Blog - by Linda Elder with Richard Paul Archives

{"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"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"This blog relates to my May 6th, 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=265"},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Courage"},{"insert":".”\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhen people are unwilling to examine their reasoning and beliefs, they lack intellectual courage and are instead displaying "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"intellectual cowardice"},{"insert":". This keeps them from seeing shortcomings in their thinking, thereby impeding the revision of unreasonable convictions and unhelpful concepts. Most people rarely, if ever, bring themselves to rationally assess the ideas and beliefs that they have accumulated through life, such as ideas from their childhood, from their peer groups, from broader society, etc. They fear having to admit they have been wrong, perhaps for years or even decades, and especially about concepts and “certainties” that they find integral to their worldviews, to themselves, or the groups they belong to. They are more comfortable holding onto inaccurate, frequently harmful notions and claims, avoiding the possibility that they have been wrong. Ironically, this feeds into their own sense of inadequacy – the very thing they attempt to avoid by not examining and assessing their beliefs.\n \nAnother aspect of intellectual cowardice is an unwillingness to present ideas to others for fear of rejection. This does not apply to situations where it is genuinely unsafe to present one’s ideas; rather, it happens when people are insecure in their beliefs, and are therefore unable or unwilling to discuss them publicly or even privately. They cannot abide the possibility that someone might contradict them, ask them to further explain their thoughts, or request examples of the reasoning in question.\n \nWhich of your beliefs and concepts are you afraid of examining? What keeps you from scrutinizing them? What precisely are you afraid of as you consider inspecting and questioning any part of your convictions? If you examine your marriage, might you see something you would rather not? If you examine your parenting patterns and habits, will you see something about your parenting that upsets you? If you ponder your career path, what unwelcome truths might you have to face? If you review what you said in the last argument you had with someone, what might you discover about yourself that you need to change?\n \nWhat pain and misery do you experience because you are unwilling to examine some ideas you have been harboring? What harm and suffering do you cause others because you are unwilling to reconsider your thinking? Why have you decided that refusing to reflect on your beliefs is worth these harms done to yourself and others? What about the current version of yourself is so beneficial that it outweighs the damage you are doing? Can you think of times when, despite your fears and concerns, you nevertheless spoke up about your views, and positive consequences resulted from your courage? What stops you from doing this in other contexts? Is it fear of rejection? Is it fear of having to face you are wrong? Is it the desire to always feel right in every situation?\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from page 181 in Linda Elder’s "},{"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 5? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=283"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThe most important place that knowledge has in any life is, in my view, that of shaping our concept of things overall, our system of values, meanings, and interpretive schemes. This is the domain in which critical thought is most important to us. We spend only a small percentage of our lives making judgments as specialists, and even then we typically give a broader meaning to those acts as persons and citizens.\n\nHence a business person may place a high value on professional acts as contributing to the social good, may interpret and assess the schools and education on the model of a business, may judge the political process in its relation to the business community and see business opportunities and freedom as conceptually interrelated, and may then unfavorably judge societies not organized so as to favor \"free investment of capital\" as dangerous threats to human well-being. Logical synthesis, cutting across categories, extracting metaphors from one domain and using them to organize others, arguing for or against the global metaphors of others, are intellectual acts ultimately grounded, not in the criteria and skills of specialists, not in some science or any combination thereof, but in the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"art "},{"insert":"of rational-dialectical-critical thought, in the art of thinking of anything in its relationship to things overall.\n\nHence, to be rational agents, we must learn to think critically about how we totalize our experience and bring that total picture to bear on particular dimensions of our lives. We cannot, without forfeiting our autonomy, delegate the construction of those crucial acts to specialists or technicians. Students, teachers, and people in general need to maintain their critical autonomy even in, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"especially "},{"insert":"in, the face of specialists and even with respect to claims made within specialized areas. If democracy is a viable form of government and way of life, then judgments not only of policy but of world view are the common task of all, not the prerogative of privileged groups of specialists. We need to pay special attention to those "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"general "},{"insert":"skills of critical cross-examination, for they are what enable us to maintain our autonomous judgment in the midst of experts. These pay-off skills of civic literacy and personal autonomy can be articulated best, not in procedures that read like a technical manual, but