4 ms·

Is there anything else that isn’t taught to young students that you wish would be incorporated into the material, or any other thoughts on education? I can'

Is there anything else that isn’t taught to young students that you wish would be incorporated into the material, or any other thoughts on education? I can't comment on the US education system, but back home I think one of the most important ingredient missing from my school education was _Critical Thinking_ [0]. I happened to stumble upon this field by happenstance and was baffled why this is not integral to our education. I attributed this to the assumption that free thinking and critiquing adults is not what an authority/regime would want. Additionally most teachers/adults don't want to be bombarded by "why"s to which they don't have an answer. But then there is also the Hanlon's razor. [0] Wiki def: 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

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ploxiln 11y ago
I've never heard of a school (in the US) that didn't claim to teach "critical thinking skills" and "how to learn". Of course most don't, even though they know these platitudes are what they need to publicly espouse. It's a pretty big topic really...
it_learnses 11y ago
I agree with this. Instead of focusing so much on sports, arts, math, coding, etc., we should be focusing more on critical thinking skills. Rather now we just encourage everybody to join the rat race by picking whichever field will be most profitable for the next 20 years. It happens to be programming now.
wj 11y ago
I remember buying books of logic problems for road trips as a child. Definitely contributed to my ability to think critically. I wonder if they make those anymore. Now I only see books of crosswords (they had those too when I was a child) and Sudoku (that fad was still a decade or two out).
vlehto 11y ago
In Finland my high school had one mandatory course on philosophy. It was really more "history of ontology" than actual philosophy. (There was maybe one instance when students had to form opinion on something, instead of memorizing what some dude had thought two thousand years ago. How do you call that philosophy?) It was really unpopular because: "I think philosophy is stuff you kinda already know deep down. So why study it?" And now it's no longer mandatory. Apparently analyzing a poem is important, but analyzing an argument is not.
- stormbuilder 11y ago
  Philosophy is a mandatory schools in Italy's lyceums. Really, there are many reasons that I left that country, but the high school education it provides (on average) is absolute world-class when it comes to the "soft" skills.
omegaham 11y ago
The funny thing is that pretty much every single curriculum says this in the liner notes and syllabus. It's just as much of a buzzword these days as "synergy" and "outside-the-box." Critical thinking is simultaneously hard to teach and uncomfortable to teach. For one, when you teach someone to think critically, you now have them questioning everything else that you're teaching them. Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." Which, of course, leads to them discouraging critical thinking. I had a history teacher in high school who loved talking about critical thinking and how important it was that we question everything. He didn't like the fact that every single one of my papers (which were all about developing a viewpoint and explaining it) were diametrically opposed to his political opinions. Looking back, I wrote some genuinely cringe-worthy shit, mostly just to wind him up. Hilariously, as mad as he got at me, I was probably one of the few kids in the class who really took his "critical thinking" lectures to heart.
- spoiler 11y ago
  > Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." This should be emphasized more. I was dating a guy who claimed to be a critical thinker, which actually was worse than what you described here. Essentially, his definition of critical thinking was "agreeing with me." This--among ample other reasons--is why he is an ex. But later in life I realised it wasn't just him, a lot of other "intellectuals"[0], are like that. [0]: I've grown to snort and snicker when I hear the word lately. I believe anyone who calls himself (or someone else, because they've given themselves the authority to decide who is and who isn't) an intellectual, is a pompous little shit.
  - omegaham 11y ago
    I do agree that anyone who calls himself an intellectual is probably a pompous idiot, but I'm mixed regarding calling other people intellectuals. The definition of "intellectual," as I see it, seems to be "Someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems." In and of itself, I think that this is a completely neutral concept, and I can name plenty of people who occupy that position. The issue is that intelligence (which is required to be an intellectual) is an intrinsically desirable trait, meaning that someone who is smart (even if they are nothing else) is often seen as more desirable or worth more than a less smart individual. More importantly, having this position implies leadership. If you're going to propose solutions, you're not very good at your job if no one is actually listening to you. And since we value leaders over followers, it follows that intellectuals are considered more valuable. This means that calling someone an intellectual doesn't just define them as "someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems" - it defines them as someone who has insight regarding society and proposes worthwhile solutions for its problems. This makes things weird. I can still call a shitty artist an artist. I can still call a shitty programmer a programmer. But when I call someone an intellectual, it's making a positive judgment regarding his ideas. After all, a shitty intellectual is just a guy with stupid ideas. And who am I, Omegaham, a random electron microscope technician from Oregon, to say that Noam Chomsky or Thomas Sowell has worthwhile ideas? I mean, I have opinions, but saying so definitively is way above my pay grade. As a result, the term is so screwed up by connotation that I tend to use "intellectual" exactly the same as you - sarcastically. For me, an "intellectual" is "someone who would call himself an intellectual," with all of the misguided arrogance that doing so implies.
fecklessyouth 11y ago
There seems to exist this technocratic fancy about "critical thinking." As if it were a discrete group of rules which could be cultivated in students by simply sitting them down in a classroom, lecturing to them about the rules, and then asking them to apply them in practice scenarios. This, of course, is how one teaches grammar, and most normal subjects. But would such a student actually become a critical thinker? Or would they simply become a regurgitator of logical fallacies, able to spot them in encountered arguments, but not able to discern whether the reasoning was ACTUALLY fallacious? Take, for instance, the "slippery slope" fallacy. Which is not necessarily a fallacy, because "doing A will lead to B" is valid if both A and B stem from the same principle C. If affirming A implies affirming its principle C, and if B is related to principle C in the same manner as A, then yes, "doing A will lead to B" is valid reasoning. This is certain value in studying philosophy generally, and formal logic specifically. But it is not a fundamental subject in the same way that most HS subjects are, and it will be of no avail to students who have not already reached a high level of reasoning. The mistake Paul and other technocrats make when calling for "critical thinking" is that they treat it as an actual subject matter. But there is not textbook for "critical thinking," with which a teacher can instruct a class. It is an intellectual virtue, like curiosity, or honesty. It is not taught directly, but indirectly, through other subjects. THROUGH the constraints and methods of science, one learns to think critically about evidence and causation. THROUGH reading and analyzing literature, one learns to detect intentions, both explicit and implicit, in the voices it encounters. THROUGH algebra and calculus, one learns to think about abstract objects and their relationships. There is no "shortcut" to critical thinking, just like there is no shortcut to teaching children to be responsible or caring or hardworking. It is a skill that has to be practiced in the various arenas of life.
- mkingston 11y ago
  While I suspect you are correct that there is no 'shortcut' (or syllabus) to critical thinking I think one is able to perceive critical thinking ability in others. If critical thinking is seen to be useful by a potential student, that is likely enough to drive that student to improve that skill. So critical thinking doesn't necessarily need to be taught from a textbook, but could be taught by example. (Of course, this assumes that the teacher is able to do so, which is another can of worms). I propose that it would be possible to have a 'critical thinking' class in schools, where, for example, students are shown critical thinking applied to a range of different problems and are encouraged to apply their own. Yes, you are correct that it is a skill that should be practiced everywhere, but at the moment this is not even addressed.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ploxiln 11y ago

