Welcome to  Brain Short

Analysis of Critical Thinking
www.BrainShort.com
This is a website about the use of the brain and especially the lack of the use of the brain in the area of critical thinking. Thought process analysis is critical for the advancement of a culture. People have to learn to think about a problem and give a reasonable  solutions to solving that problem.

To Go To The Main Site Directory Click on: www.NelsonIdeas.com
 
Brian Nelson. Owner
31 Gessner Rd. ,  Houston, TX 77024
713-467-3025  Fax 713-4
67-3192
Click: E-mail me


 

1/3 

You are at: http://www.BrainShort.com id 03/04/2008 03:19 AM -0600  Bookmark this page now!

2Misspelled words used to find this page 1 of 5. The important words found on this site include: 

1 YouTube.com   2 Alt Tags , 3 MSW  4 Metas/Title, Keywords  Description 5 BB4/FormLetter 
 6 BB3/NIDAS,
  7 BB1 & BB2  Follow Ups in NI. 
  You can find this site again by typing in the Google search engine 
 the very unique word " 1trohSniarB   "  which is  " BrainShort1 "
backwards.
Article Word Count                                MSW

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
 
uses logic
detail oriented, facts rule, words and language, present and past
math and science,can comprehend
knowing, acknowledges
order/pattern perception, knows object name, reality based
forms strategies, practical safe

Upon completing the map, it was becoming clear to researchers that each side of the brain had a characteristic way that it both interpreted the world and reacted to it. The chart  will help illustrate the characteristics which are known to reside on each side of our brains.

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
 
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking
5  

bicameral (bi-kam-ê-ral) adj. having two legislative chambers.

 

Bicameral Images reveal our two selves.

Okay, I made up the term, but it fits so well in describing an extremely interesting phenomenon that many people may not realize -- each of us is really two people. No, I don't mean in the traditional sense of having an alter-ego, or a good and bad side. Nor do I mean that we are all schizoids. I mean we are literally two thinking beings residing in the same body.

Like the infomercials say -- "Wait! There's more!"

Follow along on this adventure. I won't disappoint either of you!

About ten years ago, I saw an interesting exercise in which a college psychology professor had taken photographs of her students, made copies that were flipped left to right, and then had them cut in half vertically. She reassembled the images using the two similar sides of the face.

Which Nixon would You buy a used car from?

Nixon's left+left at the far left.
The center image is the normal, original portrait.
Nixon's right+right is on the right.

[A quick way to do this is to place a small mirror perpendicular to a photograph showing a good front face view. As you look into the mirror you can form a whole face from the reflection of either side.]

The composite pictures were humorous. Although the individuals were easily recognizable, their facial expressions seemed to express exaggerated emotions, like anger, suspicion, or happiness -- and occasionally a look of total blankness. Even more interesting was the observation that the two sides of the same face were often so different. Why?

This exercise seemed to suggest that, while a handful of people have symmetrical faces, a vast majority of us do not. Also it raised the possibility that each side of our face could express different emotions at the same time! Subsequent research into facial expressions and the workings of the human brain has offered an interesting theory that not only explains this left and right difference in facial expressions, but could help us to understand our "other self."

First, some science.

We'll keep this light and uncomplicated. Our brain, like the rest of our anatomy, is made up of two halves, a left brain a right brain. There's a big fold that goes from front to back in our brain, essentially dividing it into two distinct and separate parts. Well, almost separate. They are connected to each other by a thick cable of nerves at the base of each brain. This sole link between the two giant processors is called the corpus collosum. Think of it as an Ethernet cable or network connection between two incredibly fast and immensely powerful computer processors, each running different programs from the same input.

The left side of our body is "wired" to the right side of our brain, and vice versa. For whatever reason nature did this cross-over, it applies even to our eyes, which process a majority of their sensory data on opposite sides of the brain.

We can thank Nobel Prize Winner (1981) Roger Sperry for this next contribution. Sperry conducted what are sometimes called the "split-brain" experiments. Here's how it went: A patient suffering from uncontrolled seizures had an area of his brain removed by surgery in an attempt to control his illness. This area just happened to be the corpus collosum, which was suspected of having developed lesions (short circuits).

Following his surgery, Sperry's patient seemed completely normal -- almost. A series of tests were conducted where each "half" of the patient was isolated from the other. Different visual and tactile information could then be presented to the patient's left or right side, without the other side knowing. The results were astounding.

With their communications link severed, each side of the patient's brain was functioning independently. Although this did not prevent his ability to walk, talk and eat, some unexpected findings were encountered in some of the higher brain functions when each side was examined independently of the other.

The right hand and eye could name an object, such as a pencil, but the patient could not explain what it was used for. When shown to the left hand and eye, the patient could explain and demonstrate its use, but could not name it. Further studies showed that various functions of thought are physically separated and localized to a specific area on either the left or right side of the human brain. This functional map is consistent for an estimated 70 to 95 percent of us.

The main theme to emerge... is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and nonverbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres respectively and that our education system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect the nonverbal form of intellect. What it comes down to is that modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.

-Roger Sperry (1973)

Our personality can be thought of as a result of the degree to which these left and right brains interact, or, in some cases, do not interact. It is a simplification to identify "left brain" types who are very analytical and orderly. We likewise certainly know of the artistic, unpredictability and creativity of "right brain" types. But each of us draws upon specific sides of our brain for a variety of daily functions, depending on such things as our age, education and life experiences. The choices of which brain is in control of which situations is what forges our personalities and determines our character.

Experiments show that most children rank highly creative (right brain) before entering school. Because our educational systems place a higher value on left brain skills such as mathematics, logic and language than it does on drawing or using our imagination, only ten percent of these same children will rank highly creative by age 7. By the time we are adults, high creativity remains in only 2 percent of the population.

The Brain and Intelligence

There is a known correlation between brain size and intellectual ability. Homo Erectus, our distant ancestor, had a brain size of about 1200 cc. Modern Homo Sapiens have an average brain of about 1400 cc. Oddly, the Neanderthal people who failed to evolve into humans already had a brain size of 1500 cc -- larger than modern man. Obviously then, its not only how big the brain is as much as how it is configured. This is further evidenced by the fact that we have known genius brains measuring as small as 1000 cc. and as large as 2000 cc.

Increasing brain size was a risky endeavor for human evolution. The brain requires a highly stable temperature and a supply of high protein and energy. One quarter of our caloric intake is used for brain energy consumption.

The War of the Brains

The two brains not only see the world in vastly different ways but, in our current society, the left side just "doesn't get" what the right side is all about. It tends to dismiss anything significant coming into consciousness from its "flaky" cranial twin. Sometimes two sides can actually disagree, resulting in our perception of emotional turmoil from the expressive protests of right brain.

Our conscious mind can only focus on data from one brain at a time. We can switch from one side to the other very quickly (with our corpus collosum intact) but that's not always the most efficient way to act and eventually ultimate authority to enter consciousness is delegated to one brain or the other. In our modern world, this battle is almost always won by the left brain.

It appears that most people will never reach their maximum potential because of compromises that have been made between these two governing bodies. Sometimes skills which the right brain can perform better are routinely handled, with less skill, by the left brain. Ideally, both brains work together in people with optimum mental ability. This coordinating ability may be the key to superior intellectual abilities. In most people, however, the left brain takes control, choosing logic, reasoning and details over imagination, holistic thinking and artistic talent.

Methods have been devised to "shut off" the left brain, allowing the right side to have its say. Creative writing courses often use this method to combat "writer's block." The logical left side is easily bored by lack of input and tends to "doze off" during such activities as meditation (repeating a mantra or word over and over) or in sensory deprivation environments. The right brain is then able to "sneak" into our consciousness, filling our minds with emotional and visual vignettes and freely associated images. All too quickly, though, the left brain will assert itself and dispense with these irrational images, asserting its Spock-like logical dominance and the right brain will have to be content to find expression in dreams.

Bicameral Images

Facial expressions are nothing more than skin and muscle being pulled or flexed according to the control of the brain. Our facial nerves effectively divide our face into two separate sides, each controlled by the opposite side brain. Facial expressions are the earliest form of communication. Experiments conducted on all ages and cultures around the globe have revealed that there is universal agreement to some basic emotional facial gestures. Take a moment to see how well you can determine the emotional content of these selected expressions.

6 What Are Thinking Errors?

Introduction

  1. Thinking Errors are thoughts people exhibit and/or demonstrate during irresponsible behavior. This thinking leads to and/or brings on self-destructive behavior. This self-destructiveness leads to and/or brings on criminal behavior. Remember, we have all demonstrated these thinking errors at one time or another, so we must keep it in perspective. For example; although everyone has fear, what is at issue is the nature of the fear and how we cope with it.
     
  2. Thinking errors are present everywhere in life. We regard them as "errors" solely from the perspective of responsibility and from the stand point of society. Every thinking error must first be understood by itself and then be related to the others. Responsibility is defined to extend beyond legal accountability or a state of crimelessness to an entire way of life that is the outcome of eliminating wrong thinking patterns and learning new ones.
     
  3. We will attempt to develop a framework based on analysis of thought processes. The basically responsible person has a life-style of hard work, fulfillment of obligations, and consideration for others. We derive self-respect of others from our achievements. Desires to make the wrong choice do occur, but they disappear, usually without us having to make a conscious choice.
     
  4. We often discard thoughts about wrong choices because they do not fit our view of life, and so no effort is needed to eliminate it. The focus is on thinking patterns. When a poor choice or a deviation from responsible behavior does happen, it does not necessarily become a way of life and/or a thinking pattern. For example; we have moments of extreme anger, but anger and vindictiveness are not automatic responses to things that do not go our way. For example; A responsible person may lie, but infrequently. In this case, lying is not a way of life.
     
  5. The basically responsible person has a pattern of being conscientious in occupational, domestic, and social affairs. We work productively and contribute toward the good of others, while trying to advance ourselves. Some people do not violate the law, but can be considered irresponsible. These are the defaulters, liars, excuse maker’s, people who are generally unreliable.
     
  6. We who are chronically late, perform poorly at work, or fail to fulfill promises and obligations at home, at school, or on the job. However, they cannot be arrested for any of these shortcomings. They may show irresponsibility in some ways and be conscientious otherwise and their irresponsibility doesn’t result in criminal acts. The process of change is a formidable task. To bring about change, we must counteract our conviction that "we do not need to improve."
     
  7. Genuine self-criticism is absolutely essential to the change process. Without it, any effort at change is condemned to an early failure. As we attempt to understand thinking errors, we might be offended or worried by finding that, to a degree, we have some of the characteristics attributed to the extreme end of self-destructive behavior.
     
  8. We may think of times we have lied or misrepresented a situation. We may recall with some embarrassment an occasion when we have let our temper get the best of us or an isolated instance of taking something that did not belong to us. Such behavior doesn’t automatically place us on the self-destructive and/or unlawful end of the continuum.

     
  9. We warn the reader against "medical student’s disease," in which we wholeheartedly apply everything to ourselves. Anyone of us who desires to effect basic change in ourselves must be totally familiar with thinking errors, for it is with these thinking patterns to which correctives must be applied. The focus is thinking patterns.

Anger

  1. This thinking error keeps others away and helps us avoid other unpleasant feelings like shame, sadness, or fear. Rather than focusing on our real feelings or actual actions, this thinking error causes us to focus on the anger and not the real issue at hand. When we throw tantrums, act aggressively, respond sarcastically, or fly into a rage, we get others to focus on the thinking error, the anger."
     
  2. Sometimes, we use this thinking error to try and intimidate or threaten others, so that we can remain in control. Sometimes this thinking error may go underground. For example; "I don’t get mad, I get even."

Assuming

  1. This thinking error is also sometimes called "mind reading." We use this thinking error when we believe that we know how others think or feel. Rather than checking the facts by asking how someone feels, we assume that we know by doing what we want to based on our assumption's)."
     
  2. For example; we assume that invading someone’s boundaries will be okay because we have invaded that person’s boundaries before.
     
  3. We also use this thinking error when we don’t inform our employer that we’re unable to attend work, by assuming that it will be okay because it was "for a good reason.

Avoiding The Hot Iron

  1. Without looking at the past, we cannot learn from our errors and change the future of our behavior. Our goal setting or defined purpose is based on our understanding of the past and vision of the future."
     
  2. For example; "Why do you keep bringing up my future plans and goals?" Answer; "My previous error or failing in some areas are why I have a plan or goal." Without facing our weaknesses or bad habits, we will probably do it again.
     
  3. Using this thinking error, we do not understand why others keep bringing up our past and/or mentioning our previous profiles or history. Without looking to the past, we cannot see the future with any clarity or vision

Blaming

  1. We use this thinking error of "pointing the finger," by finding an excuse not to solve a problem. When we blame others, we’re no longer responsible.
     
  2. Our blaming others or fingering can also be used to build up resentment toward someone else for "causing" whatever has happened. Through the fingering technique, we can be angry at or have our family angry at someone else," rather than us.
     
  3. For example; "The pre-sentence investigator hates men." mFor example; "My sister’s friend has caused us a lot of problems." She’s the one who said; "The trouble with you is that you’re always looking at me in a critical way."

Confusion

  1. When using bafflement or confusion, we present ourselves as puzzled about the situation. We may claim not to understand the question, but we reject any clarification of the question.
     
  2. When we can remain perplexed or confused about assignments, rules, requirements, expectations, or the facts, we don’t have to work at meeting our obligations.
     
  3. If we’re truly confused, we need to ask for clarification at that time. It’s a thinking error to wait until later and claim ignorance. Sometimes we will use confusion by pretending to be unsure of what we did. For example; "Yes. Wait a minute. No, I’m not sure what I said to the policeman."

Excuses

  1. This thinking error allows us to have justification or reasons for anything and everything. Whenever we’re held accountable for our actions, excuses are automatically given.
     
  2. We have an excuse for everything and we will carefully concentrate on the justification or reasons of the excuse something has happened. For us, this is better than accepting responsibility for what has occurred."
     
  3. For example; "I had a bad attorney." "My family was rich." "My family was poor." "They don’t like my skin color." "I’ve never been able to read very well." "I’ve never liked math anyway." "The judge doesn’t like teenagers."