in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"principles "},{"insert":"that will often sound platitudinous or have the ring of \"general\" advice – the principles of clarity, accuracy, consistency, relevance, depth, breadth, precision, completeness, fairness. Platitudes however can become insights, and insights definitive of general skills when systematic, case-by-case practice is supported by careful argument for and against. It is a platitude to say, for example, that the press and the media of a nation tend to cover the news so as to foster or presuppose the correctness of the \"world view\" of that nation or its government. But this bit of \"common knowledge\" is a far cry from the very important general skill of reading a newspaper so as to note how, where, and when it is insinuating nationalistic biases. Or again, it is one thing to recognize that all \"news\" is news from a point of view. It is another to be able to read or hear news with the critical sensitivity to see one point of view presupposed and others ruled out. McPeck thinks otherwise:\n\n. . . where there is only common knowledge, there can only be common criticism – which is usually plain enough for one and all to see. This view not only represents a very shallow, or superficial, understanding of the cognitive ingredients of critical thinking, but it is also forced to underestimate and play down the real complexities that usually underlie even apparently \"common\" or \"everyday\" problems. The solutions to \"common,\" \"everyday\" problems, if they are in fact problems, are seldom common or everyday. In any event, the educational aspirations of our schools are (fortunately) set higher than the treatment of issues that could otherwise be solved by common sense. Where common sense can solve a problem there is hardly a need for special courses in critical thinking. And where common sense cannot solve a problem, one quickly finds the need for subject-specific information; hence, the traditional justification for subject-oriented courses. (pp. 156-157)"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThe principles may be \"common sense\" or platitudinous – \"consider all and only relevant facts\" – but "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"applying "},{"insert":"these principles when their application is not obvious, or when the life-long habit of applying them tendentiously interferes, goes beyond \"lowly\" common sense. It takes guidance, extended practice, and evaluation of that practice. Far from such work being too lowly for our schools to bother with at any length, it is difficult to imagine a more worthwhile task than developing such judgment to its highest degree in each student. If you believe in democracy, you must believe that citizens have the potential to judge. If you believe that one primary function of education is to prepare students for participation in democracy, you must agree that helping students refine their ability to judge social, political, and economic questions (and questions to which these subjects apply) as clear-mindedly, fairly, and rationally as possible is among the most important and useful functions of education. Use of \"common sense\" is not inborn, but developed.\n\nThe logics we use, and which we are daily constructing and reconstructing, are far more mutable, less discrete, more general, more open-textured and multi-textured, more social, more dialectical, and even more personal - and hence far less susceptible to domain-specific skills and concepts – than McPeck dares to imagine. We need to base our model of the critical thinker, not on the domain-bound individual with subject-specific skills, but on the disciplined generalist. This means that we ought to encourage the student as soon as possible to recognize that in virtually every area of our lives, cutting across categories every which way, there are multiple conflicting viewpoints and theories vying for our allegiance, virtually all of whose possible truth call for shifts in our global perspective. Discipline-specific approaches to everyday problems are often partial and one-sided and need to be balanced and \"corrected\" by other approaches. A critical thinker must not be the captive of the concepts, criteria, or traditions in any one subject or discipline.\n\nThe general skills necessary to finding our way about in this dialectical world are more appropriately captured in the work of an Ennis, a D'Angelo, or a Scriven than a McPeck. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"General "},{"insert":"critical skills and dispositions cannot be learned without content, no doubt, but few would disagree with this point, certainly not Ennis, D'Angelo, or Scriven. The real and pressing question is not whether or not content is necessary to thought (it is), but whether \"content\" restricts us to thinking "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"within "},{"insert":"as against "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"across "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"between "},{"insert":"and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"beyond "},{"insert":"categories. If there is such a thing as having a global perspective, and if that perspective not only sets out categories but also implies their taxonomy, and if such a perspective can be assessed only by appeal to general dialectical skills, not domain or subject-specific ones, then McPeck's vision of critical thinking instruction is fundamentally flawed and the move to a greater emphasis on critical thinking in education is more challenging, and to some perhaps more threatening, than has generally been recognized until now.\"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Footnotes"},{"insert":"\n\n[iv] Robert Ennis, \"A Concept of Critical Thinking.\" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Harvard Educational Review, "},{"insert":"1962.