WHAT is Critical Thinking?

Critical = Evaluative

To avoid misunderstanding, in the context of "critical thinking" we need to understand what "critical" does mean, and doesn't mean.  In this context, critical thinking is just logical thinking;  critical thinking is not necessarily being “negatively critical” as in a commonly used meaning of the word.  In fact, a more accurate term would be logical thinking (re: its process) or evaluative thinking (re: its goal).  The result of evaluation can range from positive to negative, from acceptance to rejection or anything in-between.  Yes, critical evaluation can produce a glowing recommendation.  On this page, for example, the quotes and links — which are recommended, but (as with all sources of information) should be used with an attitude of "critical thinking" evaluation — are the result of my own critical thinking.

Here are two brief definitions of what it is:  Critical thinking is "reasonably and reflectively deciding what to believe or do." ...  Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments.  Basically, it is using criteria to judge the quality of something, from cooking to a conclusion of a research paper.  In essence, critical thinking is a disciplined manner of thought that a person uses to assess the validity of something:  of a statement, news story, argument, research, etc.  {quoting Robert Ennis, and paraphrasing Barry Beyer}

A page that is brief yet is rich in ideas, and is worth reading carefully, is Defining Critical Thinking by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul.  You can read Our Concept of Critical Thinking from The Critical Thinking Community which offers a comprehensive Library of Articles for you to explore.

Barbara Fowler has selected 19 brief definitions of critical thinking from a variety of sources, and Robert Ennis has a brief 11-point outline and a Long Definition.

Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

For a quick overview, read Characteristics of Critical Thinking which begins with "What is Critical Thinking?" and continues with: Characteristics of Critical Thinking, Why teach Critical Thinking?, and Teaching Strategies to help promote Critical Thinking Skills.

Linda Elder and Richard Paul describe Valuable Intellectual Traits (Intellectual Humility, Courage, Empathy, Integrity, Perseverance, Faith In Reason, and Fairmindedness) and Universal Intellectual Standards (Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, and Logic).

For a more comprehensive overview, use their 35 Dimensions of Critical Thought as a launching pad to read 35 pages with brief, clear descriptions of Affective Strategies, Cognitive Strategies (Macro-Abilities), and Cognitive Strategies (Micro-Skills).

And you can find much more by exploring the sitemap for CriticalThinking.org

Willing and Able, with Disposition and Skill:  An effective thinker must be willing to think and able to think.  These requirements — for disposition (be willing) and skill (be able) — are described in the pages above, and with more detail in a series of papers by Peter Facione, Noreen Facione, Carol Giancarlo, and Joanne Gainen.  I suggest The Motivation to Think in Working and Learning and Professional Judgment and the Disposition Toward Critical Thinking;  or you can read the abstracts to see what looks interesting.  [[check: is there a url-link to the series?]]

Beneficial Uses of Critical Thinking

A person's critical thinking will be more generally-beneficial if they're able to think well and use their thinking well, in ways that will be more beneficial in more ways for more people.  A person's beneficial use of critical thinking can decrease if they're not "able to think well" (e.g. if they can't recognize fallacious reasoning "that is logically incorrect" or they unintentionally use it with unconscious motivated reasoning) or if they don't "use their thinking well" (e.g. if they intentionally use fallacious reasoning in ways that might be considered unethical).

Critical Thinking for Problem Solving:  A “big picture” perspective on critical thinking views it in the wider context of thinking that is productive for problem solving, where...

Knowledge + Creative Thinking + Critical Thinking → Productive Thinking .

My links-page for PRACTICAL CREATIVITY begins by describing the productive interactions between Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking:  "Creative Thinking is extremely useful – and it's fun! – but it should be combined with Critical Thinking, during your process of Productive Thinking [that effectively combines Knowledge plus Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking].  Why?  During productive PROBLEM SOLVING you ‘make things better’ by creatively Generating Ideas and critically Evaluating Ideas.  Usually, creative generation is the most exciting part of creative-and-critical Productive Thinking and it's very important.  But critical evaluation (i.e. logical evaluation) is usually more important, in two ways:  • if creative ideas are immediately converted into action [due to uncontrolled enthusiasm] without being wisely evaluated, the result can be unwise action;   • your critical evaluation of ideas can motivate-and-guide your creative generation of ideas" in a productive process of...

