Re: This is for both of you.

Fordtunate Son

All-In [29963]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 8867

Joined: 10/31/10

Re: Critical Thinkers

Mar 5, 2024, 5:28 PM

This is a great post, because (speaking of biases) it gives me a chance to ramble on about some things I find interesting.

It takes me a while to get a distilled thought out sometimes so I'll just sling some blurbs as I go.

>Everyone likes to consider themselves a critical thinker. But how do you know?
>The ability to form decisions without personal bias AND societal biases.

I'm not sure one can get out of their own biases. They're too engrained. Perhaps the best we can do is recognize them, (or have someone point them out to us) and account for them as best we can.

Thought is a big topic, and I'm not sure how many people think about it. You'll see me toss around the phrase "why you think the way you think" from time to time, because I think it bears looking at on occasion. Depending on the topic, sometimes we generate new ideas, sometimes we adopt existing ones, sometimes we operate from fact, sometimes we operate from desire: "I WANT this to be, and so I present it to myself, and others as fact." Not to be deceptive, but as the result of my own bias. There are lots and lots of ways to 'think.'

Plus, one is not always searching for an objective answer. Sometimes the task can only lead to a subjective answer. So it's not just how one 'thinks' about a problem, it's the nature of the question itself.

For instance, it's easy to be a critical thinker when it comes to math. We all agree on how math works, we all follow the same rules, some data go into the equation and an answer comes out the back end. Easy.

But let's say one is designing a building. Now, there are all kinds of subjective criteria that come up. Is it functional; economical; aesthetically appealing? The very nature of the question is different than a math question. No less complex perhaps, but different.

I had a professor at Clemson who was great at cutting through all that. He'd say, "You must determine and define what you are assessing. You can't say a pick-up truck is a "bad" vehicle because it's not a drag racer.

If your criteria is "what hauls wood better, then a truck is objectively better than a drag racer. But if your criteria is "what has the fastest quarter mile time, then the drag racer is objectively better."

But not every question is objective like those. For instance, what is 'objectively' the best tax rate for a nation? There isn't one. If we know what the criteria are...all the domestic issues, all the foreign issues, etc., we might narrow our opinions to achieve consensus between folks.

But a question like that is not the same type of question as "What's the square root of 69? (The answer is "ate something, btw). So in my mind, and in the way I was taught to think (which is a bias in itself), defining the question is as important as the answer you get. The Godfather is a horrible comedy. And Dumb and Dumber is one of the worst dramas ever made.

Regarding group think, I'm not sure it's inherently bad. Group think in 1400 was that the Earth was the center of the universe. But everyone still lived full lives (unless you died of the Black Plague), so no harm done. So everyone thinking the same thing isn't necessarily a problem. Group think may become a problem when it's "No think." When people disengage from any kind of thought. But, lots of people still live full, happy lives never thinking about any of this stuff.

I don't talk a lot of politics, but in this case, it's an arena that has plenty of examples of conflicting modes of thought. Politics is inherently a group dynamic. Some people forget that, and are even encouraged to forget that. If you live as a hermit, you don't need politics, because you get everything your way. If you have someone else in your life, a boy/girl friend, and certainly a spouse, you learn real quick what politics at its heart is...compromise. And it should be. If there are two people, it’s a reasonable expectation that both should get something out of the relationship. Same as if there are 330 million people in the relationship.

It's also important to recognize when one is in the minority camp, or the majority camp, on any issue. I mean, if I'm the only one in the office who wants to listen to a pron flick, I can't expect it to be played over the office sound system. We had a policy that light jazz was played in the lobby, and if you wanted to listen to something else, you brought your headphones. Which I frequently did. No problem, I was the minority. I got it.

Everyone is expected to fight (through the system) for their own best interests, but the process, the political system itself (and I'm speaking in the most general sense, right down to workplace polices, for instance), can be so convoluted and so complex that sometimes one ends up working against themselves sometimes. That’s not the end of the world. A political ‘loss’ is just a compromise, because your partner in the relationship is getting something they want. And if you want the relationship at all, that’s important. Again, with 2 people, or 30 people, or 330 million people.

I had to convince a coworker once that 'If you vote for A, which you like, it will, by implication, come with B, which you hate, even if you don't recognize that. They are inseparable." (There was no line-item veto in our office either) And that's by design most of the time - in order that everyone gets something. Compromise again.

And in a way it's a Chinatown. One cannot know all the machinations, undercurrents, back-room deals, etc. that are going on in any political environment...from Mrs. Fort fighting over who has recess duty on Thursdays to how much money we send Ukraine and where it goes, and who benefits, here and there.

