DBA 701 - 4.4
anoobrosea
Chapter5.docxWhere Do Intellectual Standards Come From?
Intellectual standards ultimately derive from the nature of thought itself and what we characteristically need thought to do.
• Thus, the intellectual standard of clarity derives from the fact that we want or need to communicate a certain meaning to others, and unclear language undermines or defeats that purpose.
• The intellectual standard of accuracy derives from the fact that we are trying to understand or communicate things as they actually are, without any distortions. Inaccurate thought defeats that purpose.
• The intellectual standard of precision derives from the fact that the intellectual standard of relevance derives from the fact that some information—however true it might be—does not bear upon a question to which we need an answer. Irrelevant information, thrust into the thinking process, diverts us from the information we do need and prevents us from answering the question at hand.
• The intellectual standard of depth derives from the fact that some issues involve complexity, and thinking that ignores these complexities is necessarily inadequate.
• The intellectual standard of breadth derives from the fact that some issues can be dealt with only by reasoning within multiple points of view. Thinking that is one-sided when many-sidedness is called for cannot be adequate.
• The intellectual standard of logic derives from the fact that reasoning that is incon-sistent and self-contradictory necessarily lacks intelligibility.
• The intellectual standard of fairness derives from the fact that humans commonly ignore relevant facts and insights when they are not in line with one’s interest or agenda.
The intellectual standard of sufficiency derives from the fact that it is possible to gather detailed and vast information that is relevant and accurate, but that is still not sufficient to answer the question at issue or solve the problem at hand.
To generalize, it would be unintelligible to say, “I want to reason well, but I am indifferent as to whether my reasoning is clear, precise, accurate, relevant, logical, consistent, or fair.”
Intellectual Virtues of the Fairminded Critical Thinker
Fairminded thinkers pursue their own needs, desires, and goals while also considering, to the same degree and in good faith, the rights and needs of others. Yet it is possible to learn to use one’s skills of mind in a narrow, self-serving way—many highly skilled thinkers do just that. Those who wish to develop as ethical critical reasoners work to embody the following character traits:
Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual Autonomy
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Virtues
Confidence in Reason
Intellectual Courage
Intellectual Perseverance
Fairmindedness
Essential Intellectual Traits
Fairminded critical reasoners cultivate not only intellectual abilities but also intellectual disposi-tions. These attributes are essential to excellence of thought. They determine with what insight and integrity you think. Here we briefly describe the intellectual virtues and provide related questions that foster their development. Only to the extent that you routinely and abidingly ask these questions of yourself are you able to develop these virtues. Intellectual Humility
vs Intellectual Arrogance
Having a consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively, as well as a sensitivity to bias, prejudice, and the limitations of one’s viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recogniz-ing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one’s beliefs. • What do I really know (about myself, about the situation, about another person, about my nation, about what is going on in the world)?
To what extent do my prejudices or biases influence my thinking? • To what extent have I been indoctrinated into beliefs that may be false? • How do the beliefs I have uncritically accepted keep me from seeing things as they are?
Intellectual Courage vs Intellectual Cowardice
Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas we consider dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically accept what we have “learned.” Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for nonconformity can be severe. • To what extent have I analyzed the beliefs I hold? • To what extent have I questioned my beliefs, many of which I learned in childhood? • To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to give up my beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented against them?
• To what extent am I willing to stand up against the majority, even though people might ridicule me?
Intellectual Empathy vs Intellectual Narrow-mindedness
Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to iden-tify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in the case at hand. Intellectual Autonomy
vs
Having rational control of one’s beliefs, values, and inferences. The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over one’s thought processes. It entails a commit-ment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to believe when it is rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to conform. • To what extent am I a conformist?
To what extent do I uncritically accept what I am told by my government, the media, or my peers?
• Do I think through issues on my own, or do I merely accept the views of others? • Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to stand alone despite the irrational criticisms of others?
Intellectual Integrity vs Intellectual Hypocrisy
Recognition of the need to be true to one’s own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one’s self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one’s antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action. • Do I behave in accordance with what I say I believe, or do I tend to say one thing and do another?
• To what extent do I expect the same of myself as I expect of others? • To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in my life? • To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception in my life?
Intellectual Perseverance vs Intellectual Laziness
Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposi-tion of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.