Fact Stacking

  1. We use this thinking error when we tell the truth in such a way that the facts help us to not take responsibility for our actions or behavior. Instead it makes us feel powerful, uncomfortable, and unlike others."
     
  2. When using logical argument or fact stacking, we rearrange the facts for our benefit." For example; "He was teasing me all along. He did that before I punched him." What I did not explain is that I had been bullying him for at least two months, in and out of school.

Fronting

  1. We present ourselves as helpful or agreeable, when we’re really trying to manipulate others so that we won’t be confronted. We always think of ourselves first by being selfish.
  2. When we’re being phony or fronting by being a "nice guy," we will always feel something is owed back to us.
  3. For example; I agree and accept what the others are saying, when I’m really thinking; "If I am nice and agree with them, they will leave me alone." The message with this thinking error is "since I’m nice to you, you must be nice to me.

Grandiosity Or Maximizing

  1. We know this thinking error as the opposite of minimizing. We maximize when I’m trying to make little things seem like very important things. This is what some people may call "making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    Using this thinking error often causes others to focus on little insignificant things, rather than the issue at hand.
     
  2. Sometimes by "setting little fires," we can focus attention on trivial matters by creating chaos. This way, we do not have to focus on the facts of our behavior and feelings.

Helpless

  1. This thinking error occurs when we present ourselves as being helpless, unable to meet expectations, and/or we are in need of others. This is very similar to victim stance. When using helplessness, we will enjoy talking about how "I cannot write, cannot solve problems, or cannot overcome my disabilities
     
  2. This is how we manage to maintain our control over others. When confronted for using this thinking error, we may try to make others seem or look uncaring
     
  3. Using this thinking error, we may enjoy talking about our problems, but we still need to be responsible for our actions and our work at improving our weaknesses in any area of our life.

Hopovers

  1. This thinking error is also known as sidetracking or "changing the subject." We use this thinking error when we try to change the subject, when we’re confronted with facts about our behavior.
  2. We bypass to another subject very quickly to distract others from the real issue.
  3. For example; "Why did you join a gang?" Response; "Gangs have been around for centuries and originated in China. Remember, part of learning is disciplining yourself to stay focused and deal with the issues or problems at hand.

Hot Shot Or Cockiness

  1. Using this thinking error, we believe that we’re triumphant over everything. We make ourselves believe this. When we believe this, we do not believe we need any further goal setting, development, or improvement. We have no doubt that we can be around high-risk situations, with no risk of making the same mistake's) again.
     
  2. Using this thinking error, we overestimate the amount of change we’ve gone through. Cockiness thinking error makes us believe, "I know all the answers.
     
  3. For example; "I’m a honor roll student now. I don’t have to worry about studying anymore." "I’ll never fail that class again." "I’ll never flunk that test again." "I’m out of detention and I’ll never see that youth service center again." "I’ll never have to deal with that principal again. Remember, there is always a need for change, which is necessary for growth and maturity. Adults and authority figures are aware of this and will remind us that we don’t know everything. Just ask them.

I Can't Attitude

  1. Sometimes we use this thinking error so that others won’t expect us to do what is required or expected. This attitude will ultimately lead to disappointment, failure, a loss of control, or a loss of freedom.
     
  2. For example; "I am powerless to learn all these rules." For example; "I can’t complete that assignment." For example; "I am unable of doing that math." For example; "Society has too many rules. I’m a rebel at heart." For example; "I am unqualified. I can’t, means I won’t."

It's Mine Or Entitlement

  1. Using this thinking error, we believe that it is proper to take what we want. We tell ourselves and others: "If you don’t give me that pencil, I’ll take it.
  2. Using it’s mine or ownership, we expect others to do what we want. We treat the property of others as ours, to do with as we please. To steal, to borrow without permission, or to vandalize means nothing to us.
     
  3. For example; We borrow someone’s valuable pen. We believe we’re entitled to keep it as long as we want, because we helped the lender with their mathematics. For example; We talk only about our rights, never considering the rights of others or our responsibility in the matter.

Justifying

  1. This is very much like blaming others or excuse making. Our justifying allows us to explain the reason for things."
  2. When we justify or explain, we always find reasons for why things are the way they are. We do not want to recognize that things are the way they are because of us, so we find a way to explain or justify them."
     
  3. For example; "She didn’t have a chance to be a good person anyway, so it didn’t matter as much with her." For example; "He wasn’t my natural brother, only my step-brother." For example; "My girlfriend wouldn’t do what I asked. What was I supposed to do?"

Keeping Score

  1. Sometimes, this thinking error takes the form of playing "reprisal." Often we will be angry or hostile and will be quietly keeping a record of others mistakes, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. This allows us to feel better about ourselves because we haven’t made as many mistakes as others.
  2. In other words, we’re "one up" on others. When criticized or confronted, we respond by bringing up the errors of others, so that we will not be the focus of the attention.
     
  3. By keeping score we avoid taking responsibility for our own behavior and avoid working at improving. For example; Someone says to you; "You were lying when you said that I was in your room." I say to the group; "Don’t even start with me. Two months ago I hated Jim, so I set him up.

Lack Of Empathy

  1. Using lack of empathy, we do not think of how our actions influence others, except in the most obvious physical sense. We have no concept of emotionally hurting others or causing great mental pain
    To stop using this thinking error, we need to put ourselves or a loved one in another person’s shoes. How would we feel if we or a loved one were emotionally, mentally, or physically hurt?
    For example; I’ll tease our classmate about failing the test. Seeing this is bothering him, our feedback or response is; "It wouldn’t bother us if we stopped thinking about it. For example; We get into a fight with one of our peers in PE during flag football and all we have to say is; "It could have been worse. We could have really hurt him.

Let's Fight Or Splitting

  1. Sometimes we like to start frays, so we can stand back and watch. We will manipulate and control others so that they become aggressive or hostile toward each other, while we can be a shining example of maturity."
    Sometimes, we will then enter into the conflict as a mediator and try to resolve it so that we can look good.
     
  2. Another example of let’s fight or splitting is, when we try to divide others by turning them against each other so that we can get our way. This is done when we ask one person a question and the answer is "no," so we then ask a different person the same question and get a "yes." Then when the first person says "no" again, we can say; "But Mr. Smith lets me do that.

Lying

  1. This is one of the most common thinking errors used by us. We use it in many ways. We use it to distort, confuse, or make fools of other people. There are three kinds of this thinking error.
     
  2. One ... Omission: We make up simple things that are not true. This kind of thinking error is simple and clear. We simply say things that are not true and that never happened.
     
  3. Two ... Comission: This is when we tell a half-truth. We state things that are true, but leave out important details. We are not being truthful by leaving things out, but what we say is true.
    Three ... Action: We behave or act in a way that is not accurate or that suggests something that is not true. We may show support for someone else, when in fact we are being critical of the person. By showing support for the person, we may encourage the person to make a mistake, which makes us look better. It is not so much that we are saying things that are not true, but we behave in ways that can be misinterpreted by others." For example; Someone makes a mistake that is foolish or incorrect and we will show this individual support. However, the person who is making a mistake, will make even greater mistakes because of the support we give out.

Making Fools Of

  1. This thinking error allows us to ridicule other people. We feel powerful and controlling, when other people are dependent on us. We will be in a powerful position by keeping other people waiting, hoping, and wondering.
     
  2. For example; we stole a key to an important room. As the owner of the key is asking everyone and searching everywhere, we try to make a fool of the owner by saying; "I have the key and you can have it if you can find it." Later, after being taken at my word I say; "I was only joking. I wouldn’t admit it if I had it.
     
  3. Another example is when someone compliments me on my work. We can make a fool of the complimenter by failing the next work assignment. This is a very tempting game for me, instead of doing the work at hand.

Minimizing

  1. This is a common thinking error. We use this thinking error when we try to make things seem smaller than they really are.
     
  2. Often, we will use words like "just" and "only" to make what we did seem smaller. We depreciate our actions and they become unimportant and "not that bad. For example; "I only teased her little bit, not all the way." "I only screamed at her once." "No biggie. I don’t care anyway.

Mr. Goodguy

  1. This is a type of "fronting." Using this thinking error, we try to present ourselves as a really nice person who doesn’t make mistakes in our life. When we use this thinking error, we try to outweigh our mistakes with good deeds. We may present ourselves as caring about others, doing well in school by following directions, etc.
     
  2. However, it is more present in how we think of ourselves, than what we actually do. This caring attitude is quickly gotten rid of when an opportunity for personal gain or pleasure presents itself.
     
  3. We need to be true to ourselves and others. We need to face who we really are. Caring about ourselves and others is full time, not something done to look good.

My Way Or No Way

  1. This thinking error is also known as all or nothing. For example; "My way or the highway. We use this thinking error by trying to exert our power over others through insisting that things be done our way or not at all.
     
  2. "Using this thinking error, we see things in only black and white, success and failure. Using this thinking error, we do not see alternatives and we lose our power to choose between alternatives. We believe we have to be "number one." Anything less is failure. For example; "If I can’t be the best, I don’t want to do it." "If we can’t play basketball, I don’t want to play.
     
  3. Remember, there are usually alternatives or choices about learning and getting better comes in stages of maturity.

Pet Me

  1. We are often very selfish and think only of our needs. We often set up other people so that our needs are constantly being met. We want to do things so that we get the compliment. We want to be noticed, cuddled, recognized, get attention, and certainly want to avoid feeling bad.
     
  2. For example; "we purposely act or behave in certain ways so that others will notice or applaud. If we are to hand in a written assignment, we will want to personally hand the assignment in.
     
  3. Another example of this thinking error is when we complete the assignment for the purpose of gaining approval, rather than for the purpose of learning or changing.

Powerplay

  1. Also known as authority conflict, this is when we want all the power and wish to be right no matter what. We enjoy arguing and fighting for the sake of arguing and fighting with others.
     
  2. Using this thinking error, we get a "high" from dominating other people. We do not care that we have used other people to get this feeling. We believe that this is our right. We disallow others to learn due to the disruption this thinking error causes.
     
  3. We don’t allow others to meet their obligations because they are dealing with this unruly behavior. We are placing our individual needs over the needs of others or the team.

Redefining

  1. This is our process of determining the boundaries, by shifting the focus of an issue. We then avoid solving the problem. We also use this thinking error as a power play to get the focus or attention away from me."
     
  2. This thinking error allows me to avoid looking at the real issue. Question; "Why didn’t you do your chores for this week?" Response; "I’ve done my assignment for the last three weeks. Question; "Do you have your money saved for your driver license examination? "Response; "I’m very concerned about how hard the test will be.

Refusal To Accept Obligations

  1. Using this thinking error, we say "I forgot" as an excuse for not completing assignments, meeting classroom expectations i.e., raising our hand, bringing materials required for class, cooperating with the teacher, using appropriate language in class, respecting life and property, etc.
     
  2. When we use this thinking error, we do what we want and ignore our responsibilities or promises. Forgetting is not a valid excuse, we are accountable for all the things we "forget.

Refusal To Acknowledge Fear

  1. Using this thinking error, we often tell myself, "Nothing scares me." We cut off the fear that most people experience and which stops most people from doing what they know is wrong.  Using this thinking error, we cut off any anxiety that prevents me from doing what I want to do.
    For example; "I don’t care if I flunk." "Suspension or expulsion doesn’t scare me." "Go ahead, take my points, make me stay after school, I’m not scared of you."
    For others not using this thinking error, fear is an incentive for self-improvement. Fear is something that takes great courage to face and to understand.

Secretiveness

  1. Often, we want to keep mysteries about ourselves. We may keep secrets and claim that it’s part of my confidentiality. Using this excuse, we never open up to others and take the chance to trust. By doing this, no one can help us or even know us well enough, so that we may truly accept them.
     
  2. By keeping secrets when others want us to give up the mysteries, we maintain power and control over others, but the mysteries maintain the power and control over us.
     
  3. Often, we keep mysteries because we are afraid of rejection. Many times, we keep mysteries from ourselves as well as others. For example; "I can’t tell anyone." " Face your fear and decide why you are afraid of telling your secrets. Then I need to decide what I need to do to get past my fear. If I tell my mysteries, they will no longer have power over me."

Seeking Sympathy

  1. We do not like to feel as though we are wrong. We will feel better if we can get others to feel sorry for us. "Seeking sympathy" is when we say things or do things in order to get others to feel sorry for us.
     
  2. For example; "My girlfriend probably won’t stick this out with me, so why should I care?" "Why should I ask questions? My questions are never right." "My family would be better off without me."

Silent Power

  1. We like the attention this thinking error brings us and enjoy watching the frustration grow in others. We also like the feeling we have over others. When others focus on our silence, it stops us from dealing with the real issues.
     
  2. Remember, our silence won’t help us with our goals. Our real strength will come from working with others and participating. Our strength will come from sharing our experiences, feelings, and thoughts with others as we learn to trust. For example; I’m upset with one of my classmates because of what he said and I am showing my anger by yelling. When approached by the teacher to find out what is going on, I refuse to discuss the matter by "clamming up."
     
  3. Using this thinking error, we become quiet, often refusing to participate or even explain how we feel. Often, we wait for others to rescue we by encouraging we to talk.

Slacking

  1. We are slacking when we try to do the bare minimum required and nothing more. We want to "meet my goals and objectives" or complete my "assignment" so we can relax, "kick back," or rest. We are concerned to "complete my things" only as something to be done to get someone "off my back." We put forth minimum or a mediocre effort and we’re not concerned with changing, modifying, or improving myself.
     
  2. We do not want to wait for gratification. We are impatient or restless. We want what we desire right now, not later. We fail to realize that goal setting and having a defined purpose are about commitment to change. That change requires hard work, patience, responsibility, and effort. Our improving is not about semesters or time completed, it is about commitment, genuineness, self-motivation, change, and growth.

Uniqueness

  1. This thinking error allows us to believe that we are so special that the rules are for only for others, certainly not me. This thinking error allows us to believe that we are one of a kind and unlike all others in my program. We use this thinking error to tell ourselves; "I am so horrible and terrible that nothing or no one can help me." Therefore, I am not like anyone else." "Or, I might tell myself; "I didn’t do anything as bad as these others. I am not like them. The rules are for others, not for me.
     