I've never heard of a school (in the US) that didn't claim to teach "critical thinking skills" and "how to learn". Of course most don't, even though they know these platitudes are what they need to publicly espouse. It's a pretty big topic really...

it_learnses 11y ago

I agree with this. Instead of focusing so much on sports, arts, math, coding, etc., we should be focusing more on critical thinking skills. Rather now we just encourage everybody to join the rat race by picking whichever field will be most profitable for the next 20 years. It happens to be programming now.

wj 11y ago

I remember buying books of logic problems for road trips as a child. Definitely contributed to my ability to think critically. I wonder if they make those anymore. Now I only see books of crosswords (they had those too when I was a child) and Sudoku (that fad was still a decade or two out).

vlehto 11y ago

In Finland my high school had one mandatory course on philosophy. It was really more "history of ontology" than actual philosophy. (There was maybe one instance when students had to form opinion on something, instead of memorizing what some dude had thought two thousand years ago. How do you call that philosophy?) It was really unpopular because: "I think philosophy is stuff you kinda already know deep down. So why study it?" And now it's no longer mandatory. Apparently analyzing a poem is important, but analyzing an argument is not.

stormbuilder 11y ago
Philosophy is a mandatory schools in Italy's lyceums. Really, there are many reasons that I left that country, but the high school education it provides (on average) is absolute world-class when it comes to the "soft" skills.

omegaham 11y ago

The funny thing is that pretty much every single curriculum says this in the liner notes and syllabus. It's just as much of a buzzword these days as "synergy" and "outside-the-box." Critical thinking is simultaneously hard to teach and uncomfortable to teach. For one, when you teach someone to think critically, you now have them questioning everything else that you're teaching them. Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." Which, of course, leads to them discouraging critical thinking. I had a history teacher in high school who loved talking about critical thinking and how important it was that we question everything. He didn't like the fact that every single one of my papers (which were all about developing a viewpoint and explaining it) were diametrically opposed to his political opinions. Looking back, I wrote some genuinely cringe-worthy shit, mostly just to wind him up. Hilariously, as mad as he got at me, I was probably one of the few kids in the class who really took his "critical thinking" lectures to heart.