Am I willing to work my way through complexities in an issue, or do I tend to give up when I experience difficulty?
• Can I think of a difficult intellectual problem in which I have demonstrated patience and determination in working through the difficulties?
• Do I have strategies for dealing with complex problems? • Do I expect learning to be easy, or do I recognize the importance of engaging in challeng-ing intellectual work?
Confidence in Reason vs Distrust of Reason and Evidence
Confidence that, in the long run, one’s own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason and by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw rea-sonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason, and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it. • Am I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more reasonable position? • Do I adhere to principles of sound reasoning when persuading others of my position, or do I distort matters to support my position?
• Do I deem it more important to “win” an argument or to see the issue from the most reasonable perspective?
• Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions, or do I try to force my views on them?
Fairmindedness vs Intellectual Unfairness
Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends, community, or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s group. • To what extent do self-interests or biases tend to cloud my judgment? • How do I tend to treat relevant viewpoints? Do I tend to favor some over others? If so, why? • To what extent do I appropriately weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all significant relevant perspectives when reasoning through an issue?
• What personal interests do we have at stake here and how can we ensure that we don’t favor our own interests over the common good?
How Intellectual Virtues Are Interrelated
The characteristics of mind essential to fairminded critical thinking are interdepen-dent. Each requires the others to advance reasoning to the highest levels of skill and justifiability. Consider intellectual humility: To become aware of the limits of your knowledge, you need the intellectual courage to face your prejudices and ignorance. To discover your own prejudices, in turn, you often must intellectually empathize with and fairmindedly reason within viewpoints with which you disagree. Achieving this end typically requires intellectual perseverance because learning to enter view-points that differ from your own can take significant effort, requiring you to work your way through misconceptions, uncover faulty assumptions you have been using in your thinking, and rework these assumptions to fit a more reasonable or logical picture of reality. This effort will not seem reasonable unless you have the necessary confidence in reason to believe you will not be tainted or “taken in” by false or misleading ideas in considering alternative views.
Furthermore, merely believing you won’t be harmed by considering “alien”
viewpoints is not enough to motivate most people to consider them seriously. You also must be motivated by an intellectual sense of justice. You must recognize an intellectual responsibility to be fair to views you oppose. You must feel obliged to hear them in their strongest form to ensure that you are not condemning them out of ignorance or bias. See if you can write out your own description of how the intellectual virtues
interrelate. There are many ways to articulate these interrelationships. What is most important is that you clearly understand each virtue, that you see them existing in relationship with one another, and that you consistently and persistently work to cultivate and embody them in your own thinking.
The Spirit of Critical Thinking
Critical thinkers have confidence in their ability to figure out the logic of anything they choose. They continually look for interrelationships and order within systems of ideas. They use the tools of critical thinking every day to improve their thinking, thereby improving their lives.
The Logic of “(name of the article)”
1) The main purpose of this article is ________________________________. (State as accurately as possible the author’s purpose for writing the article.)
2) The key question that the author is addressing is ____________________. (Figure out the key question in the mind of the author when s/he wrote the article.)
3) The most important information in this article is ___________________. (Figure out the facts, experiences, and data the author is using to support her/his conclusions.)
4) The main inferences/conclusions in this article are __________________. (Identify the key conclusions the author comes to and presents in the article.)
5) The key concept(s) we need to understand in this article is (are) ____________. By these concepts, the author means ___________________. (Figure out the most important ideas you would have to understand in order to understand the author’s line of reasoning.)
6) The main assumption(s) underlying the author’s thinking is (are) ___________. (Figure out what the author is taking for granted [that might be questioned].)
7a) If we take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are ______________. (What consequences are likely to follow if people take the author’s line of reason-ing seriously?)
7b) If we fail to take this line of reasoning seriously, the implications are __________. (What consequences are likely to follow if people ignore the author’s reasoning?)
8) The main point(s) of view presented in this article is (are)_________________. (What is the author looking at, and how is s/he seeing it?)
Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning
1) Purpose: What is the purpose of the reasoner? Is the purpose clearly stated or clearly implied? Is it justifiable?
2) Question: Is the question at issue well stated? Is it clear and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at issue? Are the question and purpose directly relevant to each other?
