Blog - by Linda Elder with Richard Paul Archives

{"ops":[{"insert":"This blog relates to my March 3, 2025, post, “"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=259"},"insert":"Do You Embody Intellectual Perseverance or Do You Easily Give Up?"},{"insert":"”\n\nWhen people are unwilling to persevere through difficulties in problem-solving and easily quit when faced with complexities in working through issues or projects, they exhibit irrational laziness. Its opposite, intellectual perseverance, is required for effectively addressing challenges that arise as you develop your mind.\n\nThe mind, being habitual by nature, is often loath to change. Exceptions arise when either the mind realizes it must change to get something it wants badly enough in a given context, or – preferably – when it has learned to value and develop habits of self-reflection and self-discipline.\n\nNothing is easier than giving up when faced with difficulties. Those who prevail in life are not those who lack any challenges to work through, but those who persist through the challenges they do face. This is true because achieving anything of value entails the endurance of complexities that require the mind to develop new skills and/or habits. This can only be done through deliberation, practice, and a willingness to work through confusions, perplexities, uncertainties, and frustrations with equanimity.\n\nTo be generally effective and mentally well requires facing and addressing patterns of quitting in thinking and life. You can never realize your capacities if giving up is a common pattern for you; you can never have a healthy relationship if you cannot tolerate disagreement and reasonable critique; you will struggle to complete important projects if you collapse under the pressures typically entailed by them.\n\nIn terms of intellectual perseverance, some people are naturally proficient in one or more parts of life, while failing miserably in others. For instance, someone may be an excellent mathematician at work, highly esteemed by colleagues, and even a Nobel prize winner, while at the same time experiencing great angst when dealing with complexities in family life. Working through mathematical complexities seems to pose no threat to this person, yet they feel menaced by family life and navigate its complications with incompetence. They may lash out at family members when complexities arise, or retreat inside themselves while participating only partially (if at all). Perhaps while constantly reminding themselves of how smart and intelligent they are in their profession, they hide from their inability to persevere through familial difficulties. Therefore, they cannot be an integral member of their family. Such a person excels professionally but fails as a family member.\n\nConsider these questions:\n\nDo you easily give up at the first sign of difficulties in reasoning through a complicated situation or question?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Can you think of a time in your life when you worked through a difficult issue or situation, even though you felt frustrated during the process? How did you feel afterwards?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In what contexts do you experience the greatest feelings of achievement, relief, and pride in your efforts?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"How do you perceive difficulties when you face them? Do you see yourself as incapable of working through them? Or do you tell yourself that if you wanted to deal with them, you certainly could, but since you don’t want to, you’ll just give up instead (and maybe do it later)?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do you tell yourself that you will certainly accomplish something great when you eventually get around to it? Do you present yourself as brilliant? If so, what evidence do you have to support such claims? (What have you in fact accomplished?)"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do you expect others to carry the weight in developing ideas and solutions for improving life on earth, while you sit back and claim incapability of doing much to help (or that nothing can be done, so there’s no point)? If so, how does this affect the way you see and feel about yourself?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What benefits do you perceive in avoiding or abandoning intellectual struggle? Do such benefits truly lead to greater feelings of wellness than those found in even modest day-to-day achievement?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What can you do to accomplish what you know you’re capable of? How will you take the first steps that you have been avoiding? How will you face the truth about yourself when it comes to intellectual perseverance?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 186 & 187 of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.Org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"with Kenneth R. Adamson"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 1? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=293"},"insert":"Read it Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"The Concept of Prejudice"},{"insert":"\n \nThe English word \"prejudice\" derives from the Latin stems "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"pre "},{"insert":"meaning \"before\" and"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" judicium "},{"insert":"meaning \"judgment\" or \"sentence.\" Literally speaking, therefore, it means \"judging or sentencing before the evidence has been considered.\" Its early recorded uses link it conceptually to injury, detriment, hurt, loss, or damage caused to persons by a judgment or action in which their rights were disregarded.