  2. This is a very common thinking error that can be seen when we tell ourselves that we do not have to listen to others and only have to participate when others are focused on us and someone is speaking directly to us. While others are talking, our using uniqueness will often appear as being bored or daydreaming. For example; "I will start playing with my shoes because I believe improving is for someone else, but definitely not me."

Vagueness

  1. We use this thinking error when we try to avoid giving specific information. We don’t want to get pinned down. When we are not precise and clear, our actions can never be examined.
     
  2. For example; Question; "Did I break the motion detector?" Response; "No, I did something else." Question; "What did you do?" Response; "I didn’t do that." Question; "What did you do to your little brother?" Response; "I did something kind of bad." Question; "Well, what did you do?" Response; "I took away something."
     
  3. Obviously these answers are unclear, not precisely answered, and we’ve allowed ourselves to avoid the reality of what we really did.

Victim Stance

  1. Often, we want others to feel sorry for us. To do this, we present ourselves as the "true victim." "Sometimes we use this thinking error by explaining, "I wouldn’t have hurt him, if I hadn’t been hurt myself. We use this thinking error to try and make others see us as powerless and not responsible for our own behavior. By doing this, we try to avoid seeing ourselves as a mistake maker and try to avoid any accountability or responsibility.
     
  2. For example; "Poor me. No one really loves me." "I couldn’t help it." "No one understands me." "I’m locked up in here and away from my family." We are not powerless. We need to accept the freedom and responsibility of the power we have.

You're Okay, I'm Okay

  1. We often try to be extremely positive in order to avoid looking at the reality of the pain we have caused. We will often work at being helpful, cooperative, and supportive of others. We may even start to worry about other’s problems, rather than think about our own actions and any hurt we may have caused. Sometimes this is called "co-dependent.
     
  2. Using this thinking error, we may be the one who feels we must constantly compliment others or be humorous. Most often, we want to focus on "the good things" and ignore the bad, the unpleasant, or our own weaknesses. By using this thinking error, we avoid reality by focusing on how things ought to be rather than how they are or we are.
     
  3. By doing this, we manage to avoid responsibility for what we’ve done and we are not working at improving or personal self-empowerment.
 

7  Caffeine Boosts Brain's Short-Term Memory Function

PDF  Print  E-mail
 01 December, 2005  16:00 GMT
 


caffeine short term memory
After consuming 100 milligrams of caffeine, the equivalent of about two cups of coffee, volunteers in a recent study experienced increased activity in the frontal lobe, where working memory is centered, and the anterior cingulum, which controls attention.
Caffeine is the most widely used stimulant in the world, consumed in coffee, tea and soft drinks by hundreds of millions of people to get started in the morning and as a pick-me-up during the day. That people like the jolt they get from caffeine is no secret, but what caffeine does in the brain has been unknown.

Now a team of Austrian researchers using advanced brain imaging technology have discovered that caffeine makes people more alert by perking up part of the brain involved in short-term memory, the kind that helps focus attention on the tasks at hand.

And Americans seem most in need of concentrating their thoughts since their average daily consumption of 236 milligrams of caffeine, equivalent to more than 4.5 cups of coffee, is three times the world average.

More Able to Focus

"Almost all of us drink coffee or something with caffeine in it and we know why, because we want to be more awake or feel better," said Dr. Florian Koppelstaetter of the Medical University Innsbruck in Austria. "We wanted to know what effect one to two cups of coffee would have on short-term memory."

Reporting Wednesday at the Radiological Society of North America meeting in Chicago, Koppelstaetter said that functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, was used to measure brain function in 15 healthy volunteers before and after consuming coffee.

The findings revealed increased activity in the frontal lobe, where working memory is centered, and the anterior cingulum, which controls attention, in volunteers after consuming 100 milligrams of caffeine, the equivalent of about two cups of coffee. These areas showed no increased activity when the subjects drank the same fluid without caffeine in it.

"The increased activity means you are more able to focus," Koppelstaetter said. "You have more attention and your task management is better."

Short-term memory lasts about 30 to 45 seconds and stores a small amount of information for a limited amount of time. It's the kind of memory used to look up a telephone number and remember it long enough to dial it. Long-term memory, on the other hand, stores an unlimited amount of information for an unlimited amount of time.

"What is exciting is that by means of MRI we are able to see that caffeine exerts increases in neuronal activity in distinct parts of the brain going along with changes in behavior," Koppelstaetter said.

Marijuana Smoking and Schizophrenia

In another report presented at the meeting, researchers from New York's Albert Einstein Medical School found that marijuana smoking may increase the risk of schizophrenia in people who have a genetic susceptibility to the disease.

Using a special version of MRI technology called diffusion tensor imaging or DTI, Drs. Manzar Ashtari and Sanjiv Kumra found that marijuana smokers had brain abnormalities similar to those of schizophrenics.

The abnormalities occurred in a bundle of fibers called the arcuate fasciculus, which connects Broca's area in the left frontal lobe with Wernicke's area in the left temporal lobe, a fiber pathway linked to higher aspects of language and auditory functions.

The fibers in the arcuate fasciculus bundle are among the last parts of the brain to be formed during adolescence. DTI images, which can peer deep into the brain to reveal connections between neurons, found that connections in the arcuate fasciculus bundle were forming abnormally in marijuana smokers. These are the same fibers that the researchers showed were abnormal in schizophrenics.

The researchers studied normal youngsters in late adolescence who didn't smoke marijuana, adolescents who smoked marijuana, adolescents who had schizophrenia and adolescent schizophrenics who smoked marijuana.

The formation of the arcuate fasciculus bundle appeared normal in the adolescents who didn't smoke and showed some signs of abnormalities in those who did. The abnormalities were more pronounced in schizophrenics who didn't smoke marijuana and were the most pronounced in those who did.

Ashtari said the Albert Einstein team undertook the study because of population studies showing an association between marijuana smoking and schizophrenia.

The latest of these studies, reported in the May issue of the Journal of Addiction, involved 1,000 people followed for 25 years. It showed that the heaviest marijuana use was associated with a higher risk of schizophrenia and that schizophrenics who smoked marijuana had more relapses than schizophrenics who didn't smoke.

"We're not saying that anybody who smokes marijuana is going to get schizophrenia," Ashtari said. "However, we are saying that if you are genetically predisposed, because your uncle or aunt or father or somebody has schizophrenia in your family, then marijuana increases your risk of contracting the disease."

2/3 

Blue Box 1 Scan Below

Click Brian Nelson's www.PartyTentCity.com for party tents, canopies and awnings. Today's Sale 26'x40' Tarp.   Silver. Regular price is $104.00. With this ad it is on sale for only $88.00. Shipping is $15. No charge for shipping if tarp is picked up at  31 Gessner Rd.  in Houston, TX  77024  Use PayPal to Brian@NelsonIdeas.com or Call Brian 713-467-3025.  
Blue Box 1 Contact Brian at 31 Gessner Rd. Houston, TX  77024 Tel. 713-467-3025 Cell 713-927-4479 Click: E-mail me 
www.IamFightingCancer.com   Bookmark this page now!   Anything Internet   
http://www.NelsonIdeas.com/Directory-All-Websites/Alphabetical.html

  09/24/2009 02:35 PM -0500

 

 
 
8 Critical Thinking Community.

The Foundation and Center for Critical Thinking aim to improve instruction in primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. We offer conferences and professional development programs, emphasizing assessment, research, instructional strategies, Socratic questioning, critical reading and writing, higher order thinking, quality enhancement, and competency standards.

 

The Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique and the Foundation For Critical Thinking, two sister educational non-profit organizations, work closely together to promote educational reform. We seek to promote essential change in education and society through the cultivation of fair-minded critical thinking.

 Critical thinking is essential if we are to get to the root of our problems and develop reasonable solutions. After all, the quality of everything we do is determined by the quality of our thinking.

Whereas society commonly promotes values laden with superficial, immediate "benefits," critical thinking cultivates substance and true intellectual discipline. Critical thinking asks much from us, our students, and our colleagues. It entails rigorous self-reflection and openmindedness — the keys to significant changes.

Critical thinking requires the cultivation of core intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility. Nothing of real value comes easily.  A rich intellectual environment — alive with curious and determined students — is possible only with critical thinking at the foundation of the educational process.

We do not just advocate educational and social reform based on critical thinking, we develop and build practical alternatives. In a world of accelerating change, intensifying complexity, and increasing interdependence, critical thinking is now a requirement for economic and social survival. Join us as we strive to make critical thinking a core social value and a key organizing concept for all educational reform.

The work of the Foundation is to integrate the Center's research and theoretical developments, and to create events and resources designed to help educators improve their instruction. Materials developed through the Foundation For Critical Thinking include books, thinker's guides, videos, and other teaching and learning resources. The Foundation and Center for Critical Thinking sponsor an annual International Critical Thinking Conference, as well as advanced academies and international academies in Europe.

Organizations

The Center for Critical Thinking

The Center conducts advanced research and disseminates information on critical thinking. Each year it sponsors an annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform. It has worked with the College Board, the National Education Association, the U.S. Department of Education, as well as  numerous colleges, universities, and school districts to facilitate the implementation of critical thinking instruction focused on intellectual standards.

9 LIBRARY / ARTICLES » ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING  »
Defining Critical Thinking
 
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction

Summary

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

 
 
 

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

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.

A Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.  People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.   They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked.  They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.  They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking.  They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason.  They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest.  They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society.   At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so.  They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always consider the rights and needs of relevant others.  They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement.  They embody the Socratic principle:  The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.

 Linda Elder, September, 2007
 

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.

10 Overview

Fundamentally, critical thinking is a form of judgment, specifically purposeful and reflective judgment. Using critical thinking one makes a decision or solves the problem of judging what to believe or what to do, but does so in a reflective way. Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making that judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming that judgment, and the applicable theoretical and constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand. These elements also happen to be the key defining characteristics of professional fields and academic disciplines. This is why critical thinking can occur within a given subject field (by reference to its specific set of permissible questions, evidence sources, criteria, etc.) and across subject fields in all those spaces where human beings need to interact and make decisions, solve problems, and figure out what to believe and what to do.

Within the framework of scientific skepticism, the process of critical thinking involves acquiring information and evaluating it to reach a well-justified conclusion or answer. Part of critical thinking comprises informal logic. However, a large part of critical thinking goes beyond informal logic and includes assessment of beliefs and identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Given research in cognitive psychology, some educators believe that schools should focus more on teaching their students critical thinking skills, intellectual standards, and cultivating intellectual traits (such as intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, and fair-mindedness) than on memorizing facts by rote learning. As defined in A Greek-English Lexicon the verb krino- means to choose, decide or judge. Hence a krites is a discerner, judge or arbiter. Those who are kritikos have the ability to discern or decide by exercising sound judgment

The word krino- also means to separate (winnow) the wheat from the chaff or that which has worth from that which does not.

Critical thinking is important, because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of acting on, or thinking with, a false premise.

However, even with the use of critical thinking skills, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's egocentrism or sociocentrism or failure to be in possession of the full facts. In addition, there is always the possibility of inadvertent human error.

Universal concepts and principles of critical thinking can be applied to any context or case but only by reflecting upon the nature of that application. Critical thinking forms, therefore, a system of related, and overlapping, modes of thought such as anthropological thinking, sociological thinking, historical thinking, political thinking, psychological thinking, philosophical thinking, mathematical thinking, chemical thinking, biological thinking, ecological thinking, legal thinking, ethical thinking, musical thinking, thinking like a painter, sculptor, engineer, business person, etc. In other words, though critical thinking principles are universal, their application to disciplines requires a process of reflective contextualization.

One can regard critical thinking as involving two aspects:

  1. a set of cognitive skills, intellectual standards, and traits of mind
  2. the disposition or intellectual commitment to use those structures to improve thinking and guide behavior.

Critical thinking, in the strong sense, does not include simply the acquisition and retention of information, or the possession of a skill-set which one does not use regularly; nor does critical thinking merely exercise skills without acceptance of the results.

What is and is not universal in critical thinking

Critical thinking is based on concepts and principles, not on hard and fast, or step-by-step, procedures. [1] Critical thinking does not assure that one will reach either the truth or correct conclusions. First, one may not have all the relevant information; indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable. Furthermore, one may make unjustified inferences, use inappropriate concepts, fail to notice important implications, use a narrow or unfair point of view. One may be a victim of self-delusion, egocentricity or sociocentricity, or closed-mindedness. One's thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial. One may be intellectually arrogant, intellectually lazy, or intellectually hypocritical. These are some of the ways that human thinking can be flawed. Further information can be found in the Thinker's Guide series by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.

Human thinking left to itself often leads to various forms of self-deception, individually and socially; and at the left, right, and mainstream of economic, political, and religious issues. Further analysis and resources about this interaction may be found in Roderick Hindery (2001): Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought.

The uses of critical thinking

Critical thinking is useful only in those situations where human beings need to solve problems, make decisions, or decide in a reasonable and reflective way what to believe or what to do.(Robert Ennis) That is, just about everywhere and all the time. Critical thinking is important wherever the quality of human thinking significantly impacts the quality of life (of any sentient creature). For example, success in human life is tied to success in learning. At the same time, every phase in the learning process is tied to critical thinking. Thus, reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical thinking is “a way of taking up the problems of life.” (William Graham Sumner, Folkways, 1906)

Irrespective of the sphere of thought, “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 open-mindedly 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.

(Paul, R. and Elder, 2006)

The affective dimension of critical thinking

Critical thinking is about being both willing and able to think. Ideally one develops critical thinking skills and at the same time the disposition to use those skills to solve problems and form good judgments. The dispositional dimension of critical thinking is characterological. Its focus in developing the habitual intention to be truth-seeking, open-minded, systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in making judgments. Those who are ambivalent on one or more of these aspects of the disposition toward critical thinking, or who have the opposite disposition [biased, intolerant, disorganized, heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of reasoning, imprudence]are less likely to engage problems using their critical thinking skills. The relationship between critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions is an empirical question. Some have both in abundance, some have skills but not the disposition to use them, some are disposed but lack strong skills and some have neither. Two measures of critical thinking dispositions are the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory [1]and the CM3 [2].

