of those lying 'Denialists' are just trying to jiggle the lens of truth. The picture is clear, and they want to blur it. We must stop them. To let them continue to lie about the 'settled science' of AGW is to do a disservice to truth. After all, don't those who love the truth oppose liars?"


Thus, shutting down debate by any means necessary is actually a virtuous, truth-preserving act.


This is what the sublimely gifted Dr. Sowell calls "lying for the truth."


Although the leaders pushing the rickety wagon of AGW certainly knew that they were perpetrating and perpetuating a hoax, many otherwise decent people have been duped into accepting "lying for the truth" as a legitimate way of making their case. Straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and deliberately distorted data are made to seem every bit as justified as were the "fake but accurate" forged memos used by crotchety old Uncle Dan "Watermelon" Rather to impugn the military service of President George W. Bush.


The ends justify the means. The theory trumps the evidence.


Therein lies the danger of putting the collapsing cart of AGW before the "horse" of science. Once discussion ends, so does the accumulation of knowledge. Given that even the most brilliant and productive of scientific theories are nearly always found to be "wrong" in part (even Newton's and Einstein's), there is no justification for calling even the most universally agreed-upon science "settled." If it's science, then it's never truly settled; and if it's settled, it was never truly science.


Finally, then, what of Ellul's prognosis? Although generally pessimistic, he holds out some small hope that a generalized awareness of technique and its ubiquitous insertion of itself in all facets of human life could lead to a genuine revival of critical thought that would stop -- or at least slow -- the progress of technique.


It's a slim hope, perhaps, but better than none.


The good news is that millions of people worldwide have woken up to the scam and are fighting it. As Ellul would have predicated, we are also learning that this kind of academic malfeasance and skullduggery is too much the rule, not the exception.


We are thus morally obliged to be more than passive observers of the process. Science is too important to be left to "experts." We are called upon to be critical thinkers, independent minds, and informed debaters, not merely with respect to AGW, but more generally.


No matter the number of ad hominem assaults, regardless of how many slurs and smears are hurled by the self-appointed expert technicians in lab coats, no one has any claim on our minds, beliefs, or consciences, except through rational argument respectfully presented.

[Richard]

Yes, the public education system was not designed to educate people or to create critical thinkers, quite the opposite. It was designed off of the Prussian education system, which is designed to produce soldiers and employees, and was very effective at this.

Not entirely correct - the American public education system as we think of it was designed around (not entirely upon) the needs of modern industrial society and its working classes, and upon the tenets of (1) an educated populace being of importance to a free society, (2) the modern (at that time) principles of scientific thinking in efficiency modeling, and (3) that education should be based on the child’s psychological and physical development, as well as the world outside the schoolroom (what we refer to today as 'child centered' learning).

Remember - psycho-educational testing came into play in the early 20th Century and there were a variety of types of high schools created based on this testing of students - generally falling into the categories of classical (general and higher ed prep), normal (which generally meant a focus on subjects related to the professions of nursing, teaching, business administration), and industrial/vocational/vo-tech/technical (basic and specialized skills for industry, agriculture, etc).

There was a good series run on the issues about a decade ago called "School: The Story of American Public Education" -

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/index.html

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[akv]

This is a very interesting discussion. My question is to what extent do experts in a field rely on critical thinking vs. instinct to make a decision? Gary Klein wrote a book about case studies of folks who had to make quick high stress decisions for a living, ( fire chiefs, ER docs, and of course soldiers.) He seemed to believe experts based on their experience can imagine and make forecasts for their environment, instead of choosing between best of three choices as a novice might do, their brain has automatically tossed out lesser options and they just see the solution. Experience isn't everything, as Trevanian said, " there is a difference between 20 years of experience, and the same year of experience 20 times", however critical thinking that emphasizes logic in the absence of imagination may not be the way experts think.

For example ret. USMC General Van Riper recalled a situation in Vietnam where his men ambushed an enemy unit. The enemy retreated quickly, and his platoon commanders reported several long sticks spread across the area. Van Riper had his men search the surrounding area for rockets, since his mind based on his experience imagined the following scenario. He knew the enemy carried rockets and mortars via wooden poles, they had retreated quickly leaving the poles, so they must have dumped the rockets nearby. His men found quite a cache of rockets and shells, and wondered how he knew. A computer has no imagination, it can only see what you tell it to look for, and in life very few situations repeat exactly, an expert in any field can use experience and imagination to adapt to emerging circumstances using instinct instead of choosing between linear choices based on some formula.

