As much as we hear
about bringing creativity to classroom and business, we hear even more about
teaching and using critical thinking skills. Since we’re prone to throwing
terminology, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about critical thinking
and what it entails.
First, let’s parse out the difference between thinking and critical thinking.
Here’s what I’ve come
up with:
“I’m thinking about the beach,” or “I’m thinking about my mom’s
peach pie,” is plain vanilla thinking. Thinking is giving mental attention to something that doesn’t require
assessment or response from the thinker.
Alternatively, critical
thinking guides our assessment
of and our reactions to information being considered— frankly, the act of thinking
critically demands a reaction, any reaction or decision (including
everything from “nope, that’s utterly incorrect,” to “oh, ok, that fits in my
web of preexisting knowledge this way” to “well now that I know that, I have to change my whole life”).
Either way, critical
thinking demands objective examination of a topic and then a conscious
response to that examination. In other words, you should be doing a lot of it
every day.
Critical thinking is happening when you’re asking questions like Is that true? How
do I know? How did you arrive at your conclusion? Did you consider _____? Would
it be better if we ______? Does doing ______ have any affect on that? What
factors went in to that decision? Is it likely that the person making this
argument knows about ______? Why does that idea matter anyway?
I’ll stop there before
I accidentally create Earth’s worst Mad Lib.
The ability to think
critically is arguably the most important skill for the 21st century person.
It’s the equipment anyone can use to navigate a world of ideas that are
increasingly unmitigated and available—everyone is tweeting, blogging, and
broadcasting into the ether, so sorting through all the static is that much
more important.
Since this is a blog post and not a PhD course, I’d like to
briefly take a look at using critical thinking specifically for
reading blogs and tweets (although this method could apply to just about
anything). While there isn’t an official formula for doing this, I’d like to
suggest using “The Five W’s” that we learn in elementary school as guidelines
for inquiry; they include; Who?, What?, Where?, When?, Why?, and (sometimes) How?.
Instead of using the Five W’s for developing content (they’re
the basics for writing a successful news piece), use the Five W’s to analyze
any post/piece of writing. Here’s how to get started:
Who?
Consider who wrote the
piece.
§
What do you know about
this individual’s background?
§
What is his or her age
and socio-economic standing?
§
How about level of
education [which you may not want to assess simply using degree level but also
the person’s body of work]?
§
In what part of the
world or country does she live?
§
Is she regarded as an
expert on this particular topic?
§
Is she a widely
regarded BS-artist (seriously)?
What?
Figure out what the writer is saying—and what she isn’t saying.
§
Does she want someone
to change something?
§
Start something?
§
Does she argue for the
status quo?
§
How far-reaching are
her suggestions: do they apply to every situation or is she flexible in the
application of her ideas?
§
Does she address
counter arguments in her own work?
§
Is she writing from
personal experience or synthesizing ideas from other people?
§
[While this isn’t
applicable to blogs, usually, you may also want to consider who the intended
audience is… is this a letter? Was it published post-mortem? Etc.
When you’re considering the “what” of a piece of writing, you’ll
have to consider what you know
about the topic as well, which colors your ability to assess it. You’ll need to
ask yourself:
§
What is my own level
of expertise in this subject?
§
Is this something that
hits close to home for me?
§
Is my own personal
experience/research affecting the way that I am hearing/reading this argument?
§
…and the zinger: Am I
hearing only what I expect this person to be saying, or am I being objective enough to see
the true argument.
Where?
Context is so
important; you’ll need to consider it.
§
Where is this work
published? WSJ? NY Times? Homemade newspaper from the Midwest/Southern California/Salt
Lake City/Miami?
§
Who is sponsoring the
site? Might the sponsors of the site be influencing the apparent viewpoint of
the author?
§
Is this the author’s
personal website or a site used to promote a business?
When?
Addressing the “when” of the post goes beyond “oh, that was
written in 1997.” Looking intowhen means looking at the political and economic time frame of the
argument, both on a national level and in the writer’s personal life. This can
cover everything from “well, the stock market had just crashed so everyone was
extremely worried and fiscally conservative at this time” to “he wrote this
three months before/after he became a father for the first time/ lost his job/
got a new job/ killed that guy/ saved that whale/ got his legislation passed.”
The when for the author can color the argument.
§
Does the political
climate affect the writer’s intentions?
§
Does he or she have
something to gain or lose because of the timing of this post?
§
Would she be saying
the same thing at a different time?
Why?
What prompted the
whole thing, anyway?
§
Is what you’re reading
for artistic purposes?
§
Is it to entertain or
educate?
§
Does it seem that the
author wants you to change your viewpoint?
§
What is her call to
action?
§
Is she hurt or outraged
by something or, alternately, elated and supporting something she believes in?
§
What does she have to
gain from sharing these ideas?
§
What does she have to
lose?
§
Why might that be
“worth it” to her?
How?
How did this piece of
work get into your hands anyway? Was it intended for you?
Is the author married
to editor of the paper? Did she make a considerable donation to some charity
who now feels obligated to let her say her piece? Does she “know someone” or
was this vetted by objective third parties? Is she writing in her own space
where she has clearance to say whatever she likes without consequences [as if
that were possible!]? Did she likely write this for free or is she making a
large chunk of change for it?
Keep in mind that critical thinking is not critical
feeling.
You’re going to have
to leave your emotions out of it, or at least be aware of them and separate
them from the task of critical thinking. There’s not a lot of room for “But
that’s not fair! But that makes me jealous! I could have said that! This
offends me! She’s a jerk!” in critical thinking because it clouds our ability
to see an argument for what it really is and to refine our own thinking in
light of it.
Even the most
distasteful arguments can be used to strengthen our own ability to think.
Exposing ourselves only to those ideas that are already in keeping with what we
understand or believe is the fastest way to disarm ourselves and end up in the
complacency zone. Thinking critically demands energy and effort, and yet, if
you’re not thinking critically, are you really getting anywhere?
1. This isn’t meant to be the definitive be-all
end-all list for thinking critically; it’s just a nice place to start
exercising these skills. Feel free to add other ideas in the comments section.
2. The ability to parse out your expectations of
another person’s argument is the key to being able to have a sensible,
effective, and relatively calm conversation about tough topics like politics
and religion. It’s imperative, the key listening skill
Remember to register your school
for the free critical Thinking seminar.