Guided Creativity with Creative Thinking being motivated-and-guided by Critical Thinking:  When you are trying to Solve a Problem, you Evaluate Options (for a Problem-Solution) by using 3 Elements – Predictions and Observations plus Goals – in 3 kinds of Comparisons, in a Reality Check and two Quality Checks.  Your critical Evaluation of an Option (it's a possible Problem-Solution) can motivate you to creatively Generate a New Option, with your critical Evaluation guiding your creative Generation in a critical-and-creative process of Guided Generation.     {more: in my links-page for CREATIVE THINKING this process is examined in three sections, with Guided Creativity — explored & recognized by you in Part 1 and then described by me in Part 2 — could be used (as illustrated in Part 3) to improve “the party atmosphere” during a dinner you'll be hosting, by improving a relationship.

 
WHY should we teach Critical Thinking?

As explained in the pages above, critical thinking is essential for effective functioning in the modern world.

IOU – Soon, probably mid-October 2022, here I will describe (and quote from, and link to) web-pages that describe its importance, after evaluating some of the many pages about this.

In an essay that "takes a Socratic approach to defining critical thinking and identifying its value in one's personal, professional, educational, and civic life," Peter Facione discusses “what and why” in Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts and concludes with a consensus statement (of experts in the field) about critical thinking and the ideal critical thinker:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.  [Since this includes almost all types of logical reasoning,] CT is essential as a tool of inquiry.  As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life.  While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon.  The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.  Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.  It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."  {the ending-quotation is from "Delphi Report" consensus statement, The Executive Summary for Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, Executive Summary & Expert Consensus from InsightAssessment.com with links for MORE }

Education in critical thinking offers an alternative to a drift toward postmodern relativism, by emphasizing that we can "distinguish between facts and opinions or personal feelings, judgments and inferences, inductive and deductive arguments, and the objective and subjective. {MCC General Education Initiatives}"  Critical thinking encourages us to recognize that our “rationally justifiable confidence” in a claim can span a wide range, from feelings to fact and everything in between.  Three Categories of Questions explains why, because students don't recognize questions involving "reasoned judgment" (which are neither fact nor opinion), they "fail to see the difference between offering legitimate reasons and evidence in support of a view and simply asserting the view as true."  You can see samples from The Art of Asking Essential Questions.

 
Causes and Effects of
Motivated Reasoning

WHAT is motivated reasoning?

Basically, it's a tendency for people to believe what they want to believe, and find reasons for believing it. 

iResearchNet.com says "Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion.  The term motivated in motivated reasoning refers to the fact that people use reasoning strategies that allow them to draw the conclusions they want to draw (i.e., are motivated to draw). ...  motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation," by wanting to reach a conclusion that is strongly justified by a logical evaluation of all available evidence.

motivated reasoning occurs when people (quoting Wikipedia) "use emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence, while still [even though their motivated justifications don't "accurately reflect the evidence"] reducing cognitive dissonance.  In other words, motivated reasoning is the tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe."

note:  In the quotations above and below, italics and [comments in brackets] are added by me.

A person can use motivated reasoning in any area of life (when thinking about the nature of reality, and principles for living well, policies for governing effectively, evaluating the abilities of themself & others,...) and it's only one aspect of a person's general overconfidence about many kinds of personal abilities in many areas of life.

