Critical Matter

[Richard]

Thoughts?

Richard's $.02

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

...... 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 )

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]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

......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]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

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.

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). 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]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?"

[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.