\n\n[v] Something should be said in passing about McPeck's treatment of Edward de Bono to whose ideas he devotes a full chapter. This is odd, given the book's supposed focus on "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"critical "},{"insert":"thinking, for de Bono has no theory of critical thinking as such, unless his stereotype of critical thinking as uncreative fault-finding qualifies. Indeed, de Bono uses the concept of critical thinking merely as a foil for \"lateral\" or \"creative\" thinking, which he of course takes to be essentially different. He holds that we already put too great an emphasis on "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"critical "},{"insert":"thought. Perhaps McPeck includes him because of his celebrity. I find this inclusion inappropriate and the amount of attention devoted to him unjustified, if critical thinking is indeed McPeck's concern. Furthermore, de Bono is "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"clearly "},{"insert":"not in the same league theoretically as an Ennis, D'Angelo, or Scriven, whatever his celebrity, and his kaleidoscopic, helter-skelter development of metaphors, which merely "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"suggest "},{"insert":"rather than theoretically "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"probe "},{"insert":"the character of \"lateral\" thought, is an easy target for critique.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Distrust in Reason: The Opposite of Confidence in Reason"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n[This blog relates to my June 10, 2025 post, “"},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=269"},"insert":"Develop Confidence in Reason"},{"insert":".”]\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhen people are unwilling to follow evidence and fully consider the facts in a situation, and when they do not want to understand what beliefs and actions are advised by rational consideration of those facts, they embody distrust in reason. These persons value their own opinions or those of their group above the truth and above conclusions reached through high-quality reasoning. They do this however wrong their thinking might be, and whatever negative consequences may emerge from their willful ignorance.\n \nPeople who harbor mob mentality, for example, tend to distrust facts and logical reasoning — except where such facts and reasoning happen to align with their own views, in which cases their acceptance of reality is based not on demonstrable accuracy, but on validating their egos, emotions, and the groups to which they belong. Such individuals frequently whip up public emotions by distorting information and mislabeling falsehoods as “facts.” But facts are not determined by human preferences; they are determined by rational pursuit of the questions at issue embedded in situations and realities. These facts must be examined objectively as they relate to the questions at issue. When people are motivated to believe whatever they or their peers want to believe, if they feel self-righteous in their beliefs, and if they come to believe ideas that are dangerous, this is likely to lead to harmful actions.\n \nPeople who value ego-validation, group-validation, or emotional validation above rationality may or may not realize they are advancing irrational lines of reasoning. To the extent that they "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"are"},{"insert":" aware, they seek ways to rationalize the shortcomings in their thinking. This occurs at the unconscious level, at least to some degree.\n \nAre you willing to follow facts and sound reasoning wherever they take you, or do you fear doing so? What will happen if you open (or further open) your mind to truth and rational judgement instead of believing what you would prefer to believe? Can you tell the difference between fact and misinformation parading as fact? Do you know how to assess a line of reasoning by holding it to reasonable intellectual standards like clarity, logicality, precision, depth, fairmindedness, and so forth? How do you go about determining the relevant and important facts in a situation, or analyzing and evaluating an idea or claim? Do you rely on others to figure this out for you and trust their answers, or do you verify the facts and assess the reasoning for yourself?\n \nFor instance, imagine that in a therapy situation, your therapist suggests a technique for simulated “rebirthing” to deal with past emotional trauma. This technique involves rolling in a blanket that is bound tightly around your body, including your head, and you perceive that the process may cause you to suffocate. Do you go along with it on the assumption that your therapist is to be implicitly trusted, or do you question the sanity of such a practice? Or imagine that your therapist recommends that you and your partner use plastic bats to repeatedly hit each other in the “therapeutic” setting as a means of releasing your frustrations. Do you question this technique as potentially harmful and unlikely to improve your relationship? Or do you relish whacking your partner with a bat in what appears to be an authorized setting?\n \nOften you can see that what people say, or suggest, is irrational because evidenced facts and reasoned judgement would not support it. Do you trust yourself in these situations to question what is being suggested? If not, to what extent does your self-doubt result from legitimate insufficiencies in reasoning that can be improved through practice over time? At the same time, are there aspects of your self-doubt that might be irrational?\n \nCan you think of occasions where you voluntarily went along with something that didn’t make sense to you, and the consequences were harmful to your well-being or that of others? How could you have handled these situations differently in ways that might have improved the outcomes? Do these past experiences suggest to you certain principles or other ideas that will help you act more reasonably when you next encounter similar circumstances?\n \nCan you see how learning the tools of critical thinking are necessary to developing confidence in reason?\n \n-----\nThis blog is adapted from pages 185 and 186 in Linda Elder’s "},{"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"}]}