SOC 1043 THINKING SKILLS

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

 WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

Often when we use the word critical, we mean “negative and fault-finding.” This is the sense we have
in mind, for example, when we complain about a parent or a friend who we think is unfairly critical of
what we do or say. But critical also means “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.”
In this sense critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking
is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to
effectively identify, analyse, and evaluate arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome
personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in support of
conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.

Put somewhat differently, critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual
standards. Among the most important of these intellectual standards are clarity, precision, accuracy,
relevance, depth, breath, logic and fairness. Let’s begin our introduction to critical thinking by looking
briefly at each of these important critical thinking standards.

SOME ESSENTIAL CRITICAL THINKING STANDARDS

There are at least eight intellectual standards important to skilled reasoning in everyday life. These
are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, logicalness and fairness. It is unintelligible
to claim that any instance of reasoning is both sound and yet in violation of these standards. To see
this, suppose someone were to claim that her or his reasoning is sound regarding “x,” though, at the
same time, admittedly unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, superficial, illogical, trivial,
and unfair with respect to “x.” Beginning with these eight intellectual standards will help set the stage
for conceptualizing intellectual standards (more broadly) and for appreciating the essential role of
intellectual standards in human reasoning.

CLARITY is understandable, the meaning can be grasped; to free from confusion

or ambiguity, to remove obscurities.

Clarity is a “gateway” standard. If a statement is unclear, one cannot

determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, it is impossible to tell
anything about a statement without knowing what it is saying. For example, here
is an unclear question: “What can be done about the education system in
America?” To adequately address the question, a clearer understanding of how
the person asking the question is conceptualizing the “problem” is needed. A clearer question might
be “What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them
understand the world in which they live and function as ethical persons in that world?”
 Thinking is always more or less clear. It is helpful to assume that one does not fully understand
a thought except to the extent that he or she can elaborate, illustrate, and exemplify it. Questions that
focus on clarity in thinking include:

• Could you elaborate on that point? or Do I need to elaborate on that point?

• Could you express that point in another way? Can I express that point differently?
• Could you give me an illustration? or Should I give an illustration?
• Could you give me an example? or Should I provide an example?
• Let me state in my own words what I think you just said. Am I clear about your
meaning?
• I hear you saying “___.” Am I hearing you correctly, or have I misunderstood you?

Critical thinkers not only strive for clarity of language but also seek maximum clarity of
thought. As self-help books constantly remind us, to achieve our personal goals in life we need a clear
conception of our goals and priorities, a realistic grasp of our abilities, and a clear understanding of
the problems and opportunities we face. Such self-understanding can be achieved only if we value
and pursue clarity of thought.

ACCURACY is free from errors, mistakes or distortions; true, correct. A statement can be clear but
not accurate, as in “Most dogs weigh more than 300 pounds.” Thinking is always more or less accurate.
It is useful to assume that a statement’s accuracy has not been fully assessed except to the extent that
one has checked to determine whether it represents things as they really are. Questions that focus on
accuracy in thinking include:

• How could I check that to see if it is true?

• How could I verify these alleged facts?

• Can I trust the accuracy of these data given the source from which they come?

There is a well-known saying about computers: “Garbage in, garbage out.” Simply put, this
means that if you put bad information into a computer, bad information is exactly what you will get
out of it. Much the same is true of human thinking. No matter how brilliant you may be, you’re almost
guaranteed to make bad decisions if your decisions are based on false information.

Critical thinkers don’t merely value the truth; they have a passion for accurate, timely
information. As consumers, citizens, workers, and parents, they strive to make decisions that are as
informed as possible.

PRECISION is exact to the necessary level of detail, specific.

A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is overweight.” (One
doesn’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.) Thinking is always more or less
precise. It is likely that one does not fully understand a statement except to the extent that he or she
can specify it in detail. Questions that focus on precision in thinking include:

• Could you give me more details about that?

• Could you be more specific?