WHY do people use motivated reasoning?  —  CAUSES

We'll begin by looking at a common deviation from one goal of critical thinking, which ideally should produce...

appropriate confidence:  An evidence-based logical evaluation should lead to improved understanding that promotes an appropriate humility about conclusions, with a logically-justifiable appropriate confidence that is not too little, not too much.    {Bertrand Russell, re: three kind of error}

inappropriate over-confidence:  We often see people being overconfident about the logical justification for their own personal views, and the views of their groups.  Why?  A major cause of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that often is used by people, both individually and in groups.  So... we then can ask “why do people use motivated reasoning?”

causes of motivated reasoning, by individuals and groups:

A major source of overconfidence is the motivated reasoning that occurs because people (individually and in groups) have mixed motivations, combining logic-and-emotion in our thinking-and-feeling;  logically we want to have accurate understanding;  and emotionally we want to have a positive self-image so we can feel good about ourselves (as individuals & as a group)* and (as individuals in groups) we want to get respect from others and have supportive allies, and (as individuals & as groups) we want to win arguments, to have a positive self-image and a positive group-image.  Being in a group often leads to social pressures, with group dynamics that influence the reasoning of members, and reinforce our tendencies to be individually overconfident.

* The self-image of a person (or group) is improved when they can reduce the unpleasant cognitive dissonance (i.e. dissonance in thinking) that occurs when they recognize an inconsistency between their beliefs, or between their beliefs and actions.  They want the personal confidence of believing that their system of beliefs-and-actions is internally consistent, and also has high quality because it's better than other beliefs-and-actions they could choose, AND often (in comparisons of self with others, producing effects that are both positive & negative) it's better than the beliefs-and-actions chosen by others.   /   Due to these comparisons, although the motive (of wanting personal confidence) and strategy (of becoming more confident by reducing cognitive dissonance) are basically healthy, and the direct results are usually productive (by leading a person to improve their beliefs-and-actions), there also can be unproductive indirect results because...   This motive-and-strategy can lead a person to over-estimate the logical justifications for their own confidence, so they become unjustifiably over-confident about themselves, and (in an extra step that doesn't have to occur, but can occur) they become disrespectful of others.

All of these psychological motives often are related to practical motives.  Definitions of motivated reasoning describe the general motivation of wanting to believe "what we want to believe" in a "preferred conclusion" that is "most desired."  These motives for "wanting... what we want" often are connected with our motives (as individuals & groups) of wanting to achieve practical goals, to get various kinds of benefits.

Most causes of motivated reasoning operate at the levels of individuals & their groups, so we can get useful insights from experts who study the psychology of individuals (alone & in groups) and sociology of groups.

a summary:  Why are so many so confident?  Because it feels good & gains allies, can persuade people, can help achieve practical goals.

HOW does motivated reasoning affect critical thinking?  —  EFFECTS

goals:  We should try to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by ourselves and by others, when it's used by you and me, and them.

causes:  Motivated Reasoning {MR} can help a person feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals.

one effect:  When MR is not regulated by accurate self-evaluations, a motive of wanting confidence can lead to overconfidence.

other effects:  During a process of critical thinking, a person can use MR (consciously or unconsciously) in many ways,...

by selecting their evidence:

While a person is gathering information, MR motivates them to have confirmation bias by seeking-and-accepting evidence that confirms (supports) their own view, while ignoring-or-rejecting evidence that disconfirms their view or confirms opposing views.    {how biased preference is used in business strategies}

In high school our Monday-plus-Tuesday experiences taught us that "IF we want accurate understanding, we should get the best information and arguments that all position-views can claim as support."  But this "if" doesn't describe the way people sometimes think, when instead we actually want to see only evidence that supports our own views (even if this isn't an accurate understanding of reality), so each of us has a tendency to think “I don't want to hear anything about Tuesday.”

by adjusting their logic:

MR affects a person's ability to recognize fallacious reasoning (by themself and by others), their decision to either accept a fallacy (that supports their views) or challenge a fallacy (that opposes their view, supports another view) when it's used in a logical argument by another person, and their willingness to use fallacies when they construct their own arguments.  And...

They use gentle criticism for their own view when evaluating its pros-and-cons, but use harsh criticism for other views.  In doing this they are adjusting their standards for having confidence in a conclusion, shifting the evaluative “burden of proof” so it favors their view by asking “can I believe this?” for a view they want to accept, and “must I believe this?” for a view they want to reject.

They tend to ignore actual complexities that would challenge their overconfidence.