\n \nFrom the earliest uses one finds the word and its grammatical cognates used with conceptual connections to the affective and the behavioral as well as to the cognitive. Consider the following entries from the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Oxford English Dictionary:"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"1. "},{"insert":"a judgment formed before due examination or consideration; a premature or hasty judgment…\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"2. "},{"insert":"the action of judging an event beforehand\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"3. "},{"insert":"preconceived opinion; bias or leaning favorable or unfavorable\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"4. "},{"insert":"a feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward any person or thing, prior to or not based on actual experience; a prepossession; a bias or leaning toward one side; an unreasoning predilection or objection\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"5 "},{"insert":"a preconceived idea as to what will happen\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"6. "},{"insert":"to affect injuriously or unfavorably by doing some act, or as a consequence of something done\n \n7. to injure materially; to damage\n \nWords with equivalent historical roots exist in French (préjugé), German (Vorurteil), Portuguese (preconceito), and other European languages. Each essentially refers to the human capacity to form prejudgments and preconceptions without adequate reason or before the relevant evidence is in, then to feel and act accordingly to the detriment of others. This core of meaning implies that people can be prejudiced in any dimension of thought, feeling, or action, not only with respect to ethnic or racial groups. Furthermore, the concept of prejudice formation is clearly linked to other basic concepts, such as “bias,” “subjectivity,” “irrationality,” “narrowmindedness,” “closedmindedness,” “oversimplification,” “stereotype,” “distortion,” “rationalization,” “self-deception,” “egocentricity,” “sociocentricity,” “ethnocentricity,” “fallaciousness,” and so forth. Indeed any sound empirical or theoretical work on why people tend to think, feel, or act in these flawed ways sheds light on the nature or phenomenology of prejudice.\n \nThe network of words conceptually intertwined with the word "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"prejudice "},{"insert":"reenforces the seminal nature of prejudice in human life. Prejudice is not likely to become intelligible or treatable as a thing-in-itself. Rather, we should understand it as integral to our understanding of how and why humans, with the raw capacity to form beliefs and feelings upon the basis of adequate reasons and evidence, so often form them otherwise. To put this another way, the question \"Why do people often think, feel, and act in a prejudiced way?\" is a paraphrase of the question \"Why do people often think, feel, and act in a way that does not make sense given the available evidence?\" Furthermore, the tendency of people to be emotionally attached to their prejudices, to hold to them even in the face of overwhelming contrary reasons and evidence, suggests that prejudiced thought and action serve powerful motives or interests. To overturn prejudice we must overturn irrationality, narrowmindedness, self-deception, egocentricity, and sociocentricity. We must understand both the psychological and social functions of prejudiced thought, sentiment, and behavior. And most importantly we must recognize how deep-rooted prejudice is in normal human cognition in every dimension of human life.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This blog relates to my April 22nd, 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=263"},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Humility"},{"insert":".”\n\nIt is very easy to be overly confident in your beliefs, especially when unaware or in denial of the ever-present possibility that you may be wrong, and even more so if you live in a culture that encourages false bravado and the constant pretense of knowing more than you do. When people are unable or disinclined to accurately distinguish what they know from what they don’t, yet at the same time perceive themselves as correct in all their beliefs, they are exhibiting cognitive arrogance, or in other words, cognitive pretense. This is, as with other cognitive vices, a significant problem in human life.\n\nAll people at times believe themselves to know more than they do. Even experts make this mistake. The danger in this can be seen in such cases as people predictably dying while engaged in certain forms of extreme sports, despite their absolute confidence that they could handle the severe conditions safely.\n\nCognitive arrogance connects with hypocrisy. Think of typical job-interview advice that discourages people from acknowledging ways in which they need significant improvement, instead encouraging them to exclusively discuss and even exaggerate their strengths. Whoever follows such advice would likely bemoan being deceived about their supervisor’s characteristics and skills, yet might still attempt to rationalize their own dishonesty.\nLook at how far some individuals go in the professional or political arenas by misrepresenting their knowledge and abilities—not only to others, but to themselves. People may get away with these prevarications for years without getting caught. Or they may not. Either way, living a life of dishonestly leads only to sham psychological wellness at best, never to authentic mental health.