10 ms·

I'm not sure you can teach critical thinking. In my experience, people are mostly "born" with it... or not. I say this as a former academic philosopher who actu

by _qulr 6y ago

I'm not sure you can teach critical thinking. In my experience, people are mostly "born" with it... or not. I say this as a former academic philosopher who actually taught "critical thinking" classes at the university level. They amounted to a hodgepodge of subject-specific wisdom collected under a generic title. (I didn't design the courses but merely adopted the preexisting curriculum and textbooks.) In general, individual students vary widely in their receptiveness to education of any kind. A lot of them are just "seat fillers" who barely pay attention and are only there out of fear of the negative consequences of nonattendance. It's incredibly difficult to get through to them. In this world where information is easily available everywhere, at your fingertips, ignorance is a deliberate choice.

_qulr 6y ago
In fairness, maybe we just start way too late? I mean, I'm all in favor of debates over the existence of God for example in elementary school, at the same age kids start getting forced to go to Sunday school. But a lot of parents would have fits over that topic in public schools, which is why we can't do it until college, at which point it's unlikely to make much difference. The formative years of a child are almost completely under control of the parents. It's a chicken and egg problem, because it's difficult to change the public education policy without the consent of the parents who themselves were not raised to think critically. There's near universal agreement that math education is important, but "critical thinking" is controversial at best among parents. A lot of them would rather home school their kids than allow exposure to different ways of thinking.
- dmerks 6y ago
  The contextual backdrop is never negligible, but it's the powers that be that change the course of the world. Secularization has been seen as the step forward. So has quality initial and ongoing Education for all. We trudge forward as individualistic pursuits erode those of the collective. It reminds me of a study: many groups undertake a turn-based team game in which the prize grows until a certain maximum. Make it to the end of the game: everyone takes an equal part of the prize home. At any point before the end, the entirety of the current prize can be claimed by one individual. Not in one single group was the prize shared. There was always at least one person who waited long enough to claim more than what would have been shared otherwise.
dmerks 6y ago
If I tell a child who knows squirrels are usually white, brown, grey or black, and say "hey look! A purple squirrel!", chances are the child will think I'm fooling around. If I say the same thing to a child who has never seen a squirrel, he's more likely to turn his head without doubting my words. Is knowing the possible colors of squirrel fur an innate trait, or is it something that is learned? I agree, critical thinking is difficult to teach directly. I can't tell the child-- or an adult for that matter-- to foretell something he doesn't know. The focus of Education is knowledge in various fields like politics, history, physics, mathematics, linguistics, etc. I was an academic as well. Some classes were certainly funded, maintained and encouraged because of ignorance or political reasons. The entire educational system were I live was reformed based on political reasons. The pilot study in numerous schools failed miserably 20 years ago. The results were never shared with the public before its nation wide implementation. The reform is still in place today. The only copy of the evaluation I know of is a university library and was printed by the professor who was its director and who was subsequently demoted. This happened in a G8 country. Universities are far from immune from selfish or poor decision making. Try telling the 100000+ homeless students in NY that ignorance is a deliberate choice. Maybe it is a deliberate choice for those in power to dictate others' ignorance. It's also tough being a good learner when you're both a full time worker and student. When I was a student, I remember not being particularly interested in listening to TA drones regurgitate empty words either, especially when I was sleepy.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Try telling the 100000+ homeless students in NY that ignorance is a deliberate choice. Let's not lose sight of the subject of the article, which is disinformation, promulgated for example via Facebook and Twitter. There's no evidence that this issue is correlated with homelessness. In fact the people who eat up the disinformation tend to have easy access to internet and television. If homelessness were the problem, then solving homelessness would solve disinformation, but there's no reason to think that's the case. You're more likely to hear internet disinformation repeated in a country club than on the streets. Lack of financial access to a good education is of course a severe societal problem. But it's not the heart of the matter here, specifically. > It's also tough being a good learner when you're both a full time worker and student. It's tough, but in my experience the people who work full time and go to school simultaneously tend to be the most motivated. They want to learn, even if they struggle to find the time, otherwise they'd just drop out. The laziest students are often the ones with plenty of free time, which they spend on partying, sports, and other leisure as opposed to studying. However, as I suggested in another comment, college is probably too late to reach most kids. If you don't start working on them earlier, they're already set into a lot of bad attitudes and habits.