 • Could you specify your allegations more fully?

Everyone recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such as medicine,

mathematics, architecture, and engineering. Critical thinkers also understand the importance of
precise thinking in daily life. They understand that to cut through the confusions
and uncertainties that surround many everyday problems and issues, it is often
necessary to insist on precise answers to precise questions: What exactly is the
problem we’re facing? What exactly are the alternatives? What exactly are the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? Only when we habitually seek
such precision are we truly critical thinkers.

RELEVANCE is bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand; implies a close logical relationship
with, and importance to, the matter under consideration.

A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise but not relevant to the question at issue. For
example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in
raising their grade in a course. Often, however, “effort” does not measure the quality of student
learning, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

Thinking is always capable of straying from the task, question, problem, or issue under
consideration. It is useful to assume individuals have not fully assessed thinking except to the extent
that they have considered all issues, concepts, and information relevant to it. Questions that focus on
relevance in thinking include:

• I don’t see how what you said bears on the question. Could you show me how it is relevant?

• Could you explain the connection between your question and the question we are
addressing?

• How does this fact bear upon the issue?

• How does this idea relate to this other idea? • How does your question relate to the issue
at hand?

DEPTH containing complexities and multiple interrelationships, implies thoroughness in thinking

through the many variables in the situation, context, idea, or question.

A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (i.e., lack depth). For
example, the statement “Just Say No,” which was used for a number of years to discourage children
and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, those who take this
injunction to solve the social problem of unhealthy drug use fail to appreciate the true complexities in
the problem. Their thinking is superficial at best.

Thinking can either function at the surface of things or probe beneath that surface to deeper
matters and issues. A line of thinking is not fully assessed except to the extent that one has fully
considered all the important complexities inherent in it.
 Questions that focus on depth in thinking include:

• Is this question simple or complex? Is it easy or difficult to answer well and truly?

• What makes this a complex question?

• How am I dealing with the complexities inherent in the question?

BREADTH is encompassing multiple viewpoints, comprehensive in view, wide-ranging and

broadminded in perspective.

A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep but lack breadth (as in
an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoints which details the complexities in an
issue, but only recognizes insights from one perspective).

Thinking can be more or less broad-minded (or narrow-minded), and breadth of thinking
requires the thinker to reason insightfully within more than one point of view or frame of reference.
One has not fully assessed a line of thinking except to the extent that individual has determined how
much breadth of thinking is required to understand it (and how much has in fact been exercised).
Questions that focus on breadth in thinking include:

• What points of view are relevant to this issue?

• What relevant points of view have I ignored thus far?

• Am I failing to consider this issue from an opposing perspective because I am not open to
changing my view?

• Have I entered the opposing views in good faith or only enough to find flaws in them?

• I have looked at the question from an economic viewpoint. What is my ethical responsibility?

• I have considered a liberal position on the issue. What would conservatives say?

LOGIC is the parts make sense together, no contradictions; in keeping with the principles of sound
judgment and reasonability.

When one thinks, a person brings a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the
combination of thoughts is mutually supporting and makes sense in combination, the thinking is
logical. When the combination is not mutually supporting, it is contradictory or does not make sense,
the combination is not logical.

Thinking can be more or less logical. It can be consistent and integrated. It can make sense
together or be contradictory or conflicting. Questions that focus on logic include:

• Does all this fit together logically?

• Does this really make sense?

• Does that follow from what you said?

• Does what you say follow from the evidence?

 • Before you implied this and now you are saying that, I don’t see how both can be true. What
exactly is your position?

FAIRNESS is free from bias, dishonesty, favouritism, selfish-interest, deception or injustice.

Humans naturally think from a personal perspective, from a point of view that tends to
privilege their position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference
to one’s own feelings or interests. Because everyone tends to be biased in favor of their own
viewpoint, it is important to keep the intellectual standard of fairness at the forefront of thinking. This
is especially important when the situation may call on us to examine things that are difficult to see or
give something up we would rather hold onto.