\n\nConsider these questions:\n\nDo you know the limits of your knowledge?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In any given context or situation, how can you best clearly delineate what you know from what you do not know?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What do you really know about your spouse?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What do you really know about your children?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What do you really know about the subjects you studied in school?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What do you really know about topics you’ve vehemently argued about? What gaps in your knowledge did you fail to consider or acknowledge at the time?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"How truly aware are you of the many varied influences on your physical and mental health, and of how each affects your thinking, emotions, desires, and behavior?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"If you are a therapist, what do you really know about the human mind?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"If you are a medical doctor, what are the limits of your knowledge within your medical specialty or field?"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nRemember that in any situation, you can ask, “What do I know right now for certain? What do I think is true, but may not be true? What do I need to question about my beliefs in this context?” In some situations, these questions are not only useful, but vital.\n\n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 179 & 180 of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), L. Elder, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Copies can be ordered at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.Org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"with Kenneth R. Adamson"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"In this paper, originally prepared as a result of an Anti-Defamation League conference on "},{"insert":"Critical Thinking and Prejudice"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":", Paul and Adamson argue that there are seven basic flaws in “traditional research into the nature of prejudice.” Efforts in prejudice reduction, based on traditional research, tend to merely reshape and redirect prejudice rather than to lessen it. This research problem originated in the failure of theoreticians to take seriously the groundbreaking work of William Graham Sumner in "},{"insert":"Folkways"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" (1906). Sumner developed the view that prejudice is the norm rather than the exception in everyday belief formation. His concept ties in well with Piaget’s research into egocentrism and sociocentrism of thought."},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Only a well-conceived critical education, Paul and Adamson argue, “an education that cultivates the rationality of students. . . . liberates students from modes of thinking that limit their potential and narrow their perspective” lessens “the natural drive toward prejudice.” For Paul and Adamson, “prejudice is a rich, complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, grounded in . . . the primary, instinctual nature of human thinking.” Removing it “requires the development of our secondary, more latent, nature, our capacity to develop as fairminded, rational persons.” Such an emphasis “should not focus on the content of particular prejudices . . . but on the mechanisms of prejudice and their role in the struggle for power, advantage, and money.” The authors conclude: “A credible program of prejudice reduction ought not focus on the prejudices of others, prejudices against us, for we are ideally situated to gauge our own mode of thinking, not to change the thinking of others.”"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Introduction"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nTraditional research into the nature of prejudice has these seven basic flaws: "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"1) "},{"insert":"Researchers tend to approach prejudice as an aberration, something abnormal or atypical, something outside the normal mechanisms of thought, desire, and action — in palpable contrast to the main source, direction, and nature of human cognitive and affective life. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"2) "},{"insert":"They tend to emphasize the dysfunctional nature of prejudice, to ignore the many advantages in power, wealth, status, and peace of mind that come from prejudiced states of mind. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"3) "},{"insert":"They tend to focus on negative prejudices, \"prejudices-against,\" and assume that positive prejudices, prejudices-for, are independent of negative ones and largely benign. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"4) "},{"insert":"They play down or ignore prejudices against belief systems and ideologies, as though prejudices were only against people as such. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"5) "},{"insert":"They fail to emphasize how prejudice is embedded in the pervasive problem of everyday human irrationality. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"6) "},{"insert":"They tend to focus on the content of prejudices, rather than on the mode of thinking generating them. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"7) "},{"insert":"They fail to recognize that significant prejudice reduction requires long-term strategies for developing fair and openminded persons in fair and openminded societies.