Critical thinking may be distinguished, but not separated, from emotions, desires, and traits of mind. Failure to recognize the relationship between thinking, feeling, wanting, and traits of mind can easily lead to various forms of self-deception, both individually and collectively. When persons possess intellectual skills alone, without the intellectual traits of mind, weak sense critical thinking results. Fair-minded or strong sense critical thinking requires intellectual humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, courage, autonomy, confidence in reason, and other intellectual traits. Thus, critical thinking without essential intellectual traits often results in clever, but manipulative, often unethical, thought. In short, the sophist, the con artist, the manipulator often uses an intellectually defective but effective forms of thought---serving unethical purposes. However, whereas critical thinking yields itself to analytical considerations readily and may be considered largely "objective", few humans notice the degree to which they uncritically presuppose the mores and taboos of their society (and hence fail to discern their own “subjectivity.” and one-sidedness).

Further analysis and resources about the interaction between thought, desires, and emotions may be found in Roderick Hindery (2001): Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought and in Paul and Elder (2004): The Human Mind.

Overcoming bias

There is no simple way to reduce one's bias. There are, however, ways that one can begin to do so. The most important require developing one's intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to say, "I thought I knew, but I merely believed"). One becomes less biased and more broad-minded when one becomes more intellectually empathic and intellectually humble, and that involves time, deliberate practice and commitment. It involves considerable personal and intellectual development.

To develop one's critical thinking abilities, one should learn the art of suspending judgment (for example, when reading a novel, watching a movie, engaging in dialogical or dialectical reasoning). Ways of doing this include adopting a perceptive rather than judgmental orientation; that is, avoiding moving from perception to judgment as one applies critical thinking to an issue.

One should become aware of one's own fallibility by:

  1. accepting that everyone has subconscious biases, and accordingly questioning any reflexive judgments.
  2. adopting an ego-sensitive and, indeed, intellectually humble stance
  3. recalling previous beliefs that one once held strongly but now rejects
  4. realizing one still has numerous blind spots, despite the foregoing

An integration of insights from the critical thinking literature and cognitive psychology literature is the "Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis." This technique illustrates the influeces of heuristics and biases on human decision making along with the influences of thinking critically about reasons and claims. Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making [3]

Critical thinking in the classroom

The key to seeing the significance of critical thinking in the classroom is in understanding the significance of critical thinking in learning. To learn is to think. To think poorly is to learn poorly. To think well is to learn well. All content, to be learned, must be intellectually constructed. To learn the content of history, I must engage myself in the process of thinking historically.

There are two phases to the learning of content. The first occurs when learners (for the first time) construct in their minds the basic ideas, principles, theories that are inherent in content. This is a process of internalization. The second occurs when learners effectively use those ideas, principles, and theories as they become relevant in learners’ lives. This is a process of application. Good teachers cultivate critical thinking (intellectually engaged thinking) at every stage of learning, including initial learning. This process of intellectual engagement is at the heart of the Oxford and Cambridge tutorials. The tutor questions the students, often in a Socratic manner. Here are some typical Socratic questions:

  • What do you mean by_______________?
  • How did you come to that conclusion?
  • What was said in the text?
  • What is the source of your information?
  • What is the source of information in the report?
  • What assumption has led you to that conclusion?
  • Suppose you are wrong. What are the implications?
  • Why did you make that inference? Is another one more consistent with the data?
  • Why is this issue significant?
  • How do I know that what you are saying is true?
  • What is an alternate explanation for this phenomenon?

Of course, there are many other possible Socratic questions. The key is that the teacher who fosters critical thinking fosters reflectiveness in students by asking questions that stimulate thinking essential to the construction of knowledge.

As emphasized above, each discipline adapts its use of critical thinking concepts and principles. The core concepts are always there, but they are embedded in subject specific content. For students to learn content, intellectual engagement is crucial. All students must do their own thinking, their own construction of knowledge. Good teachers recognize this and therefore focus on the questions, readings, activities that stimulate the mind to take ownership of key concepts and principles underlying the subject.

In the UK school system, the syllabus offers Critical thinking as a subject which 16-18 year olds can take as an A-Level. Under the OCR exam board, students can sit two exam papers: "Credibility of Evidence" and "Assessing/Developing Argument". The exam tests candidates not on particular information they have learned during the course, but on their ability to think critically about, and analyze, arguments on their deductive or inductive validity. The full advanced GCE is now available and, though very challenging, is extremely useful for degree courses in politics, philosophy, history or theology (to name but a few), providing the skills required for critical analysis that are useful, for example, in biblical study.

Assessing Critical Thinking

Several tools are available to assess aspects of critical thinking skills. Some are designed for younger students, others for college students and adults. While most are developed for use in a general education or every day context, some are tailored for the interests of people in different professional fields. In addition to tests, other tools for assessing critical thinking include rubrics and performance rating forms.

Reaching a conclusion

Given the nature of the process, critical thinking is rarely final. One arrives at a conclusion, given the available evidence and based on an evaluation. However, conclusions must always remain subject to further evaluation if new information comes to hand.

 

Quotations

William Graham Sumner offers a useful summary of critical thinking:

The critical habit of thought, if usual in 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 ... 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.

Dr. Martin Luther King said:

The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically . . . The complete education gives one not only power of concentration but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate.

11 AN INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

by   Steven D. Schafersman   January, 1991

Critical thinking is an important and vital topic in modern education. All educators are interested in teaching critical thinking to their students. Many academic departments hope that its professors and instructors will become informed about the strategy of teaching critical thinking skills, identify areas in one's courses as the proper place to emphasize and teach critical thinking, and develop and use some problems in exams that test students' critical thinking skills. This critical thinking manual has been prepared to inform and aid you to accomplish these things, and it has been kept brief and straightforward so that all faculty members will have the time and opportunity to read it and follow the suggestions it contains.

Purpose and Rationale of Teaching Critical Thinking

The purpose of specifically teaching critical thinking in the sciences or any other discipline is to improve the thinking skills of students and thus better prepare them to succeed in the world. But, you may ask, don't we automatically teach critical thinking when we teach our subjects, especially mathematics and science, the two disciplines which supposedly epitomize correct and logical thinking? The answer, sadly, is often no. Please consider these two quotations:

"It is strange that we expect students to learn, yet seldom teach them anything about learning." Donald Norman, 1980, "Cognitive engineering and education," in Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, edited by D.T. Tuna and F. Reif, Erlbaum Publishers.

"We should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think." Clement and Lochhead, 1980, Cognitive Process Instruction.

Perhaps you can now see the problem. All education consists of transmitting to students two different things: (1) the subject matter or discipline content of the course ("what to think"), and (2) the correct way to understand and evaluate this subject matter ("how to think"). We do an excellent job of transmitting the content of our respective academic disciplines, but we often fail to teach students how to think effectively about this subject matter, that is, how to properly understand and evaluate it. This second ability is termed critical thinking. All educational disciplines have reported the difficulty of imparting critical thinking skills. In 1983, in its landmark report A Nation at Risk, the National Commission on Excellence in Education warned:

"Many 17-year-olds do not possess the 'higher-order' intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps."

While we as professors have the ability ourselves to think critically (we had to learn these skills to earn advanced degrees in our disciplines), many students--including our own--never develop critical thinking skills. Why? There are a number of reasons. The first goal of education, "what to think," is so traditionally obvious that instructors and students may focus all their energies and efforts on the task of transmitting and acquiring basic knowledge. Indeed, many students find that this goal alone is so overwhelming that they have time for little else. On the other hand, the second goal of education, "how to think" or critical thinking, is often so subtle that instructors fail to recognize it and students fail to realize its absence.

So much has become known about the natural world that the information content of science has become enormous. This is so well known that science educators and science textbook writers came to believe that they must seek to transmit as much factual information as possible in the time available. Textbooks grew larger and curricula became more concentrated; students were expected to memorize and learn increasingly more material. Acquisition of scientific facts and information took precedence over learning scientific methods and concepts. Inevitably, the essential accompanying task of transmitting the methods of correct investigation, understanding, and evaluation of all this scientific data (that is, critical thinking) was lost by the roadside. This situation became especially severe in primary and secondary education, and over the last decades there has been a well-known decline in the math and science ability of students in our country compared to other industrialized countries. Studies have shown that our students abilities in math and science begin on level with students in other countries, but then progressively decrease as they make their way through our educational system. By the end of high school, United States students rank among the lowest in the industrialized world in math and science achievement. We in introductory college science education inherit these students and have to deal with their deficiencies in scientific and critical thinking.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that when the information content of a discipline increases, it becomes even more vital to spend time, not learning more information, but learning methods to acquire, understand, and evaluate this information and the great amount of new information that is not known now but will surely follow. Frankly, it is counterproductive to simply memorize and learn more new and isolated facts when future facts may eventually displace these. Thus, our science education policy has been completely backward, teaching more science facts and less scientific method rather than the converse. The errors of primary and secondary education in math, science, and other disciplines during the last forty years are now well known and are currently being addressed. The latest science books, for example, emphasize critical thinking and the scientific method. They focus on teaching students the proper ways to obtain new reliable knowledge for one's self, not on engendering factual overload. Curriculum reforms in science, such as Project 2061 of the AAAS and Scope, Sequence and Coordination of the NSTA, are also being instituted. It will be another generation before these textbook and curriculum reforms will have achieved results, if ever, and until then we must be aware of students' lack of critical thinking skills and of our need to enhance them. (It is accepted, one assumes, that students entering college should already have mastered all basic critical thinking skills; that is, they should have learned these skills during their primary and secondary education and thus be able to bring them with them into the college math and science classroom. The fact that this manual has been prepared is an indication that students have not learned these skills. We may be the last opportunity such students have to appreciate and learn critical thinking.)

A final rationale for critical thinking is explained by William T. Daly (1990) in a short article, "Developing Critical Thinking Skills." He says that

"the critical thinking movement in the U.S. has been bolstered and sustained by the business community's need to compete in a global economy. The general skill levels needed in the work force are going up while the skill levels of potential employees are going down. As a result, this particular educational reform movement . . . will remain crucial to the education of the work force and the economy's performance in the global arena. This economic pressure to teach critical thinking skills will fall on educational institutions because these skills, for the most part, are rarely taught or reinforced outside formal educational institutions. Unfortunately, at the moment, they are also rarely taught inside educational institutions."

Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge about the world. Another way to describe it is reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it. Critical thinking is not being able to process information well enough to know to stop for red lights or whether you received the correct change at the supermarket. Such low-order thinking, critical and useful though it may be, is sufficient only for personal survival; most individuals master this. True critical thinking is higher-order thinking, enabling a person to, for example, responsibly judge between political candidates, serve on a murder trial jury, evaluate society's need for nuclear power plants, and assess the consequences of global warming. Critical thinking enables an individual to be a responsible citizen who contributes to society, and not be merely a consumer of society's distractions.

Children are not born with the power to think critically, nor do they develop this ability naturally beyond survival-level thinking. Critical thinking is a learned ability that must be taught. Most individuals never learn it. Critical thinking cannot be taught reliably to students by peers or by most parents. Trained and knowledgable instructors are necessary to impart the proper information and skills. Math and science instructors have precisely this information and these skills. Why?

Critical thinking can be described as the scientific method applied by ordinary people to the ordinary world. This is true because critical thinking mimics the well-known method of scientific investigation: a question is identified, an hypothesis formulated, relevant data sought and gathered, the hypothesis is logically tested and evaluated, and reliable conclusions are drawn from the result. All of the skills of scientific investigation are matched by critical thinking, which is therefore nothing more than scientific method used in everyday life rather than in specifically scientific disciplines or endeavors. Critical thinking is scientific thinking. Many books and papers describing critical thinking present it's goals and methods as identical or similar to the goals and methods of science. A scientifically-literate person, such as a math or science instructor, has learned to think critically to achieve that level of scientific awareness. But any individual with an advanced degree in any university discipline has almost certainly learned the techniques of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the ability to think for one's self and reliably and responsibly make those decisions that affect one's life. Critical thinking is also critical inquiry, so such critical thinkers investigate problems, ask questions, pose new answers that challenge the status quo, discover new information that can be used for good or ill, question authorities and traditional beliefs, challenge received dogmas and doctrines, and often end up possessing power in society greater than their numbers. It may be that a workable society or culture can tolerate only a small number of critical thinkers, that learning, internalizing, and practicing scientific and critical thinking is discouraged. Most people are followers of authority: most do not question, are not curious, and do not challenge authority figures who claim special knowledge or insight. Most people, therefore, do not think for themselves, but rely on others to think for them. Most people indulge in wishful, hopeful, and emotional thinking, believing that what they believe is true because they wish it, hope it, or feel it to be true. Most people, therefore, do not think critically.

Critical thinking has many components. Life can be described as a sequence of problems that each individual must solve for one's self. Critical thinking skills are nothing more than problem solving skills that result in reliable knowledge. Humans constantly process information. Critical thinking is the practice of processing this information in the most skillful, accurate, and rigorous manner possible, in such a way that it leads to the most reliable, logical, and trustworthy conclusions, upon which one can make responsible decisions about one's life, behavior, and actions with full knowledge of assumptions and consequences of those decisions.

Raymond S. Nickerson (1987), an authority on critical thinking, characterizes a good critical thinker in terms of knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and habitual ways of behaving. Here are some of the characteristics of such a thinker:

  • uses evidence skillfully and impartially
     
  • organizes thoughts and articulates them concisely and coherently
     
  • distinguishers between logically valid and invalid inferences
     
  • suspends judgment in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a decision
     
  • understands the difference between reasoning and rationalizing
     
  • attempts to anticipate the probable consequences of alternative actions
     
  • understands the idea of degrees of belief
     
  • sees similarities and analogies that are not superficially apparent
     
  • can learn independently and has an abiding interest in doing so
     
  • applies problem-solving techniques in domains other than those in which learned
     
  • can structure informally represented problems in such a way that formal techniques, such as mathematics, can be used to solve them
     
  • can strip a verbal argument of irrelevancies and phrase it in its essential terms
     
  • habitually questions one's own views and attempts to understand both the assumptions that are critical to those views and the implications of the views
     
  • is sensitive to the difference between the validity of a belief and the intensity with which it is held
     
  • is aware of the fact that one's understanding is always limited, often much more so than would be apparent to one with a noninquiring attitude
     
  • recognizes the fallibility of one's own opinions, the probability of bias in those opinions, and the danger of weighting evidence according to personal preferences

This list is, of course, incomplete, but it serves to indicate the type of thinking and approach to life that critical thinking is supposed to be. Similar descriptions of critical thinking attributes are available in the very extensive literature of critical thinking. See, for example, Teaching Thinking Skills, 1987, edited by J. B. Baron and R. J. Steinberg; Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking, 1985, edited by A. L. Costa; The Teaching of Thinking, 1985, edited by R. S. Nickerson and others; Critical Thinking, Fifth Edition, 1998, by B. N. Moore and Richard Parker, and Critical Thinking, Second edition, 1990, by John Chaffe. These books are representative of the genre.