Thinking can be more or less fair. Whenever more than one point of view is relevant to the
situation or in the context, the thinker is obligated to consider those relevant viewpoints in good faith.
To determine the relevant points of view, look to the question at issue. Questions that focus on
fairness include:

• Does a particular group have some vested interest in this issue that causes them to distort
other relevant viewpoints?

• Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?

• Is the problem addressed in a fair manner, or is personal vested interest interfering with
considering the problem from alternative viewpoints?

• Are concepts being used justifiably (by this or that group)? Or is some group using concepts
unfairly in order to manipulate (and thereby maintain power, control, etc.)?

• Are these laws justifiable and ethical, or do they violate someone’s rights?
 THE BENEFITS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Having looked at some of the key intellectual standards governing critical reasoning (clarity, precision,
and so forth), let’s now consider more specifically what you can expect to gain from a course in critical
thinking.

CRITICAL THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM

When they first enter college, students are sometimes surprised to discover that their professors seem
less interested in how they got their beliefs than they are in whether those beliefs can withstand
critical scrutiny. In college the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of
ideas and information. For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role throughout the college
curriculum.

In a critical thinking course, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their
classroom performance. These skills include

• understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

• critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs

• developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs

To succeed in college, you must, of course, be able to understand the material you are
studying. A course in critical thinking cannot make inherently difficult material easy to grasp, but
critical thinking does teach a variety of skills that, with practice, can significantly improve your ability
to understand the arguments and issues discussed in your college textbooks and classes.

In addition, critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class.
During your college career, your instructors will often ask you to discuss “critically” some argument or
idea introduced in class. Critical thinking teaches a wide range of strategies and skills that can greatly
improve your ability to engage in such critical evaluations.

You will also be asked to develop your own arguments on particular

topics or issues. In an American Government class, for example, you might be
asked to write a paper addressing the issue of whether Congress has gone too
far in restricting presidential war powers. To write such a paper successfully, you
must do more than simply find and assess relevant arguments and information.
You must also be able to marshal arguments and evidence in a way that
convincingly supports your view. The systematic training provided in a course in
critical thinking can greatly improve that skill as well.
CRITICAL THINKING IN WORKPLACE
Surveys indicate that fewer than half of today’s college graduates can expect to be
working in their major field of study within five years of graduation. This statistic speaks
volumes about changing workplace realities. Increasingly, employers are looking not
for employees with highly specialized career skills, since such skills can usually best be
learned on the job, but for employees with good thinking and communication skills—
quick learners who can solve problems, think creatively, gather and analyze
information, draw appropriate conclusions from data, and communicate their ideas
clearly and effectively. These are exactly the kinds of generalized thinking and
problem-solving skills that a course in critical thinking aims to improve.

CRITICAL THINKING IN LIFE

Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom and the workplace. Let’s look
briefly at three ways in which this is the case.

First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. All of us have at one
time or another made decisions about consumer purchases, relationships, personal behavior, and the
like that we later realized were seriously misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us avoid
such mistakes by teaching us to think about important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and
logically.

Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. Despite what
cynics might say, in a democracy it really is “we the people” who have the ultimate say over who
governs and for what purposes. It is vital, therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed and as
deliberate as possible. Many of today’s most serious societal problems—environmental destruction,
nuclear proliferation, religious and ethnic intolerance, decaying inner cities, failing schools, spiralling
health-care costs, to mention just a few—have largely been caused by poor critical thinking. And as
Albert Einstein once remarked, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the level of
thinking we were at when we created them.”

Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment
it can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people, most
of the time, believe what they are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without
question, that the earth was the center of the universe, that demons cause disease, that slavery was
just, and that women are inferior to men. Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued, can
help free us from the unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us
step back from the prevailing customs and ideologies of our culture and ask, “This is what I’ve been
taught, but is it true? In short, critical thinking allows us to lead self-directed, “examined” lives.
 BARRIERS TO CRITICAL THINKING

The preceding section raises an obvious question: If critical thinking is so important, why is it that
uncritical thinking is so common? Why is it that so many people—including many highly educated and
intelligent people—find critical thinking so difficult? The reasons, as you might expect, are quite
complex. Here is a list of some of the most common barriers to critical thinking:

Let’s examine in detail five of these impediments—egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted

assumptions, relativistic thinking (relativism), and wishful thinking— that play an especially powerful
role in hindering critical thinking.

FIVE MOST POWERFUL BARRIERS TO CRITICAL

THINKING

EGOCENTRISM is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-
absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s. All of us
are affected to some degree by egocentric biases.

Egocentrism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms are self-interested
thinking and self-serving bias.

Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with
one’s self-interest. Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking. Most doctors support
legislation making it more difficult for them to be sued for malpractice; most lawyers do not. Most
state university professors strongly support tenure, paid sabbaticals, low teaching loads, and a strong
faculty voice in university governance; many state taxpayers and university administrators do not.
Most factory workers support laws requiring advance notice of plant closings; most factory owners do
not. Most American voters favor campaign finance reform; most elected politicians do not. Of course,
some of these beliefs may be supported by good reasons. From a psychological standpoint, however,
it is likely that self-interest plays at least some role in shaping the respective attitudes and beliefs.

Self-interested thinking, however understandable it may seem, is a major obstacle to critical

thinking. Everyone finds it tempting at times to reason that “this benefits me, therefore it must be
good”; but from a critical thinking standpoint, such “reasoning” is a sham. Implicit in such thinking is
the assumption that “What is most important is what I want and need.” But why should I, or anyone
else, accept such an arbitrary and obviously self-serving assumption? What makes your wants and
needs more important than everyone else’s? Critical thinking condemns such special pleading. It
demands that we weigh evidence and arguments objectively and impartially. Ultimately, it demands
that we revere truth—even when it hurts.

Self-serving bias is the tendency to overrate oneself—to see oneself as better in some respect
than one actually is. We have all known braggarts or know-it-alls who claim to be more talented or
knowledgeable than they really are. If you are like most people, you probably think of yourself as being
an unusually self-aware person who is largely immune from any such self-deception. If so, then you
too are probably suffering from self-serving bias.

Studies show that self-serving bias is an extremely common trait. In one survey one million
high school seniors were asked to rate themselves on their “ability to get along with others.” Not a
single respondent rated himself below average in such ability. Other surveys have shown that 90
percent of business managers and more than 90 percent of college professors rate their performance
as better than average. It is easy, of course, to understand why people tend to
overrate themselves. We all like to feel good about ourselves. Nobody likes to
think of himself or herself as being “below average” in some important respect.
At the same time, however, it is important to be able to look honestly at our
personal strengths and weaknesses. We want to set high personal goals, but not
goals that are wildly unrealistic. Self-confidence grounded in genuine
accomplishment is an important element of success. Overconfidence is an
obstacle to genuine personal and intellectual growth.

SOCIOCENTRISM is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational thinking by

focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively
on the group.

Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are group
bias and conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the
like) as being inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely
common throughout human history and across cultures. Just as we seem naturally inclined to hold
inflated views of ourselves, so we find it easy to hold inflated views of our family, our community, or
our nation. Conversely, we find it easy to look with suspicion or disfavor on those we regard as
“outsiders.”
 Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd—that is, to conform (often
unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part
of the in-group, can be among the most powerful of human motivations. As two classic experiments
demonstrate, this desire to conform can seriously cripple our powers of critical reasoning and decision
making. The experiments is conducted in the 1950s by Solomon Asch and another famous experiment
was conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s.

The lesson of these studies is clear: “Authority moves us. We are impressed, influenced, and
intimidated by authority, so much so that, under the right conditions, we abandon our own values,
beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own immediate sensory experience.” As critical thinkers, we
need to be aware of the seductive power of peer pressure and reliance on authority and develop
habits of independent thinking to combat them.