\n \nWe emphasize, in contrast, the normality and universality of prejudice, its \"functionality\" in advancing the vested interests of favored groups, the harm in positive prejudices, the significance of prejudice against belief systems and ideologies, the embeddedness of prejudice in egocentric minds and sociocentric societies, the mode of thinking that leads to prejudice formation, and the need to focus efforts of prejudice reduction on long-term strategies for fostering openminded persons in openminded societies. We also emphasize the problem of self-serving interest in prejudice reduction: the revulsion we feel when thinking about \"their\" prejudices against \"us;\" the apathy we feel when thinking about \"our\" prejudices against \"them.\"\n \nFew in favor of prejudice reduction focus on their own prejudices, pro or con. Most grossly underestimate the strength and significance of their own prejudices while expressing anger toward and scorn for the prejudices of \"others\" against them. We argue that prejudice has root causes inherent not only in the human mind but also in traditional human social and cultural arrangements and practices. By largely ignoring the root causes of prejudice, contemporary approaches to prejudice reduction do little except minimize some forms of it while other forms — typically those that further vested interests — thrive. If we do not strike at the roots of prejudice, we do little to lessen the damage and injury it does, though we may shift who is damaged and to what extent.\n \nPrejudices, on this view, are not isolatable things-in-themselves, not mental or affective atoms. Individual prejudices always spring from roots more basic than themselves. Just as a permanent underground stock of a plant continually produces and sustains the stems and leaves, so a deep-seated substratum of beliefs and drives continually creates and sustains prejudices and other irrationalities. Egocentric minds and sociocentric societies are permanent breeding grounds for prejudice. Opposing particular prejudices is pointless unless we take significant steps against what generates them in the first place. Pruning prejudiced plants does not eliminate the plant itself. To date in human history, virtually all groups organized for prejudice reduction are organized to reduce particular prejudices, most notably prejudices against them. Rather than being indifferent to prejudices in favor of themselves, they actively cultivate them. Of course they cultivate them under other names such as loyalty, patriotism, or self-defense. Hence, any energy spent on prejudice reduction "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"reforms "},{"insert":"rather than "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"reduces "},{"insert":"prejudice, redirects rather than eradicates it. For these reasons, we argue, both research into prejudice and our conception of prejudice reduction requires a major reorientation.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Narrowmindedness: The Opposite of Intellectual Empathy"},{"insert":"\n\nThis blog relates to my May 27"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":", 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=267"},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Empathy"},{"insert":".”\n\nWe all know that there are people who, instead of being able to understand and empathize with other people’s thoughts and experiences, are chiefly trapped within their own respective points of view (displaying "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"narrowmindedness"},{"insert":"). They are unwilling to consider any reasoning except their own. They are unable to enter others’ viewpoints and learn from them. They are unable to read and gain deep and transformative ideas from literature worthy of their attention; they are often unaware even of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"what"},{"insert":" literature warrants their attention. They see everything according to their limited vision, leaving their mental space highly constricted. They are therefore unable to actively internalize ideas beyond, or contrary to, those they already harbor and cherish. They feel a need to maintain their existing beliefs to feel secure, even though they have rarely (if ever) examined those beliefs honestly and objectively. In short, they are largely narrowminded.\n\nIt should be easy to see how narrowmindedness leads to mental suffering. Here are some questions that can help you probe your mind for this intellectual vice:\n\nWhen the world does not behave according to your prearranged way of thinking, how do you react? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"How often do you rigorously explore your beliefs for inaccuracies? How often do you seek out other shortcomings in your reasoning? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"When a reasonable colleague, friend, or partner points out a problem in your thinking to help you improve, how do you react? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Can you think of occasions where you accepted that you may be wrong, and where this resulted in improved mental wellness? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What are some occasions on which you missed opportunities for improvement because your ego prevented the reasonable consideration of others’ ideas? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Under what circumstances do you employ defense mechanisms to avoid changing your thinking? What defense mechanisms do you tend to use most often (e.g., projecting your errors or faults onto others, diverting from the issue or question at hand, etc.)? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do you lose control of your emotional state when encountering information or reasoning that reasonably calls your own into question? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do you allow yourself to harm people emotionally or even physically when they don’t agree with you?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Avoid Narrowmindedness"},{"insert":"\n \nComplete the following statements in writing.\n \nI would define narrowmindedness as follows… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In other words… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Some examples of when I have behaved narrowmindedly include… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Behaving in this way has caused problems for me or others in my life because… "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"After working through this activity, I now understand…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To intervene in narrowminded thinking moving forward, I intend to…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 178-179 & 188 of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"[Missed Part 2? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=289"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"insert":"]\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Implications"},{"insert":"\n\nWhat, then, do we need to do?\n\n1) "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"We must parent differently"},{"insert":". We must respond differently to our children’s “Why?” questions. We must not give them short didactic answers, but must encourage them to conjecture as to the answers. We must call more attention to the extent of our own ignorance and not try to convince our children that adults have good answers for most of their questions."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"2) "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"We must work differently. "},{"insert":"We must bring the reality of cooperative critical thinking into the workplace in a thorough way. This means that we must abandon quick-fix strategies and recognize the counterfeits of substantial change. We must become aware of the difference, for example, between the jargon of “Total Quality Management” (which we now have in abundance) and the reality (which we almost entirely lack)."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"3) "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"We must educate differently"},{"insert":". We can no longer afford the high cost of educators who have few or no critical thinking skills, and little or no motivation to develop them. Teachers and administrators who do not themselves think critically, cannot design changes in curriculum and instruction that foster critical thinking. We must come to terms with the most fundamental problem in education today and that is “the blind leading the blind.” Many educators do not realize that they are functionally blind to the demands of our post-industrial world."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This blog relates to my August 5"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":", 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"mailto:https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=271"},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Integrity"},{"insert":".”\n \nWhen people assert a set of beliefs, but behave in ways contrary to their words, they lack intellectual integrity. Their words cannot be trusted, and therefore, they themselves cannot be trusted. Instead of being persons of integrity, they embody "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"intellectual hypocrisy. "},{"insert":"This may be found in the form of lying to others and/or oneself about one’s principles and standards of behavior, or it may take the form of expecting better thinking and conduct from others than you expect of yourself.\n \nIf you grew up in a family or culture that encourages lying, you may have developed the habit of lying early in life, in which case you will likely face great challenges in overcoming this habit. You will need to first become committed to living a life of truthfulness, and will then need to be vigilant in detecting situations wherein you are dishonest with yourself or others. \n \nThere can be, of course, circumstances in life where it is reasonable to omit information or be outright deceptive. These contexts typically involve danger due to the irrationality of bad actors. However, be highly alert for when you are imagining such situations where they don’t exist as a means of excusing unjustifiable dishonesty on your part.\n \nAre you being honest in your personal and professional relationships? Would people say of you that you are a person of integrity, and would they be correct in either case? What pain and suffering has been caused by your dishonesties with yourself and/or others? \n \nHave you developed habits of lying? How deeply engrained are these habits? When did they begin, why, and for what purposes do you maintain them now? Did past circumstances (such as an abusive environment in childhood) encourage lying as a defensive habit? If so, do your present circumstances also incentivize self-protective dishonesty? If they do, can you change your situation so you can live more honestly? \n \nDo you treat others the way you want to be treated, or do you expect others to treat you better than you treat them? If everyone acted the way you do towards others, what would the world be like?\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 180 & 181 of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 1?"