Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

[coberst]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I agree with much of what you say, except this line:



Explain how you know that most of us hav not examined the 'memes' we live by?

Observation, reading, and judgment leads me to conclude that very few people are Critical Thinkers and one generally must be a Critical Thinker to continually analyze the meanings that we live by.

Critical Thinking: Art and science of good judgment

The first step toward solving our problems is to learn CT (Critical Thinking).

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.






Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquir...5/weinste.html

http://www.criticalthinking.org/reso...glossary.shtml

http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/pas...g03&sID=eslava

[Shawnee123]

When do we get some kool-aid?

[Undertoad]

Note that this is not a reply but another piece that he has posted elsewhere.

[DanaC]

Okay. I think I get what you're talking about now, coberst. I thought you were talking about critical thinking, as opposed to Critical Thinking. I was immediately aggravated by the implied suggestion that your audience (i.e us) do not engage in critical thinking. If what you're talking about is a particular disipline, that's a different matter altogether.

The thing is, this place is chock-full of dwellars questioning and mulling over some very deep (and some deeply trivial) matters. I don't think 'Critical Thinking' need be taught as such in order to learn how to think critically. Many (most) of the people that I engage with most closely, are what I would term 'critical thinkers'.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Note that this is not a reply but another piece that he has posted elsewhere.

Since we're not self-actualized critical self-CT motivated actualization-selves, the same reply applies to all of us. Our new, repetitive overlord (whom I welcome) is hosting a meta-seminar for the ignorant masses.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you respond to this guy he'll just keep going. This one is posted on roughly 25 other forums. By my judgment he gets one more thread to post before banning, unless he becomes more conversational and involved. Let's hope it's a good one.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Let me add that I desperately bought the hook this time and was ready to talk about it. But then I thought better: an uninvolved user doesn't get to set our agenda, that's my thinking.

He doesn't get to squirt his stuff all over the net just because he CAN.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But the responses, and drift, has been interesting, without his dialog. Are they worse than Flint or LJ's stir up shit threads?

Yes, they are worse.

Coberst is a one trick pony (to use a phrase that you've used after banning a spammer). Usually it's a commercial trick; however, there are non-commercial tricks as well. The methods and goals are the same in that they are a unilateral major imposition.

I could do the same (e.g. hype my favorite singer in the Entertainment forum by starting thread after thread ad nauseam on the same; or, related subject) to the point that it would morph into predominantly an expression of me, pontificating.

When done for non-commercial purposes, especially in someone else's forum (rather than a blog), it reflects an affective behavioral disorder (obsessiveness) at best and at worst in this case a loss of normal social constraint without loss of intellect often seen in early dementia.

The important part of assessing a user like cobrest is the user's history. Often, there isn't enough information and WYSIWYG. In this case, there is an abundance of information available from other websites: coberst is a one trick pony. I may, to paraphrase UT, buy[?] the hook and poke a little fun in hopes that cobrest will be different in this forum; however, I'm neither interested in disrespecting a senior citizen nor in beating a dead horse. I can use the Ignore feature; but, can all of our unregistered viewers do the same? Sometimes tough love is appropriate.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Okay. I think I get what you're talking about now, coberst. I thought you were talking about critical thinking, as opposed to Critical Thinking. I was immediately aggravated by the implied suggestion that your audience (i.e us) do not engage in critical thinking. If what you're talking about is a particular disipline, that's a different matter altogether.

The thing is, this place is chock-full of dwellars questioning and mulling over some very deep (and some deeply trivial) matters. I don't think 'Critical Thinking' need be taught as such in order to learn how to think critically. Many (most) of the people that I engage with most closely, are what I would term 'critical thinkers'.

I agree, everyone is a "trust but verify" thinker. I think that we must go far beyond that form of thinking. Our world is far too complex for such a mode of thinking.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Flint

Since we're not self-actualized critical self-CT motivated actualization-selves, the same reply applies to all of us. Our new, repetitive overlord (whom I welcome) is hosting a meta-seminar for the ignorant masses.

Our world is becoming too complex for the luxury for apathy.

[Griff]

As a non-reading member of our community, you have no idea how Flint feels about anything. Your spamming all assumes that we don't live rich thoughtful lives. You are spamming the wrong community.

[DanaC]

I agree, everyone is a "trust but verify" thinker.

You say you agree then clarify with a point that stands in stark opposition to what I just said. What precisely do you mean by "trust and verify"?

[Flint]

I agree, everyone is a "trust but verify" thinker.

Everyone but you, and you're the only one that knows it. How likely is that?

The kind of thought process in which one feels strongly that they have acquired a special knowledge apart from other humans can often be attributed to a simple manic episode, i.e. the more enjoyable, upswing cycle of manic-depression. The brain's reward mechanism goes haywire, reinforcing even silly or simple ideas to the point that they appear profound or unique.

Later on, when you're curled up in a fetal position on the bathroom floor, with a gun pressed up under your jaw, but you're too much of a coward to pull the trigger, please take a moment to consider what I'm saying here.

Your soul-crushing self-doubt at that moment will be the polar opposite to the delusion of grandeur you are feeling now.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You say you agree then clarify with a point that stands in stark opposition to what I just said. What precisely do you mean by "trust and verify"?

'Trust and verify' is a phrase President Reagan popularized.

To trust means to rely upon what another person might say but later verify the validity of the statement.

[Flint]

I agree, everyone is a "trust but verify" thinker.

How do you know what kind of thinker "everyone" is? I mean, think about it--that's crazy.

[DanaC]

To trust means to rely upon what another person might say but later verify the validity of the statement.

Unless you are planning to be an expert on everything, all, the gestalt, the whole shebang, then you will need to take someone's word for something at some time.

[regular.joe]

Coberst, can you make a statement without referencing another human being? I don't think that you can.