Been meaning to put something out on this subject for some time. It was more challenging than expected.
Thought- critical or otherwise- is a developmental process behind what drives local, regional, national and global activities. And thought drives dialogue (at least one would hope, although evidence shows there is plenty of dialogue lacking any thought). Education, politics, foreign affairs, legal/judicial, media, investing and history are some of the major venues for thought and dialogue. And most of these subjects are intertwined.
I’m trusting you will generally agree with the above paragraph. I just made it up.
What is critical thinking? I consume a considerable amount of written/recorded content from a variety of sources. That doesn’t make me an expert on anything, but it presses me to contemplate the accuracy/truthfulness of what’s being taken in. In my view, critical thinking requires an individual or group to absorb more than a cursory amount of information on a subject (accurate or not), ask relevant questions, and sort out what is truthful before reaching an (unbiased) conclusion, opinion, or decision. If there are two or more sides to a subject or an issue, one must absorb information on all sides. Critical thinking also requires consideration of newly available information on a subject to be evaluated. A critical thinker must be capable of changing his/her mind on a subject if new information warrants. As an oversimplified example, if an individual thinks sports team A is better than sports team B, but then team B decisively beats team A, then one must at least consider the possibility that team B is better than team A.
For this post I’m not so concerned about articulating or regurgitating a comprehensive definition for critical thinking. The above paragraph was put together from a number of resources. I’m much more interested in making some quality points to ponder on the subject. Here are some initial points:
- You can entertain or consider a thought, an opinion, or content without accepting it as accurate/truthful.
- Determining whether content is accurate/truthful can be difficult. It can also be subjective. Much of the major media community is obsessed with “fact checking” content. That’s a noble initiative, but If the fact checking source is biased, chances are good that their evaluation process may be flawed. Better to keep looking beyond self-proclaimed fact checkers in your search for accuracy/truth.
- Can two or more people consume the exact same content on a subject, go through a valid critical thought process (whatever that may be), and come away with two separate conclusions or opinions? I feel quite certain the answer is yes without offering any evidence.
Here’s a politically-related example to demonstrate why critical thinking is important, regardless of whether you are retired or not. Much of the U.S. population understands that a quick way for a politician to lose an election is to bring up the subject of reforming Social Security (SS), that all-important program which so many believe will be their only hope for funding retirement. When a candidate mentions “reforming SS”, often the opposition will accuse the candidate of wanting to cut SS benefits, with no supporting discussion, debate, or dialogue. The opposition simply says “I will never touch SS” (which is a far more irresponsible comment). Unfortunately too many voters run to the “never touch SS” position without even asking the most basic of questions- is the SS program in need of reform?
The answer is yes. As of 2021, the SS program is no longer self sustaining (a simple explanation of the program’s status- which I have concluded is accurate- is provided below). While those of us already receiving SS certainly feel that we’ve paid our fair share into the program, ignoring the issue will not solve the SS problems we will ALL face in the next 10-12 years…the current recipients, our children, and our grandchildren. Thus, we need to use a little critical thinking to understand the related issues and force politicians to address them now, not 10 years from now.
The purpose of this post is not to propose solutions to the U.S. Social Security System, but rather to encourage the application of individual critical thought on the subject and then participate in developing the solution- which may be as simple as voting.
Enough on Social Security. Hopefully you’re still with me…..
On Politics. This is one field where critical thought is so important, yet so lacking. While it’s not accurate to equally apply the below comments over local, regional, and national politics, examples can be found at each level: so much emphasis is placed on media sound bites that “pop”, meaningless talking points, or “gotcha” responses to loaded public questions. These make great headlines, but fail to contribute to any critical thinking process. Realistically there are too many political subjects for an individual to effectively apply critical thinking in the days/weeks leading up to elections. Unrealistic promises from candidates are easy to make and difficult to evaluate. The solution is to stay well-informed on related subjects year in and year out, so one can tell when a politician is making comments to either a.) sound good, b.) avoid the question/subject or c.) provide a meaningful response addressing the subject. In my opinion, it’s a mistake to depend on the media to provide accurate, quality, in-depth content on candidate positions during election seasons- it’s too easy to craft inaccurate positions (see section below on media). It’s equally important to understand how politicians act while serving, so one can determine whether the politicians’ actions in office match pre-election promises.
- Nationalism. Here’s an interesting two-sided coin for consideration. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nationalism as “Loyalty and devotion to a nation: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” The first part of that definition can be noble. The second part can be used by politicians/governments/media to bypass any part of the critical thought process when it comes to foreign affairs.
Debate, whether in politics, academia, or other arenas, can encourage critical thought as it is designed to compare sides of a subject. A good debate instructor teaches how to present each side of the subject by using available content to argue for/against specific points. It’s still up to the audience to determine truth from non-truth, but at least relevant content should be out for consideration. Unfortunately for politics, unless a debate is focused on a specific subject, the dialogue normally degrades quickly to interruptions, personal attacks, or empty sound bites. I haven’t seen many televised debates that do justice to the debate process.
The courtroom is another forum for debate requiring critical thought by judge and/or jury. The subject at hand is more focused, and the judicial format is set up to evaluate content in search of truth. Now if only we could set up political debates like the courtroom.
Media– It’s difficult to identify every media entity, but it certainly includes radio and television, social media and other internet forums, and print media.
Did you know there is a Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) with an SPJ Code of Ethics? Reporters who share news via television, radio, or online video or audio are broadcast journalists. From their Preamble, “Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.” The SPJ identifies four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and transparent.
Hmmm. Something’s not working, at least among major news outlets.
Multiple books have been written about media bias. I feel confident that even the most detached observer would detect clear bias when observing most media outlets. My point is not to focus on the degree of media bias, but rather to highlight how difficult it is to determine truth/accuracy from major media sources. Simply put, most media sources aren’t going to make the time or effort to accurately present all sides of an issue.
A couple of “enemies” of critical thinking:
- Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group’s desire for harmony or conformity leads to irrational or suboptimal decisions (an AI definition).
- Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values (from Wikipedia).
So we’re sort of all over the place on the subject, with so much more to it. There are so many other venues where critical thinking- or lack thereof- plays an important role and deserves their own posts. I’ve already started a separate post on teaching critical thought….
Wow, this was a long one. And it’s probably the very definition of “just scratching the surface” of a subject.