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=287"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"insert":"]\n \nWe can no longer rely on the past to be the guide for the future. Technology will continually race ahead, creating links that make the world smaller and smaller. New opportunities will continually emerge, but within them are embedded new problems, hence the need for acute readiness and disciplined ingenuity. At every step along the way, however, polished, satiny voices will tempt us astray with slick, simplistic messages that appear to guide us back to the \"tried and true.\" Often, these voices in fact coax us into policies and practices that continually sacrifice our long-term interests to someone's short-term gain. In business, education, and politics, the same sirens echo.\n\nWorld-class, internationally-competitive companies recognize the need to play a new game and have re-organized themselves accordingly. As Laura Tyson explains,\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"High productivity work-place organizations depend on workers who can do more than read, write, and do simple arithmetic, and who bring more to their jobs than reliability and a good attitude. In such organizations, workers are asked to use judgment and make decisions rather than to merely follow directions. Management layers disappear as workers take over many of the tasks that others used to do — from quality control to"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"production scheduling. Tasks formerly performed by dozens of unskilled individuals are turned over "},{"insert":"to "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"a much smaller number of skilled individuals. "},{"insert":"(Tyson, Laura D'Andrea. \"Failing Our Youth: America's K-12"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"Education,\" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"New Perspectives Quarterly, "},{"insert":"Nathan Gordels, editor. Winter, 1993, p. 53)"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nBold changes in business organization and practices require parallel changes in education. Yet the U.S. public school systems, like most U.S. businesses, remain mired in the past, focused on lower order skills, and unresponsive to the need for higher order abilities. Again, as Laura Tyson puts it, \"[Higher-order tasks] ... require higher-order language, math, scientific, and reasoning skills that America's K-12 education system is not providing.\"\n\nOur students deserve at least a fighting chance to compete, to rise to the challenges of the day. Reconstructing and adapting our business and educational systems to teach our managers as well as our teachers and administrators how to create these higher order workplaces and classrooms, and then to expect them to do so in the ordinary course of their professional obligations, is our first major challenge. Today, at every level, we are failing this test, failing our students and workers, jeopardizing our future. What is missing is a genuine sense of what accelerating change entails and a shared public vision of the need for fundamental changes. Many of our leading economic analysts are struggling to create just such a new frame of reference within which we can come to terms with the new imperatives.\n\nThe necessary paradigm shifts, however, do entail the cultivation of critical thinking across the work force, up and down the lines of labor and management, across industries, across educational levels, and into the everyday discussions of national and international issues. This shift is painfully against the American grain, contrary to our traditional folk wisdom, and incompatible with much current thinking of both business and labor leaders.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This blog relates to my April 8"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":", 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=261"},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Autonomy"},{"insert":".”\n \nAre you often in search of someone to tell you how great you are? Do you need acceptance from others to feel worthy? Of course, it is natural to seek connection with other people. But how do you go about finding healthy forms of connection and intimacy? This is one of the most significant questions we face as humans, and one way of acting on it usefully is to proactively seek groups that pursue rational and uplifting purposes. \n \nWhen people are unwilling to stand alone in their beliefs, and instead are in constant need of validation from one person or another, they lack intellectual autonomy and instead rely on "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"intellectual conformity "},{"insert":"to get by. This means they cannot find sufficient meaning and purpose in charting their own paths, because they have always relied on others to do so for them. They have not developed the traits required to make their own decisions and cultivate their own ideas; they waste precious time and energy seeking validation from others, thereby having little of either left to determine and build their own dreams and accomplishments. They may spend tremendous amounts of time in front of screens, browsing websites, playing videogames, chatting with others, etc. Through social media, they may become ensnared in the drama and dishonesty prevailing there. They may frequent gambling sites while losing reems of money. They may allow their mobile phones to constantly bombard them with notifications, in hopes of feeling a part of one or more groups. \n \nWhile much of this behavior is merely a waste of precious time and energy, some conformity can be extremely harmful. Do you visit websites full of irrational content