When their thinking is dominated by MR, an overall result is to reverse their sequence-of-logic;  with MR, first comes the desired conclusion, followed by evidence-and-logic to support their conclusion.

by adjusting their values:

MR can affect their evaluative weighting of predicted outcomes, as in a complex situation where they must "make decisions – based on their values & priorities – about the importance of each kind of outcome, and thus how much weight to give it in their evaluation."

by adjusting their ethics: 

If it's necessary because they recognize their bias, they can rationalize the process-and-results of their motivated reasoning — even though it's biased toward reaching conclusions they are motivated to believe — by thinking “my thoughts {and actions} are acceptable because      ” and filling the blank with self-protective rationalizations.

Complexity and Confidence

One way to adjust logic with MR is to oversimplify.  Usually questions asking “what is the best policy?” are complex.  Imagine a trial where a judge is trying to determine which of two (or more) competing policies will have more practical utility.  Even if we agree (and we may not) that the best practical utility is “producing a greater good for a greater number,” usually each policy will offer some advantages, so a wise critical-thinking judge must weigh all pros & cons.  They must compare different kinds of “good” and “bad” outcomes (each with varying degrees) along with the number of people who are affected by each outcome, and decide (based on their values & priorities) how to weigh the importance of each kind of outcome.  Also, there is complexity in using cause-effect reasoning to make predictions about issues with multiple complex causes and multiple complex outcomes, with outcome-effects that are good and bad, affecting a variety of people in different ways.

In situations that require coping with complexity, a judge-thinker tries to evaluate by using critical thinking that is minimally biased.  But a lawyer-thinker is motivated to think & argue in ways that are biased, and one useful strategy for “winning” (and reducing cognitive dissonance) is oversimplification.     {decisions about policies-for-society are designing strategies-for-society}

Reversing the Process  –  doing Conclusion first, then Evaluation

Sometimes the overall result of MR-logic is to reverse the usual sequence of reasoning.  In a process that is logical, without bias, we should first do an objective evaluation by using unbiased evidence-and-logic plus values, and then reach a conclusion.  But the sequential order is partially reversed* when thinking is influenced by motivated reasoning, when (due to prior reasoning earlier in life) a person first (Monday) reaches an initial conclusion they want, and then (Tuesday) instead of continuing to learn more about the pros & cons of all positions, they creatively construct biased goal-directed reasoning — by selecting information & adjusting logic & adjusting values — to support their existing position, so they have arguments to logically defend their position internally (for self) and externally (for others).

* It's only partially reversed (not totally reversed) because their Monday-conclusion is based on prior reasoning that occurred before "Monday" and may have been mainly-objective (with evaluation before conclusion, in the proper logical order) rather than mainly-motivated.

Personal Change-of-View

two possible results of MR:  Although a person's Motivated Reasoning can lead to a changing of views {or actions}, instead MR usually leads to increasing confidence in existing views {or actions}.  In either way, by changing or maintaining, MR can help a person achieve personal goals, e.g. by gaining more allies (in a new group or old group), or by improving their self-perception of internal consistency because they have reduced their cognitive dissonance.

reasons to not-change or to change, using unbiased Logical Reasoning and biased Motivated Reasoning:  When a person re-examines one of their views by continuing to rationally evaluate it with unbiased reasoning (using evidence-and-logic plus values), usually they decide that a change-of-view isn't justified.  But occasionally they decide, based on their evaluation, that a change is justifiable, and they are willing to change this view, so they do change, and they're happy because they are thinking “now my view is better than it was before.”  /  But for another view they are less willing to change, even if this would be justified by an unbiased evaluation.  They don't want to change, so they use biased motivated reasoning to avoid a change, or even to avoid thinking “maybe I should change.”    {Although MR can be one factor in promoting a change, this is less common than using MR to resist a change.}