Relationship of Critical Thinking to the Scientific Method

Because of the identification of critical thinking as scientific thinking, it is reasonable to conclude that math and science courses are a good place to learn critical thinking by learning the scientific method; unfortunately, this is not always true. Good scientists who conduct science must practice critical thinking, and good science teachers usually teach it, but few ordinary individuals learn the scientific method, even those who successfully take a number of science classes in high school and college. This is because, as discussed above, science in the United States is often poorly taught as a fact-based discipline rather than as a way of knowing or method of discovery. As incredible as it may seem, studies reveal that 3% of the U.S. population is scientifically literate, down from 5% about twenty years ago. Thus, it does not appear that science alone will teach critical thinking to the masses. In fact, critical thinking programs are almost always designed by social scientists and directed toward improving thinking in the humanities and social studies, but the same can be accomplished with math and science courses. Properly taught university courses should teach a student critical thinking in addition to the disciplinary content of the course.

It is useful to ask why the scientific method--now recognized, in its guise of critical thinking, as so important to modern education that hundreds of critical thinking programs exist in thousands of schools across the nation--is so valuable for an individual to learn and practice. The reason is because the scientific method is the most powerful method ever invented by humans to obtain relevant and reliable knowledge about nature. Indeed, it is the only method humans have of discovering reliable knowledge (knowledge that has a high probability of being true). Another name for this type of knowledge is justified true belief (belief that is probably true because it has been obtained and justified by a reliable method). Nobel Prize-winner Sir Peter Medawar claimed that, "In terms of fulfillment of declared intentions, science is incomparably the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon." Other methods of gaining knowledge--such as those using revelation, authority, artistic and moral insight, philosophical speculation, hopeful and wishful thinking, and other subjective and authoritarian means--have historically resulted in irrelevant and unreliable knowledge, and they are no better today. These nonscientific methods of discovering knowledge, however, are more popular than scientific methods despite their repeated failures in obtaining reliable knowledge. There are many reasons for this, but two of the most important are that nonscientific methods are (1) more congenial to emotional and hopeful human nature, and (2) are easier to learn and practice than scientific methods. Despite these reasons, however, the value and power of possessing reliable knowledge--as contrasted with the usual unreliable, misleading, irrelevant, inaccurate, wishful, hopeful, intuitive, and speculative knowledge most humans contend with--have caused modern government, business, and education leaders to place the scientific endeavor in high regard, and caused them to promote teaching the scientific method and its popular manifestation: critical thinking.

Humans are conditioned from birth to follow authority figures and not to question their pronouncements. Such conditioning is done by parents and teachers using a wide variety of positive and negative reinforcement techniques. Most individuals reach adulthood in this conditioned form. The result of such conditioning is the antithesis of both scientific investigation and critical thinking: individuals lack both curiosity and the skills to perform independent inquiry to discover reliable knowledge. Individuals who think critically can think for themselves: they can identify problems, gather relevant information, analyze information in a proper way, and come to reliable conclusions by themselves, without relying on others to do this for them. This is also the goal of science education. Critical thinking allows one to face and comprehend objective reality by gaining reliable knowledge about the world. This, in turn, allows one to better earn a living, achieve success in life, better solve life's problems, and be reconciled to existence, mortality, and the universe. If a person is happier possessing reliable knowledge and living in objective reality, rather than living in ignorance and possessing false or unreliable beliefs, this is as good a reason as any for teaching and learning critical thinking.

Formal Critical Thinking Programs

There are two ways to teach critical thinking in the classroom. The first method, and the one we will find endorsed in this manual, is also the easiest, least time-consuming, and the least expensive. This method is to simply modify one's teaching and testing methods slightly to enhance critical thinking among one's students. This method is explained in the following two sections.

The second method--more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive--is briefly described now. This method makes use of formal critical thinking exercises, programs, and materials that have been prepared by specialists and can be purchased for immediate use by the teacher or instructor. These materials are the dominant means by which critical thinking is now being taught in primary and secondary education. For a single classroom, school, or school district, such formal critical thinking materials cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. The fact that critical thinking programs exist today is a sad commentary on the decline of education in the United States, for students apparently once learned critical thinking in our country without such materials.

Dozens of formal critical thinking programs exist. Here are just three that arrived unsolicited in my faculty mailbox:

First, the "CORT Thinking Program" by Dr. Edward de Bono, is a set of 60 "thinking lessons" that promise to "succeed in motivating students of all ages and abilities to: think--and develop creative solutions to problems--both inside and outside the classroom, improve the quantity and quality of their creative writing, and see themselves as active thinkers, and therefore able to hold a better self image of themselves and have confidence in their own ability to succeed."

Second, the "Strategies for Teaching Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum" from Education Testing Service consists of a two-phase professional development program for secondary-level educators that will enable them to "integrate the teaching of thinking skills into their instructional program, and train teachers in their schools and/or districts to do the same." Phase I teaches "introduction to thinking skills, concept formation, finding patterns, making inferences, formulating and testing hypotheses, and understanding and constructing meaning." Phase II teaches the teachers to train other teachers.

The third program, from Teacher's Press, asks "Are you concerned when American teenagers lack logical thinking skill, equate influence with tricks and bribery, are unable to evaluate the reliability of data?" They have prepared high school course materials that actively address these concerns. For example, the description of their unit on "A Study of Logical Fallacies" states that, "Teaching critical thinking skills has long been accepted as a major goal of most teachers. Most probably say that they want to develop in their students a trusting, but questioning, world outlook. Most want students to actively investigate the world in a structured, scientific way--as opposed to blind acceptance of tradition, authority or folk wisdom."

Course Areas In Which to Emphasize Critical Thinking

The prior sections of this manual were written to describe critical thinking, to inform you about the pressing need to promote it among students, and to encourage you to make it part of your course curriculum and teaching method. Now you will learn where and how to do this in your own courses. Critical thinking can be presented or emphasized in all classroom areas: lecture, homework, term papers, and exams. We will examine each in turn. Some slight extra effort on the part of the instructor will be necessary, but the effort will be worthwhile because the results are so valuable for the student. Remember, as you teach critical thinking, teach also why it is worthwhile.

Critical thinking can be taught during:

1. Lectures You may of course directly teach critical thinking principles to your students during lecture, but this is neither required nor advisable. Stay with your subject matter, but present this is such a way that students will be encouraged to think critically about it. This is accomplished during lecture by questioning the students in ways that require that they not only understand the material, but can analyze it and apply it to new situations.

2. Laboratories Students inevitably practice critical thinking during laboratories in science class, because they are learning the scientific method.

3. Homework Both traditional reading homework and special written problem sets or questions can be used to enhance critical thinking. Homework presents many opportunities to encourage critical thinking.

4. Quantitative Exercises Mathematical exercises and quantitative word problems teach problem solving skills that can be used in everyday life. This obviously enhances critical thinking.

5. Term Papers The best way to teach critical thinking is to require that students write. Writing forces students to organize their thoughts, contemplate their topic, evaluate their data in a logical fashion, and present their conclusions in a persuasive manner. Good writing is the epitome of good critical thinking.

6. Exams Exam questions can be devised which promote critical thinking rather than rote memorization. This is true for both essay question exams and multiple-choice exams.

Your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to use one or more of the following classroom strategies or techniques to teach critical thinking in one or more of the above four course areas. You are encouraged to explore the possibilites and use as many as you wish. If you are already using some of these techniques, and many of you are, then you don't have to change a thing.

Critical Thinking Teaching Strategies and Classroom Techniques

Critical thinking cannot be taught by lecturing. Critical thinking is an active process, while, for most students, listening to lectures is a passive activity. The intellectual skills of critical thinking--analysis, synthesis, reflection, etc.--must be learned by actually performing them. Classroom instruction, homework, term papers, and exams, therefore, should emphasize active intellectual participation by the student.

Lectures: Enhancement of critical thinking can be accomplished during lecture by periodically stopping and asking students searching and thoughtful questions about the material you have just presented, and then wait an appropriate time for them to respond. Do not immediately answer such questions yourself; leave sufficient time for students to think about their answer before they state it. If you constantly answer such questions yourself, students will quickly realize this and not respond. Learn students' names as quickly as possible and ask the questions of specific students that you call upon by name. If an individual cannot answer a question, help them by simplifying the question and leading them through the thought process: ask what data are needed to answer the question, suggest how the data can be used to answer the question, and then have the student use this data in an appropriate way to come up with an answer.

You may, of course, ask simple questions that merely ask students to regurgitate factual information that you have just given them in lecture. Many students have trouble with these factual questions because they are not paying attention in class, they simply have never learned how to listen to a lecture and take mental and written notes, or they don't know how to review their notes and the textbook in preparation for an exam. Perhaps the most basic type of critical thinking is knowing how to listen to a lecture actively rather than passively; many students don't know how to do this because they were never taught it and they were able to get through the educational system to their present situation--your class--without having to practice it. (A good book to read or suggest to students that they read is How to Speak, How to Listen by Mortimer J. Adler.) It is probably wise to begin asking the factual type of question so that students will realize that they have to pay attention. However, the goal of critical thinking requires that you eventually ask questions that require students to think through a cause and effect or premise and conclusion type of argument. This obliges them to reason from data or information they now possess through the lecture to reach new conclusions or understanding about the topic. For example, in chemistry, after presenting information about chemical reactions, you could ask students to describe chemical reactions that occur to them or near them everyday by the combination of commonplace chemical materials. Ask them to explain what type of reaction it is (oxidation, reduction, etc.) using whatever knowledge they possess of the reactant materials and their new knowledge of chemical reactions.

Dr. Dennis Huston of Rice University, winner of numerous teaching awards, recommends asking such questions in class. He complains that we teach students to be mere receivers of information from the instructor, rather than getting them to talk about and trust their own thoughts about the subject matter. Huston states that thoughtful and searching questions often have uncertain and ambiguous answers; this is more true in his area of study (literature) than in math and science, but the concept is the same. Rather than condition students to value only what the instructor says, get them to think deeply about the topic and value what they think and feel. Teach so that students think their ideas matter. Ask them to make connections and recognize patterns. They will experience a responsibility for their own education and think about what they learn and read. Students will be involved with their own learning, will feel deeply about it, and learn to value and trust their own thoughts and ideas. These recommendations are a perfect application of promoting critical thinking.

After lecture but before the class ends, ask students to write one-minute papers on the most significant thing they learned in class today and what single thing they still feel confused about. Dr. Huston says this is the single most important exercise you can do. You get immediate feedback about what the students are learning and what they still need to understand (technically, this is an application of what is called "classroom research" or "classroom assessment," the deliberate discovery of what and how much students are learning and of how you are teaching). He says it also improves their writing. In our present case, of course, this exercise improves critical thinking.

In class, encourage questions from students. Always respond postively to questions; never brush them off or belitte the questioner. Instead, praise the questioner (for example, say "Good question!" or "I bet a lot of you want to know that"). Questions from students mean they are thinking critically about what you are saying; encourage that thinking!

During lecture, bring in historical and philosophical information about math and science that enables students to understand that all scientific and mathematical knowledge was gained by someone practicing critical thinking in the past, sometimes by acts of great courage or tedious painstaking work in the face of seemingly insurmountable difficulties.

Laboratories: Many science courses have laboratories connected with them. Science laboratory exercises are all excellent for teaching critical thinking. The reasons should be obvious. Here, the student learns the scientific method by acually practicing it. This method of teaching critical thinking is so clear and obvious that it seems odd that critical thinking is not promoted more in primary and secondary education by simply beginning science instruction in the first grade and requiring that students take more science courses. You will have to decide for yourself why this isn't the case. Since laboratories automatically teach critical thinking to some degree, we will spend no more time on this topic.

Homework: Innumerable opportunities exist to promote critical thinking by homework assignments. For reading homework, Dr. William T. Daly recommends that you provide students the general questions you want answered before they begin reading, and insist that they organize their notes around these questions. Require that students transform the information and make it their own by requiring them to paraphrase, summarize, or outline all reading assignments. He suggests that you can grade their written efforts with oral quizes that can be structured to require abstract conceptualization and graded as students speak, for most students will prepare carefully in order to avoid failing repeatedly in public. You may also, of course, collect, grade, and return their written efforts.

As stated above, getting students to write more is the best, and perhaps the easiest, way to enhance critical thinking (this is also the answer to the question, "How did students learn critical thinking before there were formal critical thinking exercises and modules?"). Writing forces students to organize their thoughts and think critically about the material. Ask students to write short papers about pertinent topics, review science articles, even paraphrase news articles and textbook chapters. These exercises can be as elaborate as you wish to make them. For example, Drs. Robin W. Tyser and William J. Cerbin (1991, Bioscience, v. 41, no. 1, p. 41-46, "Critical thinking exercises for introductory biology courses") propose the assignment of "science news exercises" designed to promote critical thinking. Students are asked to read a short science news article taken from the popular media (newspaper, science magazine, etc.), contemplate a list of take-home questions that include one or two hypothetical claims about the article, and a week later take a short quiz made up of questions selected from the list. The instructor prepares the questions and copies and distributes them and the news article to the students at biweekly intervals about six or seven times a semester. The authors state, "The ultimate goal of these exercises is to improve students ability to compose a concise, logically persuasive line of reasoning about why a claim should be either conditionally accepted or not accepted." They point out that their's and others' critical thinking exercises have been empirically demonstrated to develop science-related thinking skills in a course without sacrificing the disciplinary content. For other examples of this type, please see W. R. Statkiewicz and R. D. Allen, 1983, "Practical exercises to develop critical thinking skills," Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 12, p. 262-266, and M. P. Donovan and R. D. Allen, 1989, "Critical thinking questions for examinations and exercises," p. 13-16, in L. W. Crow, editor, Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Sciences, Society for College Science Teachers.

