I think it's good to consider whether a certain outlook or ideology comes along with being a "professional". Here are some aspects of this outlook that I have

I think it's good to consider whether a certain outlook or ideology comes along with being a "professional". Here are some aspects of this outlook that I have notices: * "Engaging with the system and trying to improve it is always the best strategy". The other point of view is that if you have an adversarial relationship with an institution, it might serve your interests, or the greater good, to refuse to cooperate or participate until certain demands are met. * "Bad actions can usually be explained by good intentions gone wrong". I think this incorrect viewpoint also relates the the first point, in that people feel that it is better to correct institutions than to fight against people. It is especially disturbing to me when things that should be crimes, are downgraded to institutional failures. That said, (and without having read the book), I think that people such as the author suffer from other, equally serious biases. In particular, thinking "critically" usually means introducing a bias in our thinking to counteract some alleged bias we already suffer from. But if we are wrong about the initial bias, then our attempt to correct the bias will also be wrong.