But, how do I decide?

But, how do I decide?

For a 12 to 18 years period from the age of 6 to our mid twenties we have lived constantly in an educational system wherein we seldom if ever learned to function intellectually independent of outside direction. We have never learned how to learn!

How is it possible for such an individual to develop the internal processes (bootstrap) that allow him or her to become an independent critically self-conscious thinker? Bootstrap is defined as: designed to function independently of outside direction—capable of using one internal function or process to control another.

Like the PC setting in front of us we seem to have an automatic default position. Our default position is ‘reject’ when encountering any idea that does not fit in our already learned patterns and algorithms.

Somehow the individual must find a way to change that default position from ‘reject’ to ‘examine critically’. Of course—how do we every not reject this message?

These following definitions come from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/.../glossary.shtml

critical listening: A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying. By understanding the logic of human communication-that everything spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has implications, etc.-critical thinkers can listen so as to enter sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought, intellectual empathy.

critical person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking.

critical reading: Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text, to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought.

critical society: A society which rewards adherence to the values of critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to imagine a society in which independent critical thought became embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly formulated the ideal:
The critical habit of thought, if usual in a 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 and are never deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. 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. (Folkways, 1906)
Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge.

critical thinking:
1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking.
2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities.
3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish" or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought, domains of thought, intellectual virtues.

critical writing: To express ourselves in language requires that we arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of language.

Good question. The only answer I can offer is there is no easy way. Developing any skill can take a very long time. I don't know if one every has truly independent and critical thought. Essentially what you want to do is overcome human nature, and that's more of an evolutionary question. Sitting here thinking about it, one would have to essentially be isolated from large groups in order to ever develop really independent thought.

Thank's much for the post.

It takes an ability to admit when you're wrong, a willingness to admit it and accept the pain that noone's perfect (not even people with PHDs ), and a motivation to go back and update your knowledge in order to avoid repeating mistakes.

People inevitably make mistakes, but this also means people will inevitably have opportunities to learn from them in the process. The more proficient you become at noticing and correcting them (which is not weakness - confidence is fine, but overconfidence to the point of remaining in error, doesn't improve anything), then less time you waste making them.

You also have to realize others aren't perfect either and reality is about uncertainty and differences, and the challenges these create. It's just as important to know when 1 + 1 is not 2, as it is to know when it is 2.

Nature didn't give us thick hides, claws, or an ability to chase down antelope, build a burrow home in an hour or fly. Human children require more attention and protection for longer than most other young in nature, but ultimate, we have fewer limits with a versatile mind able to compensate for these and more. There are few physical limits, most things are instead mental challenges and you have to be willing to recognize the failures that occur along the way and truly desire not to repeat them ... over time you'll gain an ability to control your circumstances intentionally and making "mistakes" becomes more of a conscious choice to take risks.

I agree that our educational system is too much rote learning and not enough about rationalization and mental processes. We give children some formulas or tables in order to make them appear to be understanding something deeper, but we don't give them the tools to construct these things for themselves or be able to use them much beyond the confines of the classroom or specialized occupations. Many times it's better to teach by asking questions and letting people learn to answer things for themselves, but truly public education was never designed for that intent, but instead was created to provide a uniform knowledge base.

It's interesting to know that, at least in the U.S. children do well in education, relative to other countries, until they get out of elementary school and then gradually fall further behind after that. I believe this is because parents can generally remain involved throughout earlier years, but that education becomes more purely institutionalized after that. The public education system was created to give a uniform base of knowledge, but this has always been susceptible to problems because it places the education of the next generation of voters in the hands of government so obviously biases arise and those in charge of this don't have the same level of interest in the individual welfare of each child as much as the parents themselves do, yet we have a system that inhibits competition in education by taking resources from people (who may not even have children) that could be used for alternative forms of education, and it doesn't matter whether or not you desire to use the public system, you pay for it.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Aug 6 2006, 02:54 PM

I disagree violently. What I suggest is well within human capacity. It very well may be that we haven't the will and the character to do it.

Hmm. Don't quite agree with you there. On the contrary, I think it's natural human nature to think critically and independently. I remember when I was really little (and I'm sure most of you can relate to this) and always asking "why"? No answer anyone said could satisfy- it just led to a number of other questions. Little kids are always wondering about the world and using their own experiences to come up with conclusions that make sense to them. Unfortunately, as we grow older, I think that some of this independent thinking and wonder is lost to us as we become immersed in the modern culture that constantly surrounds us and tries to force ideas into our heads. Most of us may become illusioned for a few years (I know I did) but eventually we reach the point where we are able to step back and look at situations as a whole. I think evolution is greatly in favor of that; if there are more people who stand out of the group, there will be a better chance that some of them are "more fit" to survive than others. Evolution always supports diversity.