spoiler 11y ago
> Many, many people define "critical thinking" as "thinking like I do." This should be emphasized more. I was dating a guy who claimed to be a critical thinker, which actually was worse than what you described here. Essentially, his definition of critical thinking was "agreeing with me." This--among ample other reasons--is why he is an ex. But later in life I realised it wasn't just him, a lot of other "intellectuals"[0], are like that. [0]: I've grown to snort and snicker when I hear the word lately. I believe anyone who calls himself (or someone else, because they've given themselves the authority to decide who is and who isn't) an intellectual, is a pompous little shit.
- omegaham 11y ago
  I do agree that anyone who calls himself an intellectual is probably a pompous idiot, but I'm mixed regarding calling other people intellectuals. The definition of "intellectual," as I see it, seems to be "Someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems." In and of itself, I think that this is a completely neutral concept, and I can name plenty of people who occupy that position. The issue is that intelligence (which is required to be an intellectual) is an intrinsically desirable trait, meaning that someone who is smart (even if they are nothing else) is often seen as more desirable or worth more than a less smart individual. More importantly, having this position implies leadership. If you're going to propose solutions, you're not very good at your job if no one is actually listening to you. And since we value leaders over followers, it follows that intellectuals are considered more valuable. This means that calling someone an intellectual doesn't just define them as "someone who studies society and proposes solutions for its problems" - it defines them as someone who has insight regarding society and proposes worthwhile solutions for its problems. This makes things weird. I can still call a shitty artist an artist. I can still call a shitty programmer a programmer. But when I call someone an intellectual, it's making a positive judgment regarding his ideas. After all, a shitty intellectual is just a guy with stupid ideas. And who am I, Omegaham, a random electron microscope technician from Oregon, to say that Noam Chomsky or Thomas Sowell has worthwhile ideas? I mean, I have opinions, but saying so definitively is way above my pay grade. As a result, the term is so screwed up by connotation that I tend to use "intellectual" exactly the same as you - sarcastically. For me, an "intellectual" is "someone who would call himself an intellectual," with all of the misguided arrogance that doing so implies.

fecklessyouth 11y ago

There seems to exist this technocratic fancy about "critical thinking." As if it were a discrete group of rules which could be cultivated in students by simply sitting them down in a classroom, lecturing to them about the rules, and then asking them to apply them in practice scenarios. This, of course, is how one teaches grammar, and most normal subjects. But would such a student actually become a critical thinker? Or would they simply become a regurgitator of logical fallacies, able to spot them in encountered arguments, but not able to discern whether the reasoning was ACTUALLY fallacious? Take, for instance, the "slippery slope" fallacy. Which is not necessarily a fallacy, because "doing A will lead to B" is valid if both A and B stem from the same principle C. If affirming A implies affirming its principle C, and if B is related to principle C in the same manner as A, then yes, "doing A will lead to B" is valid reasoning. This is certain value in studying philosophy generally, and formal logic specifically. But it is not a fundamental subject in the same way that most HS subjects are, and it will be of no avail to students who have not already reached a high level of reasoning. The mistake Paul and other technocrats make when calling for "critical thinking" is that they treat it as an actual subject matter. But there is not textbook for "critical thinking," with which a teacher can instruct a class. It is an intellectual virtue, like curiosity, or honesty. It is not taught directly, but indirectly, through other subjects. THROUGH the constraints and methods of science, one learns to think critically about evidence and causation. THROUGH reading and analyzing literature, one learns to detect intentions, both explicit and implicit, in the voices it encounters. THROUGH algebra and calculus, one learns to think about abstract objects and their relationships. There is no "shortcut" to critical thinking, just like there is no shortcut to teaching children to be responsible or caring or hardworking. It is a skill that has to be practiced in the various arenas of life.

mkingston 11y ago
While I suspect you are correct that there is no 'shortcut' (or syllabus) to critical thinking I think one is able to perceive critical thinking ability in others. If critical thinking is seen to be useful by a potential student, that is likely enough to drive that student to improve that skill. So critical thinking doesn't necessarily need to be taught from a textbook, but could be taught by example. (Of course, this assumes that the teacher is able to do so, which is another can of worms). I propose that it would be possible to have a 'critical thinking' class in schools, where, for example, students are shown critical thinking applied to a range of different problems and are encouraged to apply their own. Yes, you are correct that it is a skill that should be practiced everywhere, but at the moment this is not even addressed.