where people propagate and cohere with noxious, destructive ideas? Remember: it is easy for naïve thinkers to be swept up by bizarre, dysfunctional, perilous ideologies when they perceive they are receiving group acceptance in return. Can you think of such a situation in your life today? If so, what will you do to extricate yourself from these harmful behavioral patterns? \n \nAsk yourself: in what contexts do you conform to others’ ideas and behaviors to be accepted? How often do you search for someone to validate you? Do you detect problems in the thinking and habits of friends and family members, but conform to those behaviors regardless? Are you afraid to stand up to one or more of your peers? If so, precisely why? \n \nDoes someone threaten your physical or emotional well-being? If you have good reason to be fearful, take immediate steps to protect yourself. You should conform to another person’s irrational demands only long enough to preserve your safety while working to escape the situation, but never in a prolonged, habitual, self-induced way. \n \nDo you spend time with people who do not have your best interest at heart, just so you can feel accepted by them? Do you keep quiet when you disagree so as not be ostracized from a group? Have you decided that conformity is the best way to survive? What experiences led to this decision, and how did you interpret these experiences to arrive at your beliefs about conformity? Were those interpretations reasonable, or can you see flaws in them? Even if they were reasonable within a specific context (for example, when trying to avoid unreasonable consequences for non-conformity in childhood), are they similarly reasonable still, or have circumstances evolved to the contrary? \n \nHow can you develop greater intellectual autonomy by taking command of the contexts that constrain your life? What else must you do to break out of your conformist habits? How would developing intellectual autonomy improve your emotional life? If you persist with the same degree of intellectual conformity as you have to this point, what important negative consequences will arise, continue, or worsen? How might these consequences lead to further negative outcomes? How can you intervene in your intellectual conformity to free yourself from craving the false security blanket of acceptance?\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 182 & 183 of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"This article appeared in the Program of the 13"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking in 1993."},{"insert":"\n \nThe world is swiftly changing and with each day the pace quickens. The pressure to respond intensifies. New global realities are rapidly working their way into the deepest structures of our lives: economic, social, environmental realities — realities with profound implications for teaching and learning, for business and politics, for human rights and human conflicts. These realities are becoming increasingly complex; they all turn on the powerful dynamic of accelerating change. This chapter explores the general character of these changes and the quality of thinking necessary for effectively adapting to them.\n\nConsider the quiet revolution that is taking place in communications. From fax machines to e-mail, from bulletin board systems to computer delivery systems to home shopping, we are providing opportunities for people to not only be more efficient with their time, but to build invisible networks where goods, services, and ideas are exchanged with individuals the world over. But how is one to interface with this revolution? How much is one to learn and how fast? How much money should one spend on this or that new system? When is the new system cost effective? When should one wait for a newer development?\n\nCan we deal with incessant and accelerating change and complexity without revolutionizing our thinking? Traditionally our thinking has been designed for routine, for habit, for automation and fixed procedure. We learned how to do something once, and then we did it over and over. Learning meant becoming habituated. But what is it to learn to continually re-Iearn? To be comfortable with perpetual re-Iearning? This is a new world for us to explore, one in which the power of critical thinking to turn back on itself in continual cycles and re-cycles of self-critique is crucial.\n\nAccelerating change is intermeshed with another powerful force, the increasing complexity of the problems we face. Consider, for a moment, solid waste management. This problem involves every level of government, every department: from energy to water quality, to planning, to revenues, to public health. Without a cooperative venture, without bridging the territorial domains, without overcoming the implicit adversarial process within which we currently operate, the responsible parties at each tier of government cannot even "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"begin "},{"insert":"to solve these problems. When they do communicate, they often do not speak honestly about the issues given the human propensity to mask the limitations of one's position and promote one's narrow but deeply vested interests.\n\nThese two characteristics, then, accelerating change and increasing complexity — with their incessant demand for a new capacity to adapt, for the now rare ability to think effectively through new problems and situations in new ways — sound the death knell for traditional methods of learning how to survive in the world in which we live. How can we adapt to reality when reality won't give us time to master it before it changes itself, again and again, in ways we cannot anticipate?\n"}]}