3) Information: Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or information essential to the issue? Is the information accurate? Does the writer address the complexities of the issue? Does the writer distort any information or use false information to serve a given interest?
4) Concepts: Does the writer clarify key concepts when necessary? Are the concepts used justifiably? Is the writer aware of the concepts that s/he is using in reasoning through the issue?
5) Assumptions: Does the writer show a sensitivity to what s/he is taking for granted or assuming (insofar as those assumptions might reasonably be questioned)? Does the writer use questionable assumptions without address-ing problems that might be inherent in those assumptions?
6) Inferences: Does the writer develop a logical line of reasoning, detailing how s/he arrived at the main conclusions?
7) Point of View: Does the writer show sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or lines of reasoning? Does s/he consider and respond to objections framed from other relevant points of view?
8) Implications: Does the writer show a sensitivity to the implications and consequences of the position s/he is taking?
A Template for Problem-Solving To be an effective problem solver:
1) Figure out, and regularly re-articulate, your goals, purposes, and needs. Recognize problems as obstacles to reaching your goals, achieving your purposes, or satisfying your needs.
2) Wherever possible, take problems one by one. State each problem as clearly and precisely as you can.
3) Study the problem to determine the “kind” of problem you are dealing with. For example, what do you have to do to solve it?
4) Distinguish problems over which you have some control from problems over which you have no control. Concentrate your efforts on problems you can potentially solve.
5) Figure out the information you need to solve the problem. Actively seek that information.
6) Carefully analyze and interpret the information you collect, drawing reason-able inferences.
7) Determine your options for action. What can you do in the short term? In the long term? Recognize your limitations in terms of money, time, and power.
8) Evaluate your options, determining their advantages and disadvantages.
9) Adopt a strategy. Follow through on it. This may involve direct action or a carefully thought-through wait-and-see approach.
Analyzing and Assessing Research
Many research projects are ill defined and focus on a topic rather than an issue or set of issues to be reasoned through. To keep reasoning at the heart of any research you are doing or evaluating, use the following guidelines. They are based in the elements of reasoning and intellectual standards.
1) All research has a fundamental PURPOSE and goal. • Research purposes and goals should be clearly stated. • Related purposes should be explicitly distinguished. • All segments of the research should be relevant to the purpose. • All research purposes should be realistic and significant.
2) 2) All research addresses a fundamental QUESTION, problem, or issue. • The fundamental question at issue should be clearly and precisely stated. • Related questions should be articulated and distinguished. • All segments of the research should be relevant to the central question. • All research questions should be realistic and significant. • All research questions should define clearly stated intellectual tasks that, once fulfilled, will settle the questions.
3) 3) All research identifies data, INFORMATION, and evidence relevant to its funda-mental question and purpose. • All information used should be clear, accurate, and relevant to the fundamental question at issue.
4) • Information gathered must be sufficient to settle the question at issue. • Information contrary to the main conclusions of the research should be explained.
5) 4) All research contains INFERENCES or interpretations by which conclusions are drawn. • All conclusions should be clear, accurate, and relevant to the key question at issue.
6) • Conclusions drawn should not go beyond what the data imply. • Conclusions should be consistent and reconcile discrepancies in the data. • Conclusions should explain how the key questions at issue have been settled.
7) 5) All research is conducted from some POINT OF VIEW or frame of reference. • All points of view in the research should be identified. • Objections from competing points of view should be identified and fairly addressed.
8) 6) All research is based on ASSUMPTIONS. • Clearly identify and assess major assumptions in the research. • Explain how the assumptions shape the research point of view.
9) 7) All research is expressed through, and shaped by, CONCEPTS and ideas. • Assess for clarity the key concepts in the research. • Assess the significance of the key concepts in the research.
10) 8) All research leads somewhere (i.e., has IMPLICATIONS and consequences). • Trace the implications and consequences that follow from the research. • Search for negative as well as positive implications. • Consider all significant implications and consequences.
1 One System
Requires evidence
& reasoning within a
system
A correct answer
Knowledge
A subjective opinion
Cannot be assessed
2 No System
Calls for stating a subjective preference
3 Multi-System
Requires evidence
& reasoning within multiple,
There are a number of useful ways to categorize questions for the purpose of analysis. One powerful way is to focus on the type of reasoning required by the question.