One simply cannot know every factor, and so one is always operating on limited intelligence. Every time you support something you want, you may also be unknowingly supporting something you don't want, too. But that's not all bad. It just means someone else if getting what they want. Politics is the very definition of 'Chinatown.' It only becomes a problem when the thought mindset is “I must have everything, my way, all the time.” Compromise, again.

So, the 'critical' mind is left to decide "what's MOST important, to me?, and what is just a bunch of chaff, to me?" And I see, in my own life, people going to the mat over issues all the time that don't even affect them. Many times I've asked a coworker or friend, "Remind me why you are fighting this fight again?"

There’s a famous instance in Byzantine history where Constantinople was burned to the ground over colors, the Niko Riots. At the time, there were two chariot racing factions, green and blue. They morphed into political and social factions as well, but anytime you get two groups that big, there is no way they are homogenous on every issue. And so at the basest level, the one and only thing each group member had in common with the others in his group was that they pulled for a color. “I like fish and you like pork, but we both like BLUE!” And by extension, we both hate GREEN! And so, Constantinople burned over colors (and bad Group Think, in that case).

That’s not unlike our two parties, which are also not homogenous by any means, though each side tries to paint the other as being so. The sinister ‘those guys.’ It’s a consequence of both the system…you have to group up with others to have political power, and a consequence of the human mind, simplifying things into “Us vs. Them.”

> How do I become a better critical thinker?

Well, to summarize and finally distill my epistle, I’d say:
1) focus the problem or question, so you aren’t all over the place, and address the specific issue without distraction or obfuscation,
2) gather as much information as is practical, because you aren’t going to know everything, by a longshot, and
3) understand that your answer will be the result of the above factors, plus your own biases.

That is, that it might not be the best, or ever right answer (if there is one), but it will be the most ‘structurally sound’ answer based on how you have approached it. In other words, you’ll be assessing a drag racer AS a drag racer, and not as a pickup truck.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

>It seems that's where we are now, admitting no biases because our group is now truth.

Nicely put. One doesn't have to agree with everyone, but they should at least respect, and understand, opposing positions. Most people are smart, and most people have reasons for the stances they take. Though I worry we are inching closer and closer to: "What are you fighting for? Blue! What are you fighting for? Green!" When conflict becomes simply about defeating "the other," and the issues themselves become secondary to victory for victory's sake, that's a bad spot for a nation to be in.

>That didn't always end up as something worse

Unrelated to the main topic, but your Sting lyrics reminded me of this. I have a circle of friends who play historical simulation board games. We're too cheap for figurines, so these are just cardboard "What if" scenarios. Stuff like "What if Carthage defeated Rome, what if Pickett's charge succeeded at Gettysburg, what if the Spanish colonized the east coast before Jamestown, etc. We're mostly a bunch of peace-niks who just really love history, and since so much of history is marked by war, here we are.

Here's a good one called "Here I Stand," about Martin Luther and the Reformation. Can you believe there's a board game about the Protestant Reformation? Like Monopoly but with souls. So many Catholics hearts and minds waiting to be converted. Will the Pope play hardball and start an Inquisition, or will he just rely on his Jesuits to hold off the heretics, city-by-city across Medieval Europe?

You never want to have the powerful “Luther Card” played on you, unless you can match it with a devastating “Papal Bull,” or some Vatican Artwork Patronage like the Sistine Chapel to wow the people. And then there are the Muslims and their Janissaries, who are of course everyone's enemy.

Anyhow, one of our favs is a 4-player game about Vietnam. Two "Allies" on each team. And what the lyrics reminded me of is how all sides are completely dysfunctional. The North has its own problems, but in the South, the South Vietnamese government wins the game not by defeating the north, but by sucking America dry. It's the most corrupt cesspool you can possibly imagine. Everything America commits to the war, they have to give half to the SV to buy off "local politicians.' And game terms, that money goes right down the toilet.

The Americans win by not escalating, but at the same time they have to both prop up, and defend, their money pit ally. And that's virtually impossible to do since they have to hold off both the North Vietnamese Regular Army and the Vietcong, while they are being sucked dry by the SV. Meanwhile, the NVA and the VC are themselves fighting each other internally for political power, resources, and the population.

So all game long, the Americans are just sucked deeper and deeper into a conflict they don't want to be in, propping up an "ally" who is completely rotten to the core. Basically, a 4-way cluster****. A very disturbing, and very accurate, depiction of history in that case. I've never seen a game depict a quagmire so well.

And that popped right into my head when I saw: "I never saw no military solution that didn't always end up as something worse."

Critical Thinkers

Poe's Law.

Do you do drugs, Danny?***

Re: Do you do drugs, Danny?***

Step one is to think. So that excludes about 80% of P&R posts right off***

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

Re: Critical Thinkers

This is for both of you.