Quantitative Exercises: Problem solving is critical thinking; thus, courses such as mathematics, chemistry, and physics, that require the solution of various mathematical problems, automatically teach critical thinking to some extent just by following the traditional curriculum. When students are required to solve math problems, they are practicing critical thinking, whether they know it or not. Mathematics, chemistry, and physics problems belong, of course, to only a limited subset of critical thinking, but this subset is an important one. Indeed, all science courses--including those that do not traditionally require mathematical problem-solving skills at the introductory level, such as biology, geology, oceanography, astronomy, and environmental science--should begin to incorporate some mathematical problems in the curriculum. Asking students to solve math problems in a science gets them thinking about nature and reality in empirical and quantitative terms, key components of critical thinking.

One point, however, has been made by mathematics professor Dr. Robert H. DeVore. Do not, he says, make the mistake of believing that teaching mathematical manipulation alone will lead to critical thinking. Many arithmetical and mathematical problems and exercises will give the student the facility to manipulate numbers, but will not teach critical thinking. Dr. DeVore believes that mathematical word problems, that ask the student to approach the empirical world from a numerical or quantitative viewpoint, are essential to enhancing critical thinking. Indeed, he feels that math students who do not intend to take higher-level math courses should be educated in the context of word problems to the greatest extent possible. Obviously, students who are given math problems to solve in the sciences are essentially working on word problems, so the point is automatically made here.

Here are some examples of mathematical word problems prepared by Dr. DeVore (1-5) and Dr. John B. Scott (6-10) that were specifically devised to enhance critical thinking:

1. Show that to convert a Celsius temperature (C°) to a Fahrenheit temperature (F°), you can double C°, deduct 10% from the result, and add 32°.

2. Bob buys an item for X dollars. He raises the price 15% and sells to Tom. Tom lowers the price he paid by 15% and sells back to Bob. Bob's gain on the two transactions is $2,812.50. What is the value of X?

3. Does a(bc) = (ab)c on a calculator? First, use variables of your own choosing. Then, try using a = 10-60, b = 10-60, and c = 1060. On my calculator (Sharp EL-506A), the left side of the equation is 10-6 and the right side is 0.

4. Does a+(b+c) = (a+b)+c on a calculator? Again, use variables of your own choosing. Now, try using a = 1, b = 1020, c = -1020. On my calculator, the left side of the equation is 1 and the right side is 0.

5. Is any law of algebra correct on a calculator?

6. Using a standard non-digital watch or clock, at what exact time in hours, minutes, and seconds are the hour and minute hands precisely coincident after 3:00 ?

7. A merchant has a square carpet priced at $1.00 per square foot and a rectangular carpet, with length three times its width, priced at $1.50 per square foot. The combined area of the carpets is 112 square feet, and the value of the rectangular carpet is $8.00 more than the value of the square carpet. Find the dimensions of each carpet.

8. Two airports A and B are 400 miles apart, and B is due east of airport A. A plane flew from A to B in 2 hours and then returned to airport A in 2 1/2 hours. If the wind blew from due west with a constant velocity during the entire trip, find the speed of the the plane in still air and the speed of the wind.

9. A boat can travel 36 miles downstream in 1 hour and 48 minutes, but requires 4 hours for the return trip upstream. Assuming the boat and the stream have constanat velocities, find the velocity of the stream and the velocity of the boat in still water.

10. The periods of time required for two painters to paint one square yard of floor differ by one minute. Together, they can paint 27 square yards in one hour. How long does it take each painter to paint one square yard?

Term Papers: Term papers promote critical thinking among students by requiring that they acquire, synthesize, and logically analyze information, and that they then present this information and their conclusions in written form. Term papers are not traditionally required in math and science courses, although they may be and perhaps should be. We math and science instructors really don't require that students write very much and, when we do, don't requre that they use correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and syntax. At the very least, we should allow term papers as extra credit to give students a means to make up poor exam grades. Students who are doing poorly always ask if there is anything they can do to make up their grade; tell them from the first day that an optional term paper--of appropriate style, content, and length--will enable them to improve their grade in the course. Tell them that poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, syntax, and form will result in lesser credit. This technique can be used in any math or science course and is strongly recommended as a way to improve students' critical thinking skills. Perhaps as they research and write it, they will begin to think critically about the benefits of keeping up with lectures and studying for exams.

Examinations: Examinations should require that students write or, at least, think. For written exams, short- and long-answer essay questions are the obvious solution. For example, Dr. James T. Hunter, a biology professor, typically uses a few short-answer essay questions on each exam that test the ability of students to analyze information and draw conclusions. This commonly-used technique, by itself, helps to teach critical thinking. Some examples of these questions are as follows:

1. Using diagrams and/or descriptions, describe the synthesis of a protein beginning at the DNA level and ending with a finished protein.

2. Contrast the relative advantages and disadvantages of the light and electron microscopes.

3. Explain the importance of plasmids, biologically and in genetic engineering.

4. In your own words, give at least six ground rules for the collection of clinical specimens for microbiological studies.

But other possibilities exist. For example, Dr. Hunter modified some of his essay questions to challenge the student's critical thinking even more. He changed Question 4 above to the following:

4. Lab technician Jim collects a culture from a patient on which the doctor previously operated. Jim carefully collects pus from a wound on the leg of the patient using a toothpick and then, seeing another wound on the face of the patient, washes the face wound with iodine and, using the same toothpick, collects serum from that wound. Jim drops the toothpick into a tube of nutrient broth, puts the name of the doctor on the broth culture tube, and takes it to the lab on the way home from work. List the mistakes Jim made.

In an experiment designed to further encourage critical thinking among students, Dr. Hunter included a take-home bonus question. These questions were chosen "to go beyond the lecture material and to force use of the book and lecture notes to arrive at and phrase a reasoned answer to a complicated question." This is an example of an essay question written specifically to enhance critical thinking. But please remember, almost any essay question, including those less elaborate than this, will serve to promote critical thinking. This is because writing, in itself, promotes critical thinking.

Finally, let us consider multiple-choice questions. Although these are constantly characterized as being inimical to the promulgation of critical thinking, the fact remains that they must often be used for exams. Large class sizes and student expectation of impartial grading are the two primary reasons to rely on multiple-choice questions. It is therefore encouraging to learn that multiple-choice questions can serve to enhance critical thinking if they are designed correctly. Let us examine some examples prepared by Dr. Steven D. Schafersman. First, as counter-examples, the following two questions do not promote critical thinking, because they rely solely on simple memorization:

1. The nucleus of an atom is composed of

a. protons and ions
b. neutrons and electrons
c. protons and electrons
d. isotopes and ions
e. neutrons and protons

2. The most abundant rock-forming mineral in the Earth's crust is

a. quartz
b. clay
c. feldspar
d. calcite
e. olivine

The following questions do promote critical thinking, because they ask the student to perform some reasoning along with the memorization:

3. If you drilled a well 8 kilometers deep and encountered rock of the mantle, your drilling rig would be

a. far offshore in the deep ocean
b. on the coastal plain near a continent's shoreline
c. on a mountain range
d. in a deep valley or basin near the center of a continent
e. nearshore in a subduction zone

4. Although 95% of the crust of the Earth is composed of either igneous or metamorphic rock, 75% of the exposed surface of the continental crust is sedimentary rock. This is because

a. erosion of surface soil and rocks has produced a veneer of sediments over most of the Earth, and lithification of these sediments has produced sedimentary rock strata
b. the temperature of the Earth increases downward, leading to the creation of vast amounts of igneous and metamorphic rocks
c. oceanic crust, which covers about 70% of the Earth's surface, is largely composed of igneous rocks, such as basalt, which forms at oceanic ridges
d. constitute such a small percentage of the surface of the Earth that they contribute much less material to the surface than do physical and chemical precipitation of sediment

5. Of the following areas, the one least likely to be affected by a catastrophic mudflow is

a. the Ozark Mountains of SW Missouri and NW Arkansas
b. the central Argentine Andes
c. the Cordilleras of Colombia
d. the Cascade Range of N California, Oregon, and Washington
e. the Texas Hill Country west of Austin

6. Which of the following is least likely to either trigger or enhance a mass-wasting process?

a. an earthquake
b. a prolonged period of drought
c. marine erosion of a cliff face
d. rapid tectonic uplift
e. abundant precipitation in a brief period

7. Which of the following desert proceses is most essential to the production of loess?

a. deflation
b. saltation
c. rolling
d. oxidation
e. solution

The idea here is not profound. Many of you probably use this type of multiple-choice "think question" already. They simply ask that the student read the information provided in the question, examine the alternative answers, and perform one or more acts of reason in addition to any memorization necessary. Choosing among alternatives in multiple-choice exams, as in real life and any other intellectual pursuit, should involve more than memorization. Please design some of your multiple-choice questions in the future with this in mind.

12  Critical Thinking mini-lesson 2

The Concept of Validity

Deductive arguments are those whose premises are said to entail their conclusions (see lesson 1). If the premises of a deductive argument do entail their conclusion, the argument is valid. (The term valid is not used by most logicians when referring to inductive arguments, but that is a topic for another mini-lesson.) If not, the argument is invalid.

Here's an example of a valid argument:

Shermer and Randi are skeptics.
Shermer and Randi are writers.
So, some skeptics are writers.

To say the argument is valid is to say that it is logically impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false. So, if the premises of my example are true, then the conclusion must be true also. The premises of this argument happen to be true, so this argument is not only valid, but sound or cogent. A sound or cogent deductive argument is defined as one that is valid and has true premises.

A valid argument may have false premises, however. For example,

All Protestants are bigots.
All bigots are Italian.
So, all Protestants are Italian.

Being valid is not the same as being sound. Validity is determined by the relationship of premises to conclusion in a deductive argument. This relationship, in a valid argument, is referred to as implication or inference. The premises of a valid argument are said to imply their conclusion. The conclusion of a valid argument may be inferred from its premises.

While many errors in deduction are due to making unjustified inferences from premises, the vast majority of unsound deductive arguments are probably due to premises that are questionable or false. For example, many researchers on psi have found statistical anomalies and have inferred from this data that they have found evidence for psi. The error, however, is one of assumption, not inference. The researchers assume that psi is the best explanation for the statistical anomaly. If one makes this assumption, then one's inference from the data is justified. However, the assumption is questionable and the arguments based on it are unsound. Similar unsound reasoning occurs in the arguments that intercessory prayer heals and that psychics get messages from the dead. Researchers assume that a statistically significant correlation between praying and healing is best explained by assuming prayer is a causative agent, but this assumption is questionable. Researchers also assume that results that are statistically improbable if explained by chance, guessing, or cold reading, are best explained by positing communication from the dead, but this assumption is questionable. These researchers reason well enough. That is, they draw correct inferences from their data. But the reasons on which they base their reasoning are faulty because questionable.

I am not suggesting by the above comments that the data and methods of these researchers are beyond criticism. In fact, I find it interesting that skeptics seem to divide into two camps when criticizing such things as Gary Schwartz's so-called afterlife experiments. One camp attacks the assumptions. The other camp attacks the data or the methods used to gather the data. The former camp finds errors of assumption and fallacies such as begging the question, argument to ignorance, or false dilemma. The other finds cheating, sensory leakage, poor use of statistics, inadequate controls, and that sort of thing.

Finally, some deductive arguments are unsound because they are invalid, not because their premises are false or questionable. Here is an unsound deductive argument whose premises may well be true:

If my astrologer is clairvoyant, then she predicted my travel plans correctly.
She predicted my travel plans correctly.
So, my astrologer is clairvoyant.

This conclusion is not entailed by these premises, so the argument is invalid. It is possible that both these premises are true but the conclusion is false. (She may have predicted my travel plans because she got information from my travel agent, for example.) This argument is said to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Another example of this fallacy would be:

If God created the universe, we should observe order and design in Nature.
We do observe order and design in Nature.
So, God created the universe.

The premises of this argument may be true, but they do not entail their conclusion. This conclusion could be false even if the premises are true. (We should also observe order and design in Nature if something like Darwin's theory of natural selection is true.)

13 Critical Thinking mini-lesson 3

The Wason Card Problem

One of the nicer features of the James Randi Educational Foundation's Amazing Meeting earlier this year was the time set aside for mini-talks by those responding to a call for papers. One of those talks was given by Dr. Jeff Corey, who teaches experimental psychology at C. W. Post College. His talk was on "The Wason Card Problem" and its role in teaching critical thinking skills. Four cards are presented: A, B, 4, and 7. There is a letter on one side of each card and a number on the other side. Which card(s) must you turn over to determine whether the following statement is false? "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side."

 
 
 

A

 
 

 
 
 

B

 
 

 
 
 

4

 
 

 
 
 

7

 
 

(I suggest you spend a few minutes trying to solve the problem before continuing.)

(I hope you have been able to restrain yourself from jumping ahead and have worked out your solution to the problem. Before continuing, try to solve the following alternative version: Let the cards show "beer," "cola," "16 years," and "22 years." On one side of each card is the name of a drink; on the other side is the age of the drinker. What card(s) must be turned over to determine if the following statement is false? If a person is drinking beer, then the person is over 19-years-old.)

I gave the Wason Card Problem to 100 students last semester and only seven got it right, which was about what was expected. There are various explanations for these results. One of the more common explanations is in terms of confirmation bias. This explanation is based on the fact that the majority of people think you must turn over cards A and 4, the vowel card and the even-number card. It is thought that those who would turn over these cards are thinking "I must turn over A to see if there is an even number on the other side and I must turn over the 4 to see if there is a vowel on the other side." Such thinking supposedly indicates that one is trying to confirm the statement If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. Presumably, one is thinking that if the statement cannot be confirmed, it must be false. This explanation then leads to the question: Why do most people try to confirm a statement, when the task is to determine if it is false? One explanation is that people tend to try to fit individual cases into patterns or rules. The problem with this explanation is that in this case we are instructed to find cases that don't fit the rule. Is there some sort of inherent resistance to such an activity? Are we so driven to fit individual cases to a rule that we can't even follow a simple instruction to find cases that don't fit the rule? Or, are we so driven that we tend to think that the best way to determine whether an instance does not fit a rule is to try to confirm it and if it can't be confirmed then, and only then, do we consider that the rule might be wrong?