What causes the difference in being willing to change?  Maybe in one situation this person self-defines the change as wisdom (because it's justified by their evaluation), while in the other situation they think a change would be a sign of weakness.  Or maybe in the overall context of their life, in one situation (but not the other) a change is personally beneficial.   /   situations and people:  For this person, being willing to change differs from one situation to another.  And a tendency for being willing to change differs from one person to another.  A willingness to change varies with SITUATIONS, and with PEOPLE.   /   If a person is not willing to change, this will increase their use of MR, but this won't necessarily determine the result.  Of course, with analysis using my interpretive framework (of “unbiased Logical Reasoning combined with biased Motivated Reasoning”) the result – by changing or maintaining – will depend on the COMBINATION of unbiased reasoning plus biased reasoning.  If a person is strongly motivated to maintain (or to change), their use of biased reasoning will increase if this will help them justify (internally & externally, for themself & others) the result they want.  But in “the combination” their biased M-Reasoning could be overcome by the unbiased L-Reasoning they also are doing, with their MR being overcome by their stronger LR.

A person who doesn't want to change their mind will think “Monday I reached a conclusion (made a decision, made up my mind), so Tuesday I don't want to think about it or learn anything new.”

By contrast, a person who is willing to change wants to learn more about the pros & cons of differing views, so their understanding will continually increase in completeness & accuracy.  They will change their views when it seems wise — if they find justifiable evidence-based Logical Reasons for a change — because they see the change as wisdom rather than weakness.  They will think “now I know more, and have evaluated more carefully, so now my views are different.  I want to self-educate myself by learning from experience, and if new experiences (to get more knowledge, do more evaluation) lead to a different conclusion, this is a beneficial change.”

Change of Mind and Change of Status:  During a person's evaluation of competitive Options, they can estimate a “Quality Status” for each Option by considering the many factors that affect its quality;  each Quality Status can be very low, or very high, or in-between;  and it can change during evaluation when the person gathers more evidence, and thinks about everything more carefully.  When an evaluation is done by using accurate evidence and valid logic, usually the evaluation-conclusion won't shift from being 100% for one option (by thinking everything favors it) to 100% for another option.  Instead there will be an honest recognition (unless motivated reasoning leads to a denial of complexity) that each option offers some benefits, has some pros & cons;  during a period-of-changing there is a change in the person's estimates about the relative benefits of different options, about the “all things considered” conclusions after a careful weighing of all pros & cons.     {using Quality Status for evaluations}

Motivated Reasoning can be Intelligent Reasoning

Sometimes (but not always) a person's use of motivated reasoning {MR} will strongly affect the process-and-results of their critical thinking, leading to cognitive bias because they have selected information and have adjusted their logic & values & ethics.

All aspects of an evaluative process are influenced (consciously & unconsciously) by MR, to a degree that can be small or large.  Is this influence-by-MR reduced by intelligence?  Scientists think “no” based on research, as described by Winston Sieck (2013, updated 2020, with interesting comments) in Does High Intelligence Mean Low Cognitive Bias? :

    "Ideally, a smart and critical thinker would reason through the pros and cons of the different possibilities and come to a balanced view of the issue.  Yet a great deal of research finds that people tend to just consider what they favor about one side.  We see this ‘myside bias’ all the time in the real world" and in research: "A number of studies have now been conducted on intelligence and the myside bias," showing that "people who scored more highly on the intelligence test showed just as much of the cognitive bias as the rest.  They found no link between intelligence and myside bias. ...  People with high IQ reasoned just like everyone else," even though our intuitions tell us that they should be more able to think rationally: "In everyday discussion, intelligence and rational thinking are often treated as ‘close cousins,’ or even as one and the same thing.  Yet, that does not appear to be the case in actual assessments of intelligence and cognitive bias," because intelligence tests "do not measure the extent of a person's cognitive bias or rationality."  He ends by concluding that "balanced, rational thinking may well be at least as, if not more important than IQ to what it really means to be smart in the modern world."  A person with high IQ might be more able to think logically-and-objectively with minimal cognitive bias, but not necessarily more willing.  Instead they may be motivated to use their intelligence to skillfully construct (by using motivated reasoning) clever arguments that have high cognitive bias, yet are effective in persuasively defending their beliefs.

