Critical Matter

[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

[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.

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.

[ZooKeeper]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ZooKeeper

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]

Originally Posted by dennisw

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Sir--

Thank you. Once again, Google Desktop comes through.

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.

[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".