Transcription
When something happens, I like to think of the most likely cause instead of the most emotionally rewarding. I like to think the most likely cause is the one that makes me feel more powerful, important, and safe. It's possible, but is it probable? Critical thinkers are too afraid to believe in the wondrous and improbable. I try to avoid wishful thinking and self-deception when coming to a conclusion. Avoiding self-deception is impossible, so I don't fight it in my pursuit of truth.
Are you stupid? Yes. No. Yes. No. If you answered yes, odds are you're really smart. Smart enough to know how stupid you are, and that's a very good start. There's hope for you. Here's some tips to sharpen your thinking.
Who is critical thinking for? Everyone? Not by a long shot. Critical thinking is for the elite few who choose to use the tools of critical thinking. It's not for [ __ ]. Not for intellectual cowards. It's for truth seekers, as opposed to personal comfort seekers or right fighters.
Critical thinking, critical thinking, critical thinking. Sounds good, but what's in it for me? Sounds good, but what's in it for me? Critical thinking is for people who want to be adults, as opposed to children. Want to be sober, as opposed to drunk. And seek clarity in understanding rather than wallow in an intellectual fog. Basically, critical thinking is for responsible people. People who fly our planes, drive our buses, write our laws, run our country, run our businesses, teach our children, raise our children, vote. In short, everyone.
You? I am skeptical. I don't know. Being stupid is fun and easy. Critical thinking is no fun. It's hard. It's lonely. But being stupid makes me feel better. But I love the easy, feel-good answers that stupidity provides. But critical thinking is unnatural. You're right. But man in his natural state is lazy, self-centered, illogical, unreasonable, selfish, prone to delusion, magical thinking, wishful thinking, self-deception. Critical thinkers are aware of these pitfalls of human fallibility and battle against their natural shortcomings and bad habits.
The enemies of clear thinking are:
Confirmation bias. I like to gather only the data that agrees with and supports my conclusions. I like to get all relevant sides of an issue before making a conclusion. Hearing other sides makes me confused, frustrated, and angry. I enjoy hearing new points of view because my ultimate intention is to get to the truth. I find new or conflicting evidence threatening and tedious. Once I believe something, I stick to it. That's strength.
Conclusion before evidence. I like to hear and examine all relevant sides before I draw a conclusion. I like to come to a conclusion first and then gather only the evidence that supports my conclusion.
Memory. My memory can be unreliable. My memory is totally reliable.
Ignorance. Research is difficult and a downer. I'd rather stay in the comfort of what I already believe. Researching other points of view is a waste of time. It makes me feel uncomfortable and scared. I love to do research and adapt my conclusions as new facts are presented. I find ignorance comforting.
Perception. If I've seen it, I believe it, and that's that. I will not rely on any one person's testimony. I saw what I saw, and that's what I saw. This is what I saw, but I could be wrong.
Personal bias. I make an effort to remove my emotions and bias when evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions. My feelings are the closest to the facts. I try to be as objective as I can and keep my personal bias at bay. Feelings are not facts. Yes, they are. They're better than facts. My personal feelings are not relevant here.
Physical, emotional. I like to be well-rested and alert before I make crucial decisions. I think that I make the wisest decisions when I'm exhausted and stressed out.
Testimonial evidence. I like to make generalizations, judgments, and conclusions based on my own personal experiences or those of my friends or my favorite celebrities.
Extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary people to believe them.
Ambiguity. If words or expressions are ambiguous or confusing, I hold off on making judgments or conclusions. I see clarity as a threat to my sense of power and importance in this world. Clarity makes me feel small and insignificant, so therefore I avoid it. I prefer my reality to be foggy and mysterious.
Assuring Expressions. I agree with facts that make me feel better, more powerful. If the conclusion is comforting, it's most likely true. Just because an argument favors me doesn't make it true.
Emotive content. Emotionally moving testimonies are the most convincing. Emotions muddy the waters of finding the validity of an argument. Facts get in the way of the fun. I like to focus on the relevant facts to get a clear picture of reality. I like to live in a magical land of candy and unicorns.
Fact versus opinion. There is no such thing as facts, just beliefs and opinions. There is a difference between facts and opinions.
Ego. If I can't understand it, it doesn't exist. My opinions are more important than your facts because they're mine. Like in quantum physics, I play an important role in how reality is shaped. There is an objective reality separate from me. I am intimately involved in how reality is shaped. I am responsible for everything that happens to me.
Suspending judgment. Suspending judgment is a practice of the weak-minded. Suspending judgment is a practice of the strong-minded. I like to come to a quick conclusion and stick to it. That's what's called being strong. I love suspending judgment and staying flexible. Uncertainty is painful, so I like to eliminate it as soon as possible. I'm comfortable suspending judgment. I'm going to wait until all the facts are in. Uncertainty is for losers.
Independent testing. I would like this to be independently tested before I make a judgment. I don't need independent testing of my beliefs. I would not believe those testings to be objective anyway, especially if they don't agree with me. I like to test theories scientifically. Objective testing is impossible.
Appia or Superstition. Just because one event preceded the second event doesn't mean the first caused the second. Yes, it does. Duh. There is no such thing as a coincidence. Everything happens for a reason, and the reason that benefits me is the correct one. Event B happened after event A, therefore A caused B. Duh.
Either or fallacy. The world is very simple. Things are either one way or the other. It's either A or B. Anybody who says different is just trying to deceive you and muddy the waters. The world is complex. It's not always either A or B. Sometimes it's both, or something completely different.
Add homonym fallacy. I like to make personal attacks and discredit the source of information. It's about evidence, relevance, clarity, and sticking to the facts. When I feel I'm losing an argument, I like to make personal attacks on my adversary. My enemy is a bad man.
Red herring. I like to bring irrelevant stuff up to avoid facing an issue. I find evading the issue is a powerful tool to defend my position. The point is to defend my position. It's about survival. I'm more interested in finding truth and reaching clarity rather than defending a previously held position.
Critical thinker or intellectual coward? Which one are you?