Critical Thinking and Public Discourse

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one's own, or one's groups', vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on , among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition:

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or

problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking

by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and

imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result:

A well cultivated critical thinker:

* raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and

precisely;

* gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to

interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;

* thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,

recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and

* communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml

[Heracles 417]

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one's own, or one's groups', vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on , among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition:

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or

problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking

by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and

imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result:

A well cultivated critical thinker:

* raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and

precisely;

* gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to

interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;

* thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,

recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and

* communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml

It is interesting to see you post this Steve as this is something I personally believe is not a strong characteristic of American politics. This type of thinking involves reasoning, emotionless logic and practicality. As stated it involves figuring out solutions and communicating with others.

Maybe it is just my experience but I have found that every single democrat I have meet absolutely refuses to listen to or budge on any issue. Whereas I can have a disagreement with someone on the right and we can sit down, listen to each other and try to understand the other persons views.

[PlatyPius 5]

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

By the definition given in the article; Critical Thinking = Having no opinions of your own. The odds of Earth becoming a Vulcan paradise, where Mr. Spock could engage in an orgy of logic, is just about nil. Nor would I want it that way. Although I may hate someone's opinion on something, and think that it's a very stupid opinion, I'd still rather have things the way they are....where humans are human and think with their brains AND their hearts.

These guys want us to "overcome" our "native" egocentrism and sociocentrism. They can go screw monkeys, for all I care. If I don't watch out for myself, who the hell will?

Sociocentrism is bad now too, eh? "Oriented toward one's own social group". Wow! What a crime! Of course, the second definition adds the superiority thing. Adding the second definition, it seems obvious that all team-related sports must be outlawed. No more football, baseball, soccer, basketball..... After all, what sports team doesn't think it's the best?

All it adds up to is a couple of guys writing a bunch of stuff that made them feel smart and superior to us "low-mind" people who have opinions. It is read by those who want to feel smart, but lack the necessary grey matter to ever progress beyond 2x=5.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

Edited September 19, 2006 by erekose

[PlatyPius 5]

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree with erekose.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree with erekose.

It's not that controversial a subject. In fact, I've been quite consistent on it - I believe.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

By the definition given in the article; Critical Thinking = Having no opinions of your own. The odds of Earth becoming a Vulcan paradise, where Mr. Spock could engage in an orgy of logic, is just about nil. Nor would I want it that way. Although I may hate someone's opinion on something, and think that it's a very stupid opinion, I'd still rather have things the way they are....where humans are human and think with their brains AND their hearts.

These guys want us to "overcome" our "native" egocentrism and sociocentrism. They can go screw monkeys, for all I care. If I don't watch out for myself, who the hell will?

Sociocentrism is bad now too, eh? "Oriented toward one's own social group". Wow! What a crime! Of course, the second definition adds the superiority thing. Adding the second definition, it seems obvious that all team-related sports must be outlawed. No more football, baseball, soccer, basketball..... After all, what sports team doesn't think it's the best?

All it adds up to is a couple of guys writing a bunch of stuff that made them feel smart and superior to us "low-mind" people who have opinions. It is read by those who want to feel smart, but lack the necessary grey matter to ever progress beyond 2x=5.

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

[mmmbop1976 1]

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

[homesick_american 1]

It is interesting to see you post this Steve as this is something I personally believe is not a strong characteristic of American politics. This type of thinking involves reasoning, emotionless logic and practicality. As stated it involves figuring out solutions and communicating with others.

Maybe it is just my experience but I have found that every single democrat I have meet absolutely refuses to listen to or budge on any issue. Whereas I can have a disagreement with someone on the right and we can sit down, listen to each other and try to understand the other persons views.

Infidel...in my experience this is not something that is a strong characteristic of politics *anywhere*. Just check out French politics sometime. If you think Congress looks like a playground...well... They're a bit bitchy and hair-pully in Paris. That's all I'll say.

As for Parliament and Prime Minister's Questions here in the UK...it reminds me of a playground mud fight. It's all about scoring points, has nothing to do with reasoning or logic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for Parliament and Prime Minister's Questions here in the UK...it reminds me of a playground mud fight. It's all about scoring points, has nothing to do with reasoning or logic.

Politicians in Britain are not any less dishonest or corrupt than those anywhere else - the difference is that they have a much more direct relationship with the public. You ever see a frontline politician being interviewed by the likes of Jeremy Paxman, or John Humphrys - they simply can't get away with the sort of partisan soundbiting that GWB seems to fall back on a regular basis. They are asked hard questions that require them to engage with the issues and its extremely obvious (and mercilessly pounced upon - rightly so IMO) when they can't do that, or simply don't know what they're talking about.