by _qulr 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

In fairness, maybe we just start way too late? I mean, I'm all in favor of debates over the existence of God for example in elementary school, at the same age kids start getting forced to go to Sunday school. But a lot of parents would have fits over that topic in public schools, which is why we can't do it until college, at which point it's unlikely to make much difference. The formative years of a child are almost completely under control of the parents. It's a chicken and egg problem, because it's difficult to change the public education policy without the consent of the parents who themselves were not raised to think critically. There's near universal agreement that math education is important, but "critical thinking" is controversial at best among parents. A lot of them would rather home school their kids than allow exposure to different ways of thinking.

dmerks 6y ago
The contextual backdrop is never negligible, but it's the powers that be that change the course of the world. Secularization has been seen as the step forward. So has quality initial and ongoing Education for all. We trudge forward as individualistic pursuits erode those of the collective. It reminds me of a study: many groups undertake a turn-based team game in which the prize grows until a certain maximum. Make it to the end of the game: everyone takes an equal part of the prize home. At any point before the end, the entirety of the current prize can be claimed by one individual. Not in one single group was the prize shared. There was always at least one person who waited long enough to claim more than what would have been shared otherwise.

dmerks 6y ago

If I tell a child who knows squirrels are usually white, brown, grey or black, and say "hey look! A purple squirrel!", chances are the child will think I'm fooling around. If I say the same thing to a child who has never seen a squirrel, he's more likely to turn his head without doubting my words. Is knowing the possible colors of squirrel fur an innate trait, or is it something that is learned? I agree, critical thinking is difficult to teach directly. I can't tell the child-- or an adult for that matter-- to foretell something he doesn't know. The focus of Education is knowledge in various fields like politics, history, physics, mathematics, linguistics, etc. I was an academic as well. Some classes were certainly funded, maintained and encouraged because of ignorance or political reasons. The entire educational system were I live was reformed based on political reasons. The pilot study in numerous schools failed miserably 20 years ago. The results were never shared with the public before its nation wide implementation. The reform is still in place today. The only copy of the evaluation I know of is a university library and was printed by the professor who was its director and who was subsequently demoted. This happened in a G8 country. Universities are far from immune from selfish or poor decision making. Try telling the 100000+ homeless students in NY that ignorance is a deliberate choice. Maybe it is a deliberate choice for those in power to dictate others' ignorance. It's also tough being a good learner when you're both a full time worker and student. When I was a student, I remember not being particularly interested in listening to TA drones regurgitate empty words either, especially when I was sleepy.

_qulr 6y ago
> Try telling the 100000+ homeless students in NY that ignorance is a deliberate choice. Let's not lose sight of the subject of the article, which is disinformation, promulgated for example via Facebook and Twitter. There's no evidence that this issue is correlated with homelessness. In fact the people who eat up the disinformation tend to have easy access to internet and television. If homelessness were the problem, then solving homelessness would solve disinformation, but there's no reason to think that's the case. You're more likely to hear internet disinformation repeated in a country club than on the streets. Lack of financial access to a good education is of course a severe societal problem. But it's not the heart of the matter here, specifically. > It's also tough being a good learner when you're both a full time worker and student. It's tough, but in my experience the people who work full time and go to school simultaneously tend to be the most motivated. They want to learn, even if they struggle to find the time, otherwise they'd just drop out. The laziest students are often the ones with plenty of free time, which they spend on partying, sports, and other leisure as opposed to studying. However, as I suggested in another comment, college is probably too late to reach most kids. If you don't start working on them earlier, they're already set into a lot of bad attitudes and habits.