An ASSUMPTION is something we take for granted, something we believe to be true without any
proof or conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. If the
weather report calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is not
lying, that the report is based on a scientific analysis of weather patterns, that the instruments are
accurate, and so forth. There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to
take the umbrella than to insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence to justify its
prediction.

Although we often hear the injunction “Don’t assume,” it would be impossible to get through
a day without making assumptions; in fact, many of our daily actions are based on assumptions we
have drawn from the patterns in our experience. You go to class at the scheduled time because you
assume that class is being held at its normal hour and in its same place. You don’t call the professor
each day to ask if class is being held; you just assume that it is. Such assumptions are warranted, which
means that we have good reason to hold them. When you see a driver coming toward you with the
turn signal on, you have good reason to believe that the driver intends to turn. You may be incorrect,
and it might be safer to withhold action until you are certain, but your assumption is not unreasonable.

Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is

something taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things
clearly. For example, our attraction for someone might cause us to assume that he or she feels the
same way and thus to interpret that person’s actions incorrectly.

One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype. The word
stereotype comes from the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used to produce
identical copies of one page. Similarly, when we stereotype, as the word is now used, we assume that
individual people have all been stamped from one plate, so all politicians are alike, or Muslims, or
African Americans, professors, women, and so forth. When we form an opinion of someone that is
based not on his or her individual qualities but, rather, on his or her membership in a particular group,
we are assuming that all or virtually all members of that group are alike. Because people are not
identical, no matter what race or other similarities they share, stereotypical conceptions will often be
false or misleading.
 Typically, stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in which
one draws a conclusion about a large class of things (in this case, people) from a small sample. If we
meet one South Bergian who is rude, we might jump to the conclusion that all South Bergians are
rude. Or we might generalize from what we have heard from a few friends or read in a single news
story. Often the media—advertisements, the news, movies, and so forth—encourage stereotyping by
the way they portray groups of people.

The assumptions we need to become most conscious of are not the ones that lead to our
routine behaviors, such as carrying an umbrella or going to class, but the ones on which we base our
more important attitudes, actions, and decisions. If we are conscious of our tendency to stereotype,
we can take measures to end it.

RELATIVISTIC THINKING (relativism) is the view that truth is a matter of opinion.

Virtually every college professor has had at least one conversation like the following:

Janie, here, has fallen into the trap of relativistic thinking. It is crucial to understand why this is a
trap, because once one has fallen into it, it is very difficult to see any point in studying critical
thinking at all.

WISHFUL THINKING is believing something because it makes one feel good, not because there
is good reason for thinking that it is true.

Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking—believing something not because you had good
evidence for it but simply because you wished it were true? If so, you’re not alone. Throughout human
history, reason has done battle with wishful thinking and has usually come out the loser.

People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the universe less hostile and
more predictable. They fear death and listen credulously to stories of healing crystals, quack cures,
and communication with the dead. They fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal powers
and accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction, levitation, and ESP. They delight in tales of the
marvelous and the uncanny, and they buy mass-market tabloids that feature headlines such as
“Spiritual Sex Channeler: Medium Helps Grieving Widows Make Love to their Dead Husbands.” 19
They kid themselves into thinking, “It can’t happen to me,” and then find themselves dealing with the
consequences of unwanted pregnancies, drunk-driving convictions, drug addiction, or AIDS.
I. Have you ever been guilty of self-interested thinking, self-serving bias, group bias,
conformism, or wishful thinking? Without embarrassing yourself too much, discuss these
critical thinking lapses in groups of three or four, then share with the class whatever examples
you’d like to discuss.

II. This textbook gives a number of examples of self-interested thinking, self-serving bias,
group bias, conformism, and wishful thinking. Jot down at least two additional examples of
each of these five critical thinking hindrances. Divide into groups of three or four, discuss your
examples with the group, and share what you think are the best examples with the class as a
whole.