It's useful to distinguish between different kinds of rationality.  If motivated reasoning helps a person "feel good, gain allies, persuade people, achieve goals," their motivated reasoning is “personally rational” for them, even though their MR isn't “objectively rational” because it isn't unbiased reasoning.  One definition of MR says "motivated reasoning refers [only] to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion, rather than to [other] situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation" so they want to search for truth by using unbiased evaluation.  Here we see two aspects of overall motivation;  people want to find truth, and they have other motives.  The relative strength of these motives will vary, depending on the context.  In some situations a searching-for-truth rationality is actually less personally-rational because it's less effective in helping a person “get what they want” in their whole life.  My overview of Motivations for Learning describes a central goal of educators, who try to "consider all aspects of total motivation – intrinsic, personal, interpersonal, and extrinsic, all hopefully based on good values & priorities – that contribute to how a student thinks about their strategies-and-actions aimed at ‘getting what they want’ in their whole life as a whole person."  Although I think we should try to reduce MR and its negative effects because personal rationalities don't necessarily produce societal rationality we should try to reduce MR “with eyes wide open” by understanding why every person (including you and me) has a tendency to use MR due to their "total motivation... in their whole life as a whole person."

A broad definition of rationality is used in a research review (cited by Winston Sieck), Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence by Keith Stanovich, Richard West, Maggie Toplak:

    "The magnitude of the myside bias shows very little relation to intelligence. ... It is rare when a cognitive process or phenomenon is found to be independent of intelligence.  Nevertheless, some recent research has suggested that individual differences in an important critical thinking skill [reducing one's own myside bias] are largely independent of individual differences in intelligence. .....  Rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence. ... To think rationally means to adopt appropriate goals, take appropriate action given one's goals and beliefs, and hold beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence. [it's "and" even though it may not be possible to do all three, to "adopt... take... hold"]  Intelligence tests measure many important things about thinking, but they do not directly assess the degree of rationality of thought.  Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that intelligence is quite weakly related to at least some aspects of rational thought.  Myside bias turns out to be an aspect of rational thought that, compared with others, is particularly unrelated to intelligence."

They consider myside bias to be "an aspect of rational thought" and I agree, because MR can be personally-rational for a person due to the personal benefits it gives them, even if their MR isn't critically-rational (because the conclusion that's based on their MR wouldn't be justifiable based on an unbiased evaluation using evidence-and-logic plus values).  But even though MR with myside bias for persons (and ourside bias for their groups) can be personally-rational for individuals, there are reasons for us to think it will be societally-rational for us to have a goal of "trying to reduce the amount of motivated reasoning and the negative effects when it's used by... you and me, and them."

As explained above, scientists answer “no” when we ask “are MR and its effects decreased by high intelligence?”  For a related question – “are MR and its effects decreased by high skill in critical thinking?” – experts say “no, but...”

Personal Rationality and Societal Rationality:  Even though fallacious arguments (using biased motivated reasoning) can seem to be personally rational due to benefits that are short-range (are beneficial for only some people) and short-term, fallacies are societally irrational because the overall effects are detrimental for society.  You can see exemplars that unfortunately have expanded from “conversational use by individuals” into “societal use by groups” so they cause widespread societal damage, in this entry from my links-page about Logical Fallacies: 

Dean & Laura VanDruff share Conversational Tricks and Fallacies in a humorous way, illustrating "how not to talk" in an attempt to decrease the "conversational terrorism" (with a disrespectful "cheap shot" style) arising from the "growing abuse in our conversational landscape."

In this section you'll see two analogies (lawyer-vs-judge and soldier-vs-scout) that can help us think about two ways to use intelligence (motivated with bias versus objectively neutral) while we're evaluating & arguing.