Corey noted that when the problem is changed from abstract items, such as numbers and letters, and put in concrete terms, such as drinks and the age of the drinker, the success rate significantly increases (see the example described above). One would think that confirmation bias would lead most people to say they must turn over the beer card and the 22 card, but they don't. Most people see that the cola and 22 cards are irrelevant to solving the problem. If I remember correctly, Corey explained the difference in performance between the abstract and concrete versions of the problem in terms of evolutionary psychology: Humans are hardwired to solve practical, concrete problems, not abstract ones. To support his point, he says he simplified the abstract test to include only two cards (showing 1 and 2) with equally poor results.

I had discussed confirmation bias, but not conditional statements, with my classes before giving them the Wason problem. The majority seemed to understand confirmation bias; so, if the reason so many do so poorly on this problem is confirmation bias, then just knowing about confirmation bias is not much help in overcoming it as a hindrance to critical thinking. This is consistent with what I teach. Recognition of a hindrance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for overcoming that hindrance. However, next semester I'm going to give my students the Wason test after I discuss determining the truth-value of conditional statements. The reason for doing so is that anyone who has studied the logic of conditional statements should know that a conditional statement is false if and only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. (The antecedent is the if statement; the consequent is the then statement.) So, the statement If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side can only be false if the statement a card has a vowel on one side is true and the statement it has an even number on the other side is false. I must look at the card with the vowel showing to find out what is on the other side because it could be an odd number and thus would show me that the statement is false. I must also look at the card with the odd number to find out what is on the other side because it could be a vowel and thus would show me that the statement is false. I don't need to look at the card with the consonant because the statement I am testing has nothing to do with consonants. Nor do I need to look at the card with the even number showing because whether the other side has a vowel or a consonant will not help me determine whether the statement is false.

There is a possibility that the reason many think that the even-numbered card must be turned over is that they mistakenly think that the statement they are testing implies that if a card has an even number on one side then it cannot have a consonant on the other. In other words, it is possible that the high error rate is due to misunderstanding logical implication rather than confirmation bias. In the concrete version of the problem, perhaps it is much easier to see that the statement If a person is drinking beer, then the person is over 19-years-old does not imply that if a person is over 19 then they cannot be drinking cola. If this is the case, then an explanation in terms of the difference between contextual implication and logical implication might be better than one in terms of confirmation bias. Perhaps it is the context of drinking and age of the drinker that indicates to many people that a person can be over 19 and not drink beer without falsifying the statement being tested, i.e., that simply because if you're drinking beer you are over 19 doesn't imply that if you're over 19 you can't be drinking cola. That is, in the concrete case people may not have any better understanding of logical implication than they do in the abstract case and neither case may have anything to do with confirmation bias.

On the other hand, some might reason that if I turn over the even card and find a vowel, then I have confirmed the statement, which is in effect the same as showing that the statement is not false, but true. This would be classic confirmation bias. Finding an instance that confirms the rule does not prove the rule is true. But, finding one instance that disproves the rule shows that the rule is false.

14 Critical Thinking mini-lesson 4

The Wason Card Problem Revisited

I received several responses to my analysis of the Wason problem. Mathematician and author Jan Willem Nienhuys wrote from the Netherlands:

I don't think that the card problem as presented is compatible with the beer over 21 problem. What would happen if you said "vowels and odds are forbidden to go together on one card" and ask someone to check whether there are cards that are forbidden. That's the beer over 21 problem. Another problem with the example is that the beer problem has a known social setting. If you made some kind of funny restriction, like 'over 22 must drink coke', it's much harder, or you can make a restaurant setting, with a completely strange restriction like 'girls (or people with a polysyllabic name) must order broccoli', then it's much more difficult, for the problem solvers must then keep an odd fact in mind while analyzing several cases. The less unfamiliar facts one has to keep at same time ready in the mind, the easier it is. (And it is quite possible that not everybody knows what's an even number or what's a vowel, or that people with slightly deficient knowledge know at most one of these concepts; you'd be surprised how deficient people's knowledge is).
 

I replied to Jan that, unless I'm mistaken, both problems imply that two cards are forbidden together (vowel and odd number; beer and 19-years or under). I think I will try the problem on my classes with Jan's suggested instruction and see if the results vary significantly. (I'll send him the results and he, the mathematician, can tell me whether the difference, if any, is significant!) The social setting would be part of what I'm calling the context that might be why the beer problem is easier to solve for most people. It had not occurred to me that part of the problem might be in understanding the meaning of words like "vowel" and "even," but that is a consideration that should not be taken lightly (unfortunately) and maybe I should try the test with some set-up questions to make sure those taking it understand such terms.

Jan replied:

I will be very interested in what you find. You might try variations like: if there are two primes on one side, the other side must show their product. This means that if a card shows a single number that is the product of two primes, you don't have to turn it around. If it shows two numbers that aren't primes, you also don't have to turn it around. Obviously the difficulty is that lots of people don't know what are primes, and even if they do so theoretically, some know their tables of multiplication so poorly, that they are at loss what to do when the card shows 42 or 49 or 87 or 36 or 39. Or 10.

Yikes! Jan, I teach a general course in logic and critical thinking, not math! My students would lynch me if I posed such a problem to them.

I do think that one of the problems with solving this problem (and many others!) has to do with how one reads or misreads the instructions. (For those who don't recall the exact instructions, here they are again: Four cards are presented: A, D, 4, and 7. There is a letter on one side of each card and a number on the other side. Which card(s) must you turn over to determine whether the following statement is false? "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side."

One reader wrote:

My solution to the problem is to check all cards (or a random sample if there are a large number of them) - Sometimes it's best to see what rules apply. (Sometimes "if" means if and only if...)

This approach represents a common mistake in problem-solving: self-imposed rules. The instructions do not imply that there are more than four cards, nor does "if" mean "if and only if." (See James Adams' Conceptual Blockbusting for a good discussion on common hindrances to problem-solving.)

The reader continues:

A simpler explanation for people choosing A and 4: Given that people tend to satifice, it makes sense that many will just check the cards where they see a vowel or an even number. It's a quick solution made with the immediate data on hand, requiring no additional thought (about the implications of the statement or anything else). Classic satisficing behavior.

Whether this solution is satisficing or satificing, it's wrong.

Another reader, Jack Philley, wrote:

Thanks for a great newsletter. I am a safety engineer and incident investigator. I also teach a segment on critical thinking in my incident investigation course, and I have been using the Wason card challenge. I picked it up from Tom Gilovich's book How We Know What Isn't So. About 80 % of my students get it wrong and some of them become very angry and embarrassed and defend their logic to an unreasonable degree. I use it to illustrate our natural talent to try to prove a hypothesis and our weakness in thinking about how to disprove a suspected hypothesis. This comes in handy when trying to identify the actual accident scenario from a set of speculated possible cause scenarios.

For those who haven't read Gilovich (or have but don't remember what he said about the Wason problem), he thinks that people turn over card "2" even though it is uninformative and can only confirm the hypothesis because they are looking for evidence that would be consistent with the hypothesis rather than evidence which would be inconsistent with the hypothesis. He also finds this behavior most informative because it "makes it abundantly clear that the tendency to seek out information consistent with a hypothesis need not stem from any desire for the hypothesis to be true (33)." Who really cares what is true regarding vowels and numbers? Thus, the notion that we seek confirmatory evidence because we are trying to find support for things we want to be true is not supported by the typical results of the Wason test. People seek confirmatory evidence, according to Gilovich, because they think it is relevant.

As to the notion I put forth that it is because of the context that people do better when the problem is in terms of drinking beer or soda and age, Gilovich notes that only in contexts that invoke the notion of permission do we find improved performance (p. 34 note). This just shows, he thinks, that there are some situations where "people are not preoccupied with confirmations."

15 Critical Thinking mini-lesson 5

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors that occur in arguments. In logic, an argument is the giving of reasons (called premises) to support some claim (called the conclusion). There are many ways to classify logical fallacies. I prefer listing the conditions for a good or cogent argument and then classifying logical fallacies according to the failure to meet these conditions.

Every argument makes some assumptions. A cogent argument makes only warranted assumptions, i.e., its assumptions are not questionable or false. So, fallacies of assumption make up one type of logical fallacy. One of the most common fallacies of assumption is called begging the question. Here the arguer assumes what he should be proving. Most arguments for psi commit this fallacy. For example, many believers in psi point to the ganzfeld experiments as proof of paranormal activity. They note that a .25 success rate is predicted by chance but Honorton had some success rates of .34. One defender of psi claims that the odds of getting 34% correct in these experiments was a million billion to one. That may be true but one is begging the question to ascribe the amazing success rate to paranormal powers. It could be evidence of psychic activity but there might be some other explanation as well. The amazing statistic doesn't prove what caused it. The fact that the experiment is trying to find proof of psi isn't relevant. If someone else did the same experiment but claimed to be trying to find proof that angels, dark matter, or aliens were communicating directly to some minds, that would not be relevant to what was actually the cause of the amazing statistic. The experimenters are simply assuming that any amazing stat they get is due to something paranormal.

Another common--and fatal--fallacy of assumption is the false dilemma, whereby one restricts consideration of reasonable alternatives.

Not all fallacies of assumption are fatal. Some cogent arguments might make one or two questionable or false assumptions, but still have enough good evidence to support their conclusions. Some, like the gambler's fallacy, are fatal, however.

Another quality of a cogent argument is that the premises are relevant to supporting their conclusions. Providing irrelevant reasons for your conclusion need not be fatal, either, provided you have sufficient relevant evidence to support your conclusion. However, if all the reasons you give to support of your conclusion are irrelevant then your reasoning is said to be a non sequitur. The divine fallacy is a type of non sequitur.

One of the more common fallacies of relevance is the ad hominem, an attack on the one making the argument rather than an attack on the argument. One of the most frequent types of ad hominem attack is to attack the person's motives rather than his evidence. For example, when an opponent refuses to agree with some point that is essential to your argument, you call him an "antitheist" or "obtuse."

Other examples of irrelevant reasoning are the sunk-cost fallacy and the argument to ignorance.

A third quality of a cogent argument is sometimes called the completeness requirement: A cogent argument should not omit relevant evidence. Selective thinking is the basis for most beliefs in the psychic powers of so-called mind readers and mediums. It is also the basis for many, if not most, occult and pseudoscientific beliefs. Selective thinking is essential to the arguments of defenders of untested and unproven remedies. Suppressing or omitting relevant evidence is obviously not fatal to the persuasiveness of an argument, but it is fatal to its cogency. The regressive fallacy is an example of a fallacy of omission. The false dilemma is also a fallacy of omission.

A fourth quality of a cogent argument is fairness. A cogent argument doesn't distort evidence nor does it exaggerate or undervalue the strength of specific data. The straw man fallacy violates the principle of fairness.

A fifth quality of cogent reasoning is clarity. Some fallacies are due to ambiguity, such as the fallacy of equivocation: shifting the meaning of a key expression in an argument. For example, the following argument uses 'accident' first in the sense of 'not created' and then in the sense of 'chance event.'

Since you don't believe you were created by God then you must believe you are just an accident. Therefore, all your thoughts and actions are accidents, including your disbelief in God.

Finally, a cogent argument provides a sufficient quantity of evidence to support its conclusion. Failure to provide sufficient evidence is to commit the fallacy of hasty conclusion. One type of hasty conclusion that occurs quite frequently in the production of superstitious beliefs and beliefs in the paranormal is the post hoc fallacy.

Some fallacies may be classified in more than one way, e.g., the pragmatic fallacy, which at times seems to be due to vagueness and at times due to insufficient evidence.

The critical thinker must supplement the study of logical fallacies with lessons from the social sciences on such topics as

James Alcock reminds us that “The true critical thinker accepts what few people ever accept -- that one cannot routinely trust perceptions and memories” (“The Belief Engine”). The unhappy truth is that humans are not truth-seeking missiles. In addition to understanding logical fallacies, we must also understand why we are prone to them.

There are literally hundreds of logical fallacies. For a good general introduction to fallacies I recommend Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer or Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley.

There are some on-line sites that focus on fallacies. I refer the reader to them without comment:

3/3 

Blue Box 2  Brian Nelson

 Do you need a party tent of white or silver tarp? Go to www.PartyTentCity.com or to see all my links go to:  http://www.PartyTentCity.com/PTC/Websites.html

Today's  special sale: Business is slow. Call me right now while this include page is up and get a 23% discount off any www.PartyTentCity.com  order.  No charge for shipping if picked up at  31 Gessner Rd.  in Houston, TX  77024 Use PayPal to Brian@NelsonIdeas.com or Call Brian 713-467-3025. http://www.NelsonIdeas.com/Directory-All-Websites/Alphabetical.html
Blue Box 2  Bookmark this page now!  
Contact Brian at 31 Gessner Rd. Houston, TX  77024 Tel. 713-467-3025 Cell 713-927-4479
Click: E-mail me 
www.IamFightingCancer.com   
 

16 Critical Thinking mini-lesson 6

Replication of Scientific Studies

A student who did very well in my Logic and Critical Reasoning course sent the following news item along with the suggestion that I might need to revise my thinking about lunar effects. I replied that I might need to emphasize more strongly what I teach: Look for what is not mentioned in the study, not just at what is mentioned. And don't forget how important replication of a study is.

Aug 11, 2003. (Bloomberg) -- Car accidents occur 14 percent more often on average during a full moon than a new moon, according to a study of 3 million car policies by the U.K.'s Churchill Insurance Group Plc.

The data show a rise in all types of accidents, involving single vehicles or multiple cars, the company said in an e-mailed press release. The next full moon will be tomorrow night.

``We know that the moon is a strong source of energy, as it affects the tides and weather patterns, but were surprised by this bizarre trend,'' Craig Staniland, head of car insurance at Churchill, said in the release.

The company, which Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc agreed to buy from Credit Suisse Group in June, speculated that eastern philosophy's concepts of yin and yang may explain the accident rate. It cited a feng shui expert, Simon Brown, saying that the full moon radiates more of the sun's yang energy onto earth, making people more aggressive and impatient.

The insurer said it won't change its underwriting criteria to take the full moon into account, the company said.