I read somewhere, " Young lawyers know the Law, Old lawyers know the exceptions"

[GratefulCitizen]

Are economics, personal finance, and methods of investment taught in our public schools?

If not, why?
:munchin

[craigepo]

Are economics, personal finance, and methods of investment taught in our public schools?

If not, why?
:munchin

Our local schools teach checkbook balancing. That's it.

No economics taught whatsoever. Kind of funny to think of what might happen if we mandated that all high school students graduate with at least a rudimentary knowledge of markets, supply-and-demand, etc.

I wonder what effect such classes would have on the voting electorate?

[Richard]

Are economics, personal finance, and methods of investment taught in our public schools?

They are in Texas - most high schools also have their students play one of the stock market investing games during their semster-length economics class. We also had bankers, investment advisors, IRS agents, and personal financial advisors come in and speak to our students, as well as taking them to the federal reserve bank here in Dallas for an orientation and tour.

Richard

[dennisw]

Are economics, personal finance, and methods of investment taught in our public schools?

Does anyone understand them? :D My economics professor in college said you could line up all the economists in a row and they still would not reach a conclusion.

Seriously, I believe they should teach these subjects in high school, especially time value of money. Also, I think they should have similar classes in the Army. I've often thought about approaching the Army with a program which could provide soldiers with a better understanding of personal finance and financial planning. It would be fun.

[GratefulCitizen]

Does anyone understand them? :D My economics professor in college said you could line up all the economists in a row and they still would not reach a conclusion.


Economics:
The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today.:D

(from despair.com)

[Richard]

Economics:
The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today.

And here I was thinking that was the definiton for weather forecasting - you learn something new every day around here. ;)

Richard

[98G]

JMO and experience as a high school principal - many schools actually do teach critical thinking skills - however, not everyone in high school or even college are developmentally ready or capable of such higher levels of thinking and the productive synthesis of information/data - honors classes do a good job of teaching critical thinking; AP classes, which are highly structured, do not but are often presented or perceived as doing so - and then there are the on-going norms of the teenagers themselves...disinterest, diverted interest, self-interest, etc...which dramatically affect any attempts at teaching and engaging students at any of the higher levels of thinking.


When I was young, one of my clearest memories was watching the evening news with my father. We were watching the Kent State incident and my father turned to me -- all of 8 years old -- and said, "The guardsmen did the right thing." I dutifully agreed and he said, "No, you disagree. Why?" It took me a few confused tries to agree before I understood that I was to debate his point of view -- and do so well. (My father was retired Army with a shoebox full of medals of valor (DSC, SS BS's, PH's) under his bed -- not an academic.)

It became our ritual every evening. One evening explaining the logic of one side of an argument and the following night, the opposite. In all of them, the arguments had to be my own and provide some unique insight. It could be brutal on occasion but it certainly caused me to think, not just spout any party's line.

So I guess an 8 year-old has less outside influences and may get the point easier than a high school student discovering an expanding world or an adult who has already decided how to find the arguments and points of view that support their own. For those with young children, you might consider how they learn to think. They will know your opinions, but not really how you came to them. Something to consider, IMHO.

Thank you, Dad and rest in peace!

[ZonieDiver]

Are economics, personal finance, and methods of investment taught in our public schools?

If not, why?
:munchin

I try daily to teach my students these things. First and foremost, I try to teach them how a market system works, so they can determine when "other things" intervene and alter the market.

However, it is an uphill battle against teachers, such as my "colleague" who "balances" Keith Olberman by showing Chris Matthews. She also asked me about "Credit Default Swaps" and stopped me when the answer took more than 60 seconds... asking, "Just tell me, in a minute or less, why AIG is 'the bad guys.'"

Long ago, "we" gave up education to the forces on the left. We are now reaping the whirlwind...

[Scimitar]

As emotional and unreasoning the Christian faith can be at times (and has been many times) this scripture redeems my faith in the Almighty.

After ranting thru the prophet Isaiah about how damn frustrating it is to work with the rebellious children of Israel He says "Come now, let us reason together"

Says it all really…

Scimitar