I agree that education is based to much on learning facts and not enough on actual thinking (basically what StevenA said), however I do think that we have learned "how to learn" at least somewhat. I think we'll always want to improve ourselves and want to think more critically and independently. But I think that we all learn, at an early age, about the wonder and mystery of the world, and with that comes the desire to learn more about it. If you have ever read a book about a topic that was interesting to you, you have learned how to learn about that topic. We can teach ourselves about virtually any subject by reading a book or searching online. Knowledge like this combined with experience is the only way to become a critical thinker. When you read something, if you have heard about the topic before or can relate to something in the piece, you will begin to connect things you read with what you know. This raises questions and supplements your reading, while allowing you to gain more out of it. If you are always open to learning more, one day you will realize that you have become a "critical thinker".

Vanadesse

Let us agree that everyone is a critical thinker. Thus to talk coherently about critical thinking we must create levels of critical thinking. The following are the three levels of critical thinking I suggest;

1) Reagan level--trust but verify
2) Logical level--reached after study of the principles of rational thinking, we might call this Logic 101 as the equivalent of the first level of college logic.
3) CT (Critical Thinking)--Logical level plus the study of the inherent irrational tendencies plus proper character for good judgment.

Ditto. You "mostly" beat me to stating my views.

This post has been edited by bang4thebuck on Aug 8 2006, 09:10 PM

So what exactly is your question again? How the third level of critical thinking can be reached?

Coberst,

Can you define the bolded please

Does one need good character for good judgement?
Are you saying principles, i.e. following/accepting of ration/logic/truth, integrity, honesty, discernment etc?

Benevolent quest I must admit.

Thanks.

Read 'Propaganda' by Jacques Ellul if you can get ahold of a copy and you'll see what I'm talking about. Potential is useless unless you can tap into it. Be it biological or social, at the current moment most of man has not reached the point of true critical thinking.

This post has been edited by oomchu on Aug 8 2006, 11:43 PM

People on here are always asking "Why?" Unfortunately some of them think that well proven laws and theories are incorrect, while they, with little or no training, see the truth of the matter. It is in human nature to ask "Why?", but the flip side is it is also in human nature to conjure up false answers. I've seen people do this, I 've done it. I'm sure I'm not the the first nor will I be the last. As far as standing out from a group, most people will not stand out from the group. Many will say they do in order to present a "fashionable" image. If people were ready as a whole to learn to think, they it would be happening. Of course, maybe it is and I'm just not aware of it.

You're right - there are many people here who simply make up false answers and refuse to accept any other explanation. These people have failed to come to the realization that I think (and hope) most of us have come to: that we are ignorant. No one knows everything. These people have started off on the right track, by realizing that they don't know something and asking a question about it. After they have recieved answers, they try to reach a conclusion based on what they learn. It is, as you have stated, human nature to do this, and I think that it is perfectly okay. We all do this every day - we read the news in the morning, we conclude that wars are bad, we conclude that wars should stop, we conclude that some presidents are not very smart, etc. Making conclusions based on factual information is okay. What is NOT okay, however, is stating your conclusion as fact and ignoring anyone who tells you it is wrong. Those people are missing the crucial piece of information that tells them that they have no idea what they are talking about. I believe that these kind of people are a minority (although there are many people who make claims based on untrue things, in general they have the ability to learn new information and realize they are wrong). At least I hope so. As for standing out from a group, I didn't mean that they necessarily have to act or dress differently than anyone else, just that they stop and look at the situation as a whole before they go along with a popular idea or way of thinking. Sometimes they will conclude that it is a good idea; sometimes their knowledge will tell them that it isn't. I agree with you that there aren't enough people doing this. I think that if we could teach kids how to think when they are in school (or at least teach it better), we would have a lot less problems in the world.

*vanadesse,

I believe and have experienced the majority instead here.

I believe its NOT to be rectified through teaching but by embedding, portraying and exhibiting through self approval and self utilisation in our (the elders) life firstly, and then to be incorporated into teaching.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by bang4thebuck on Aug 9 2006, 02:16 AM

Yes. Precisely. Thank you.

bangforthebuck

If one studies and becomes very good at making good judgments and then uses that expertise for doing bad stuff then little is gained, in fact much is lost. Without learning to be a fairminded and ethical person the sword is turned against that what we wish to accomplish.