I showed my wife's parents the edition of Question Time that aired before the general election - when they had all the major candidates in front of an unscripted audience of the general public. They got seriously grilled - not like George Bush who was able stammered, brainfarted as said "the other guy can't lead". My wife's parents were quite shocked at the aggressiveness of the debate...

[PsychoKat 0]

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

Can I tack onto what you said that taking a more expansive view of the situations surrounding one is also important. People have a tendency to get tunnel vision about things especially when the media gets their hands on it.

I think this comes from all the years I spent as an analytical technician....sure enough the one time you didn't look at all aspects of something you'd have a problem.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is a point there, if you consider how easily very many people these days are swayed by slogans and party political soundbites, in absence of all the information that is out there and that they have access to. There's a certain element of laziness there, that many choose to either ignore political issues entirely (and care more about vacuous rubbish like American Idol) while leaving it to so-called "primary definers" to do it for them. Hence GWB can say "What I am doing is legal" when that isn't really the case. Politicians on both sides RELY on the electorate being ignorant of the facts.

The people mindlessly banging their plastic flip flops in the 2004 election being a pertinent example of this. There was a lot of criticise Kerry on, but a great many people merely swallowed that "flip flop" b/s - completely regardless of the fact that he hadn't actually done anything particularly different to almost every other politician. Look hard enough and you could probably find some voting disparities between GWB's record as Governor Vs. President - his "Futile Care Bill" contrasts greatly with his stance of so-called "culture of life" issues.

One criticism I have of the media here, for example, is why journalists don't seem to put the really tough questions to politicians. Hence they can get away with spewing out stale party political soundbites which add nothing to the discourse on a particular issue.

Can I tack onto what you said that taking a more expansive view of the situations surrounding one is also important. People have a tendency to get tunnel vision about things especially when the media gets their hands on it.

I think this comes from all the years I spent as an analytical technician....sure enough the one time you didn't look at all aspects of something you'd have a problem.

Exactly - when you rely on the news media, when something goes "off air" there's a tendency to think that story is over. Best example of that is the Iraq war - massive coverage during the major hostilities, virtually nothing afterwards. Now its over we're hearing a lot of stuff that the country is on the verge of civil war, but from the way its presented in the news you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a "fight in a sandpit". Same deal with Afghanistan - fighting is still going on, but it's apparently lost "newsworthiness".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think they meant that we should deny our social ties or influences, but that we make ourselves aware of them and how they influence our perceptions. It's easy to become fixed to a perception of something and callous about exploring a different perception. Same thing with egocentrism - everyone has their own perception of reality - a version of reality. The human tendency is to mistake that version of reality for being 'The Reality'.

in reference to becoming fixed to a perception and callous about exploring a different perception..you mean something like how you're so sure that the economy sucks, that even though almost all economic indicators are positive, even though the average poverty rate under pres bush is lower than the average poverty rate under pres clinton, still you're not able to entertain the thought that maybe the economy is not so bad after all, you are fixed to the perception that the economy sucks and callous about exploring a different perception.

Forming an opinion is not the problem....mmmmbop, it's when you adhere to that opinion rigidly. I'd love to debate the economy with you...in another thread.

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." ~ Mark Twain

[homesick_american 1]

As for Parliament and Prime Minister's Questions here in the UK...it reminds me of a playground mud fight. It's all about scoring points, has nothing to do with reasoning or logic.

Politicians in Britain are not any less dishonest or corrupt than those anywhere else - the difference is that they have a much more direct relationship with the public. You ever see a frontline politician being interviewed by the likes of Jeremy Paxman, or John Humphrys - they simply can't get away with the sort of partisan soundbiting that GWB seems to fall back on a regular basis. They are asked hard questions that require them to engage with the issues and its extremely obvious (and mercilessly pounced upon - rightly so IMO) when they can't do that, or simply don't know what they're talking about.

I showed my wife's parents the edition of Question Time that aired before the general election - when they had all the major candidates in front of an unscripted audience of the general public. They got seriously grilled - not like George Bush who was able stammered, brainfarted as said "the other guy can't lead". My wife's parents were quite shocked at the aggressiveness of the debate...

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno, I wouldn't call Jeremy Paxman a difficult interviewer. When he has a subject who is getting evasive, he simply asks the same question over and over because being rude and pushy is his schtick. I've seen starf*cker interviewers on TV in the UK too. Paxman is famous for being an #######.

Yes he is - but that's the point I think. What's the point of having someone on your show if they're not going to answer questions?