Victory-Seeking Lawyers and Truth-Seeking Judges:  One way to improve our mutual understanding & respecting is by trying to think like a judge, not a lawyer.  How?  During a trial when a judge is trying to determine what is true, first the lawyers for opposing truth-claims each argue for their claim, trying to “win the case” by using evidence-and-logic that is non-neutral (is biased).  Then the judge tries to be neutral (non-biased) when evaluating the evidence-and-logic, trying to determine which truth-claim is more accurate, in what ways.  A wise judge tries to do neutral judging, tries to avoid biased judging based on biased reasoning, on reasoning that is motivated by personally wanting to believe one of the claims.  By contrast, each lawyer wants their own claim to win, so they are motivated to do biased arguing by adjusting all factors (evidence, logic, values) to favor the policy they want.     {in different kinds of trials, a judge can try to determine what is true, or what is fair, or what will be effective}

a clarification:  I'm not criticizing the ethical character of people who serve as lawyers.  They are just doing what we're asking them to do, by performing a valuable service in the context of our “adversarial” system of justice.  I am criticizing the transfers of biased lawyer-like arguing into the contexts of everyday life, where our understanding-and-respecting would be improved by a decrease of adversial attitudes & actions.  Similarly, I'm not criticizing the ethical character of the people who bravely serve us as soldiers.

Victory-Seeking Soldiers and Truth-Seeking Scouts:  Another useful analogy (developed by Julia Galef) illustrates how different goals for thinking lead to different ways of thinking.  During a discussion, if you're behaving like a soldier your goal is to be an effective fighter;  for achieving this goal it can be useful to think over-simplistically, to view yourself as a correct-thinking “good guy” and your opponent as a wrong-thinking “bad guy” who deserves to be the enemy you hate, and fight;  when you're functioning as a soldier, understanding & respect could make you less effective as a single-minded fighter whose only goal is to win, so you don't want to acknowledge that "people with other views also may have good reasons, both logical and ethical, for their choices."  During a war, when you're thinking like a scout your goal is to find truth, to accurately know the actual situation (re: numbers & locations of soldiers, their equipment, the terrain,...) so you want an accurate knowledge-of-reality that will be a solid foundation for an effective planning of battle strategies.  During a discussion, you also can think like a scout who wants to find truth.

Two Analogies — Lawyer-vs-Judge and Soldier-vs-Scout

similarities:  In each analogy we compare biased thinking (by a lawyer or soldier, trying to win) with unbiased thinking (by a judge or scout, trying to determine truth).     {more about the scout analogy of Julia Galef}

    unbiased = neutral = objective:   In this page, all three terms are used with the same meaning.  In fact, many words have a similar meaning;  Collins Thesaurus lists 17 synonyms for objective: "unbiased, neutral, detached, just, fair, judicial, open-minded, equitable, impartial, impersonal, disinterested, even-handed, dispassionate, unemotional, uninvolved, unprejudiced, uncoloured."  Most people think these words describe admirable character traits, so here is...

a societal application:  We can use either analogy to ask, “would our society be more mutually respectful if more people decided to be more judge-like (more scout-like) in their feeling & thinking & behaving?   i.e. if more people were less lawyer-like (less soldier-like)?”

personal applications:  I find that each analogy is useful for different situations, for when I'm alone (be a scout-and-judge) or interacting with others (be a diplomatic scout).  When my goal is to gather information that is relevant & reliable, “exploring like an objective scout” is useful, and “thinking like an unbiased judge” helps me decide what is more true.  Thinking like a scout/judge is also useful for trying to determine what is more fair, or more effective.   /   But... during a discussion it would be relationally-inappropriate if you (or I) tried to “behave like a judge,” and others would be justifiably offended.*  But it could be very useful if you “behave like a scout” who (like my teacher when Monday-and-Tuesday were combined) tries to help others get accurate descriptions of different views and the best arguments for each view.  And in addition to behaving like a scout, you can imagine also functioning as a referee who unofficially and skillfully (by using diplomacy so the refereeing-actions aren't resented, maybe aren't even noticed) tries to cope with the “critical thinking fouls” that occur when someone uses fallacious reasoning as in presenting incomplete evidence (with biased selectivity) or inaccurate evidence, or describing a weak-and-distorted strawman of a view they oppose.  But... when you're doing these things (as scout & referee) you will be telling people what they don't want to hear (due to their MR) so they may punish you personally with “shooting the messenger” paybacks that hurt you socially or in other ways.    {* But you will be doing your own internal judging that is kept silently invisible in your own thinking — except when you say “this is what I think” (not “this is what you should think”) — that can become the external judging of a scout who tries to diplomatically provide accurate information for other people. }