In addition to yin and yang, there might be other explanations for this data, but before searching for explanations one should make sure there is something that needs to be explained. The study seems to claim that there are 14% more accidents on nights when there is a full moon than on nights when there is a new moon. (When the moon is full, if the weather is clear, it will generally be very bright. When the moon is new, even if the weather is clear, the moon will hardly be visible.)* The results of a single study may be suggestive but they are not usually considered conclusive. This study may have been well-designed but we are not told anything about how it was conducted or how it was designed, so we can't be sure. The Churchill Insurance Group may have a flawless study, but note that they didn't take the results seriously enough to alter their underwriting criteria. Why not? I don't know. What I would like to know is how was the study done?

The press release mentions a study of 3 million car policies but that's a bit vague. Did they analyze 3 million policies and separate those who made accident claims from those who didn't? Then, did they find that claims that involved accidents that happened at night when there was a full moon occurred 14% more frequently than claims that involved accidents that happened at night when there was a new moon? Did they control for weather? That is, did they review their data to make sure that there were about the same number of stormy nights on both full and new moon nights? Otherwise, they might just be measuring an effect of bad weather, not moon phases.

How many accidents are we talking about? Without knowing the numbers we can't determine whether this study had a sufficient number of cases to analyze. But even if it had many thousands of cases, we don't know over how long a period of time this study was conducted. If it analyzed data over a very long period of time, that would be more impressive than if it analyzed data over a very short period of time. Why? Over a short period of time they are more likely to get skewed results. For example, maybe the period they evaluated had two full moons in 30 days and both occurred on Saturdays. With smaller numbers it becomes more important to control for factors like the weather or weekends.

We need to know exactly how many accidents were involved in the study, the beginning date and end date of the data collection, the exact number of nights involved, and the exact number of full and new moons during the study. We should also be assured that only accidents that occurred after the rising and before the setting of the full moon were included in the study. If the accidents happened during the day or before the full moon was present, the likelihood that the moon had anything to do with diminishes significantly.

Finally, even if the study was based on a sufficient number of cases over an adequate period of time and included only data it should include (and didn't include data it shouldn't include), and even if the data were analyzed properly by professional statisticians, we should still wait until it is replicated before worrying about finding an explanation for the 14% statistic. A single study with statistically impressive results should not be taken as sufficient to base any important decisions on.

Now, trying to prove the statistic is due to yin and yang is another matter altogether. I have no idea how anyone could construct a scientific study to test that hypothesis.

But we can at least correct one misconception put forth in this press release: the moon is not a strong source of gravitational energy on earthlings. George Abell claims that a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would. Ivan Kelly put it this way: "A mother holding her child "will exert 12 million times as much tidal force on her child as the moon."*

Why would anyone cite this study favorably? Confirmation bias. If you already believe in lunar effects, this study confirms your belief. You will be less likely to be critical of it than if it goes against your beliefs. Also, the suburban myth that the moon is a strong source of energy continues to be reported in the media, giving many people the impression that it must be true.

17  Critical Thinking mini-lesson 7

Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

One of the basic principles of cogent argumentation is that a cogent argument presents all the relevant evidence. An argument that omits relevant evidence appears stronger and more cogent than it is.

The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when an arguer intentionally omits relevant data. This is a difficult fallacy to detect because we often have no way of knowing that we haven't been told the whole truth.

Many advertisements commit this fallacy. Ads inform us of a product's dangers only if required to do so by law. Ads never state that a competitor's product is equally good. The coal, asbestos, nuclear fuel, and tobacco industries have knowingly suppressed evidence regarding the health of their employees or the health hazards of their industries.

Occasionally scientists will suppress evidence, making a study seem more significant than it is. In the December 1998 issue of The Western Journal of Medicine scientists Fred Sicher, Elisabeth Targ, Dan Moore II, and Helene S. Smith published "A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a Population With Advanced AIDS--Report of a Small Scale Study." (See my article on the Sicher-Targ distance healing report.) The authors do not mention, nor has The Western Journal of Medicine ever acknowledged, that the study was originally designed and funded to determine one specific effect: death. The 1998 study was designed to be a follow-up to a 1995 study of 20 patients with AIDS, ten of whom were prayed for by psychic healers. Four of the patients died, a result consistent with chance, but all four were in the control group, a stat that appeared anomalous enough to these scientists to do further study. I don't know whether evidence was suppressed or whether the scientists doing the study were simply incompetent, but the four patients who died were the four oldest in the study. The 1995 study did not control for age when it assigned the patients to either the control or the healing prayer group. Any controlled study on mortality that does not control for age is by definition not a properly designed study.

The follow-up study, however, did suppress evidence, yet it is "widely acknowledged as the most scientifically rigorous attempt ever to discover if prayer can heal" (Bronson 2002). The standard format for scientific reports is to begin with an abstract that summarizes the contents of the report. The Abstract for the Sicher report notes that controls were done for age, number of AIDS-defining illnesses, and cell count. Patients were randomly assigned to the control or healing prayer groups. The study followed the patients for six months. "At 6 months, a blind medical chart review found that treatment subjects acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining illnesses (0.1 versus 0.6 per patient, P = 0.04), had lower illness severity (severity score 0.8 versus 2.65, P = 0.03), and required significantly fewer doctor visits (9.2 versus 13.0, P = 0.01), fewer hospitalizations (0.15 versus 0.6, P = 0.04), and fewer days of hospitalization (0.5 versus 3.4, P = 0.04)." These numbers are very impressive. They indicate that the measured differences were not likely due to chance. Whether they were due to healing prayer (HP) is another matter, but the scientists concluded their abstract with the claim: "These data support the possibility of a DH effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research." Two years later the team, led by Elisabeth Targ, was granted $1.5 million of our tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health Center for Complementary Medicine to do further research on the healing effects of prayer.

What the Sicher study didn't reveal was that the original study had not been designed to do any of these measurements they report as significant. Of course, any researcher who didn't report significant findings just because the original study hadn't set out to investigate them would be remiss. The standard format of a scientific report allows such findings to be noted in the abstract or in the Discussion section of the report. It would have been appropriate for the Sicher report to have noted in the Discussion section that since only one patient died during their study, it appears that the new drugs being given AIDS patients as part of their standard therapy (triple-drug anti-retroviral therapy) were having a significant effect on longevity. They might even have suggested that their finding warranted further research into the effectiveness of the new drug therapy. However, the Sicher report Abstract doesn't even mention that only one of their subjects died during the study, indicating that they didn't recognize a truly significant research finding. It may also indicate that the scientists didn't want to call attention to the fact that their original study was designed to study the effect of healing prayer on the mortality rate of AIDS patients. Since only one patient died, perhaps they felt that they had nothing to report.

It was only after they mined the data once the study was completed that they came up with the suggestive and impressive statistics that they present in their published report. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy seems to have been committed here. Under certain conditions, mining the data would be perfectly acceptable. For example, if your original study was designed to study the effectiveness of a drug on blood pressure but you find after the data is in that the experimental group had no significant decrease in blood pressure but did have a significant increase in HDL (the "good" cholesterol), you would be remiss not to mention this. You would be guilty of deception, however, if you wrote your paper as if your original design was to study the effects of the drug on cholesterol and made no mention of blood pressure.

So, it would have been entirely appropriate for the Sicher report to have noted in the Discussion section that they had discovered something interesting in their statistics:  Hospital stays and doctor visits were lower for the HP group. It was inappropriate to write the report as if that was one of the effects the study was designed to measure when this effect was neither looked for nor discovered until Moore, the statistician for the study, began crunching numbers looking for something of statistical significance after the study was completed. That was all he could come up with. Again, crunching numbers and data mining after a study is completed is appropriate; not mentioning that you rewrote your paper to make it look like it had been designed to crunch those numbers isn't.

It would have been appropriate in the Discussion section of their report to have speculated as to the reason for the statistically significant differences in hospitalizations and days of hospitalization. They could have speculated that prayer made all the difference and, if they were competent, they would have also noted that insurance coverage could make all the difference as well. "Patients with health insurance tend to stay in hospitals longer than uninsured ones" (Bronson 2002). The researchers should have checked this out and reported their findings. Instead, they then took a list of 23 illnesses associated with AIDS and had Sicher go back over each of the forty patient medical charts and use them to collect the data for the 23 illnesses as best he could. This was after it was known to Sicher which group each patient had been randomly assigned to, prayer or control. The fact that the names were blacked out, so he could not immediately tell whose record he was reading, does not seem sufficient to justify allowing him to review the data. There were only 40 patients in the study and he was familiar with each of them. It would have been better had an independent party, someone not involved in the study, gone over the medical charts. Sicher is "an ardent believer in distant healing" and he had put up $7,500 for the pilot study (ibid.) on prayer and mortality. His impartiality was clearly compromised. So was the double-blind quality of the study.

Thus, there was quite a bit of significant and relevant evidence suppressed in the Sicher study that, had it been revealed, might have diminished its reputation as the best designed study ever on prayer and healing. Instead of being held up as a model of promising research in the field of spiritual science, this study might have ended up in the trash heap where it belongs

18 Critical Thinking mini-lesson 8

Replication Revisited

One of the traits of a cogent argument is that the evidence be sufficient to warrant accepting the conclusion. In causal arguments, this generally requires--among other things--that a finding of a significant correlation between two variables, such as magnets and pain, be reproducible. Replication of a significant correlation usually indicates that the finding was not a fluke or due to methodological error. Yet, I am often sent copies of articles regarding single studies and advised that it may be about time for me to change my mind on some subject. For example, I recently heard from Jouni Helminen that "It may be time to update the Skepdic website regarding magnet therapy on fibromyalgia patients." Jouni referred me to an article from the University of Virginia News. I state in my entry on magnet therapy: "There is almost no scientific evidence supporting magnet therapy." The article about a study done on magnet therapy to reduce fibromyalgia pain did nothing to change my mind. The study, conducted by University of Virginia (UV) researchers, was published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which asserts that it "includes observational and analytical reports on treatments outside the realm of allopathic medicine...."

The only people who refer to conventional medicine as allopathic are rabid opponents of conventional medicine and may not be the most objective folks in the world when it comes to evaluating anything "alternative." Be that as it may, the study must stand or fall on its own merits, not on the biases of those who publish it. Furthermore, the study must be distinguished from the press release put out by UV. The headline of the UV article states that Magnet Therapy Shows Limited Potential for Pain Relief. The first paragraph states that "the results of the study were inconclusive." Not very promising. Even so, the researchers claimed that magnet therapy reduced fibromyalgia pain intensity enough in one group of study participants to be "clinically meaningful." I guess "limited potential" is the middle ground between "inconclusive" and "clinically meaningful." This is somewhat confusing.

The UV study involved 94 fibromyalgia patients who were randomly assigned to one of four groups. One control group "received sham pads containing magnets that had been demagnetized through heat processing" and the other got nothing special. One treatment group got "whole-body exposure to a low, uniformly static magnetic field of negative polarity. The other...[got]...a low static magnetic field that varied spatially and in polarity. The subjects were treated and tracked for six months."

"Three measures of pain were used: functional status reported by study participants on a standardized fibromyalgia questionnaire used nationwide, number of tender points on the body, and pain intensity ratings."

One of the investigators, Ann Gill Taylor, R.N., Ed.D. stated: "When we compared the groups, we did not find significant statistical differences in most of the outcome measures." Taylor is a professor of nursing and director of the Center for Study of Complementary and Alternative Therapies at UV. "However, we did find a statistically significant difference in pain intensity reduction for one of the active magnet pad groups," said Taylor. The article doesn't mention how many outcome measures were used.

The study's principal investigator was Dr. Alan P. Alfano, assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation and medical director of the UV HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital. Alfano claimed that "Finding any positive results in the groups using the magnets was surprising, given how little we know about how magnets work to reduce pain." Frankly, I find it surprising that Alfano finds that surprising, since it is unlikely he would have conducted the study if he didn't think there might be some pain relief benefit to using magnets. His statement assumes they work to reduce pain and the task is to figure out how. Alfano is also quoted as saying that "The results tell us maybe this therapy works, and that maybe more research is justified. You can't draw final conclusions from only one study." Certainly, his last claim is correct. His double use of the weasel word "maybe" indicates that he realizes that you can't even make a strong claim that more research ought to be done based on the results of one study, especially if the results aren't that impressive.

Not knowing how many outcome measures the researchers used makes it difficult to assess the significance of finding one or two outcomes that look promising. Given all the variables that go into "pain" and measuring pain, and the variations in the individuals suffering pain (even those diagnosed as having the same disorder), it should be expected that if you measure enough outcomes you are going to find something statistically significant. Whether that's meaningful or not is another issue. A competent researcher would not want to make any strong causal claims about magnets and pain on the basis of finding one or two statistically significant outcomes in a study that found that most outcomes showed nothing significant.

But even if most of the outcomes had been statistically significant in this study of 94 patients, that still would not amount to strong scientific evidence in support of magnet therapy. The experiment would need to be replicated. Given the variables mentioned above, it would not be surprising if this study were replicated but found different outcomes statistically significant. Several studies might find several different outcomes statistically significant and some researcher might then do a meta-study and claim that when one takes all the studies together one gets one large study with very significant results. What you would actually get is one misleading study.

If other researchers repeat the UV study, looking only at the outcome that was statistically significant in the original study, and they duplicate the results of the UV study, then we should conclude that this looks promising. But one replication shouldn't seal the deal on the causal connection between magnets and pain relief. One lab might duplicate another lab's results but both might be using faulty equipment manufactured by the same company. Or both might be using the same faulty subjective measures to evaluate their data. Several studies that showed nothing significant for magnets and pain might be followed by several that find significant results, even if all the studies are methodologically sound. Why? Because you are dealing with human beings, very complex organisms who won't necessarily react the same way to the same treatment. Even the same person won't necessarily react the same way to the same treatment at different times.

So, a single study on something like magnets and pain relief should rarely be taken by anybody as significant scientific evidence of a causal connection between the two. Likewise, a single study of this issue that finds nothing significant should not be taken as proof that magnets are useless. However, when dozens of studies find little support that magnets are effective in warding off pain, then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no good reason to believe in magnet therapy. And I would not give up that belief on the basis of what I read in the UV press release about their little study on magnets and fibromyalgia.