3 ms·

I see critical thinking as a voluntary process. You have to be willing to violate your worldview - not just entertaining the idea that you are wrong. Additional

I see critical thinking as a voluntary process. You have to be willing to violate your worldview - not just entertaining the idea that you are wrong. Additionally, the tools for critical thinking can just as easily be used to reinforce one's own worldview. I see the issue as an mindset problem rather than a lack of education problem.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
Sure, I see your point, I guess I'd say it strikes me as sort of hardare-and-software problem. Education can introduce you to the techniques, their application (or non-application) is up to you. But if you haven't ever been introduced to them, the chances you will spontaneously develop them are small.
- criddell 5y ago
  When you see or hear something that makes you think "that person lacks critical thinking skills", how often are they 18-25 year olds? For me, I associate generally with older people. I think young people today are pretty media savvy.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    I am sure you can find lots of uncritical middle-aged folks, but media savviness strikes me as a ways from critical thinking mastery. Partly I don't think there's much institutional enthusiasm for introducing a principle like "cui bono?" or the Hegelian dialectic to high schoolers, so if they absorb them it happens in college (but it'd be great if it was sooner!)
    - criddell 5y ago
      The term cui bono may not be known, but follow the money is. I know nothing about Hegelian dialectic but from reading Wikipedia it sounds like the opposite of a good faith argument.
      - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
        'Follow the money' is a good starting point for sure, though obviously we know that lots of people young and old are happy to 'pay' for 'free' products like FB / IG / gmail etc. by being surveilled (and I think it's fair to say that's fairly uncritical of them, or at least fatalistic). I like Cui Bono a little more, since there can be other kinds of motivations besides purely monetary ones. As for Hegel, I don't know that anyone really uses the dialectic 'out of the box' but the practice of trying to formulate the antithesis of your naive argument, and then incorporate it in an improved version is potentially very useful (and counter intuitive).

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

Sure, I see your point, I guess I'd say it strikes me as sort of hardare-and-software problem. Education can introduce you to the techniques, their application (or non-application) is up to you. But if you haven't ever been introduced to them, the chances you will spontaneously develop them are small.

criddell 5y ago
When you see or hear something that makes you think "that person lacks critical thinking skills", how often are they 18-25 year olds? For me, I associate generally with older people. I think young people today are pretty media savvy.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  I am sure you can find lots of uncritical middle-aged folks, but media savviness strikes me as a ways from critical thinking mastery. Partly I don't think there's much institutional enthusiasm for introducing a principle like "cui bono?" or the Hegelian dialectic to high schoolers, so if they absorb them it happens in college (but it'd be great if it was sooner!)
  - criddell 5y ago
    The term cui bono may not be known, but follow the money is. I know nothing about Hegelian dialectic but from reading Wikipedia it sounds like the opposite of a good faith argument.
    - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
      'Follow the money' is a good starting point for sure, though obviously we know that lots of people young and old are happy to 'pay' for 'free' products like FB / IG / gmail etc. by being surveilled (and I think it's fair to say that's fairly uncritical of them, or at least fatalistic). I like Cui Bono a little more, since there can be other kinds of motivations besides purely monetary ones. As for Hegel, I don't know that anyone really uses the dialectic 'out of the box' but the practice of trying to formulate the antithesis of your naive argument, and then incorporate it in an improved version is potentially very useful (and counter intuitive).