The Ethics of Scout-becoming-Soldier:  Of course, nobody is purely soldier or purely scout.  Each of us is some of both, with their strengths depending on what's happening in our life-context, and how we're responding.  Each of us has mixed motives;  we want to have accurate understanding, but we also want to win arguments (internally within ourselves & externally with others) and have supportive allies.  When our main goals are to get wins & allies, a common strategy is to get knowledge as a scout (to improve understanding) and then use knowledge as a soldier (to win arguments & gain allies).  Unfortunately, when this happens our understanding is weaponized, and often the result is a decrease of respect, due to...

Hostile Polarization:  In current society a common tendency is hostile polarizations that lead some people – especially when they're in groups – to have disrespectful attitudes toward people who disagree with them.  The human tendency to join “polarized tribes” can be promoted by many factors, including principles, loyalties, and pressures.

Important Principles:  When a person (and their group) takes a strong position on an issue they think is extremely important, it's more difficult to think an opposing position can be supported (as in our Monday-and-Tuesday classes) by "good reasons, both logical and ethical," and that people holding this position should be respected.  In this context an opponent may be viewed as an enemy who must be defeated in us-against-them warfare.   This attitude does have a rational basis because — even though it's almost always wise to avoid "warfare" — we shouldn't try to buy peace at the high cost of abandoning important principles.    {polarization: loyalties & pressures}

Avoiding Postmodern Relativism

Yes, it should be avoided.  The pessimistic foolishness of radical postmodern relativists* — who deny the possibility (or even desirability) of using evidence-and-logic objectively in critical thinking with less biasing by motivated thinking — should be rejected by educators.  Instead we should emphasize the possibility and desirability of trying to consistently use objective logical thinking.   {our Monday-and-Tuesday debates were not postmodern}

When we're thinking about our views, we should aim for a level of confidence that is appropriate (is not too high or too low), steering a path between the two errors of confidence described by Bertrand Russell: "error is not only the absolute error of believing what is false, but also the quantitative error of believing more or less strongly than is warranted by the degree of credibility properly attaching to the proposition believed, in relation to the believer's knowledge."  We can err by "believing more or less strongly than is warranted," with either overconfidence or underconfidence.

But usually a postmodernist isn't self-humbly underconfident about their own views.  Instead they weaponize their relativism by claiming that “YOU cannot effectively use evidence-and-logic objectively & effectively,” in an effort to make the logical arguments of their opponents seem less justifiable and less persuasive.

* Yes, claims of “postmodernists” do vary widely — with a broad range of perspectives being actualized in a variety of ways to produce differing claims, as in the many kinds of Critical Theory(s) that include Critical Race Theory — so my brief summary is oversimplified.  But the essential foundations of radical postmodernism do clash with the worthy goals of objectively-logical critical thinking.    {postmodernists began with a useful question – asking “how confident should you be?” – but then pushed their skepticism to foolish extremes, so we now see the rationality-and-idiocy of postmodern relativism}

 
The area of THINKING SKILLS has sub-areas for
Thinking Skills in Education and Life: Effective Problem-Solving Methods
Critical Thinking in Education and Life    Creative Thinking in Education and Life

 
This links-page for Critical Thinking in Education and Life
— produced by Craig Rusbult, PhD — is
http://asa3.org/ASA/education/think/critical.htm
 copyright © 2001 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved 
( continuing to be updated/revised in June 2021 )
 
All links were checked-and-fixed on July 10, 2018.

SITEMAP for our Education Website
 

	Whole-Person Education
HOME	Effective Teaching	School Options	Learning Skills	Thinking Skills	The Nature of Science	Origins Questions	World Views	ASA