Questions of Procedure (established or one system): These include questions with an established procedure or method for finding the answer. These questions are settled by facts, by definition, or both. They are prominent in mathematics, as well as the physical and biological sciences. Examples: • What is the boiling point of lead? • What is the size of this room? • What is the differential of this equation? • What is the sum of 659 and 979?
Questions of Preference (no system or personal system): Questions with as many answers as there are different human preferences (a category in which subjective taste rules). Examples: • Which would you prefer: a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore? • Do you like to go to the opera? Which is your favorite? • What color scheme do you prefer in your house?
Questions of Judgment (conflicting systems): Questions requiring reasoning, but with more than one arguable answer. These are questions with better-or-worse answers (well supported and reasoned or poorly supported and/or poorly reasoned). We evaluate answers to these questions using intellectual standards such as clarity, accuracy, relevance, and so on. These questions are predominant in the human disci-plines (history, philosophy, economics, sociology, art, etc.). Examples: • How can we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today?
What can be done to significantly reduce the number of people who become addicted to illegal drugs?
• How can we balance business interest and environmental preservation? • Should capital punishment be abolished?
Three Levels of Thought
We may think of reasoning as occurring at three levels: lower order (entailing very few critical thinking skills), higher order (which is selectively or partially skilled and is only inconsistently fair, if at all), and then highest order (which is both highly skilled and fair). To think at the highest level of quality, we need not only intellectual skills but also intellectual virtues. It is only through cultivating intellectual virtues that reasoning moves to the highest order.
Three Level
Highest Order Thinking • Explicitly reflective • Highest skill level
• Routine use of critical thinking tools in analyzing and assessing thinking • Consistently fair
Level 2:
Higher Order Thinking • Selectively reflective
• Lacks critical thinking vocabulary • Inconsistently fair, may be skilled in sophistry
Level 1: • Unreflective
Lower Order Thinking • Low to mixed skill level
The Human Mind Is Frequently Irrational While Having the Capacity for Rational Thought
All humans are innately egocentric and sociocentric. Humans also have (largely undeveloped) rational capacities. Humans begin life as primarily egocentric creatures. Over time, infantile egocentric self-centered thinking merges with sociocentric group-centered thinking. All humans regularly engage in both forms of irrational thought. The extent to which any of us is egocentric or sociocentric is a matter of degree and can change significantly in various situations or contexts. While egocentric and socio-centric propensities are naturally occurring phenomena, rational capacities must be largely developed. It is through the development of rational capacities that we combat irrational tendencies and cultivate critical societies.
Human Mind
-Is naturally
egocentric and sociocentric
-Naturally develops some
intellectual skills
-Requires the active cultivation of
intellectual traits,
ethical sensitivities, and many
intellectual skills
When engaging in irrational pursuits, the mind must decieve itself; it relies on pathologies of thought to do this. The pathologies of thought can be pictured as a set of filters or lenses that: • cause or enable us to see the world according to our perceived interests, without regard to others;
• distort reality so we can get what we want; and • lead us to ignore relevant information to paint a favored picture of the world, based on our vested interests.
These pathologies allow us to decieve ourselves into believing what we want to
believe (in order to get what we want or maintain our viewpoint). Pathologies of thought, hence, serve their master—self-deception. They are mainfest in both egocen-tric and sociocentric thought.
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking
Egocentric thinking results from the unfortunate fact that humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others. We do not naturally appreciate the point of view of others or the limitations in our own point of view. We become explicitly aware of our egocentric thinking only if trained to do so. We do not naturally recognize our egocentric assumptions, the egocentric way we use information, the egocentric way we interpret data, the source of our egocentric concepts and ideas, or the implications of our egocentric thought. We do not naturally recognize our self-serving perspective. As humans we live with the unrealistic but confident sense that we have funda-mentally figured out the way things actually are, and that we have done this objec-tively. We naturally believe in our intuitive perceptions, however inaccurate they may be. Instead of using intellectual standards in thinking, we often use self-centered psychological standards to determine what to believe and what to reject. Here are the most commonly used psychological standards in human thinking.
“IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT.” Innate egocentrism: I assume that what I
believe is true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs. “IT’S TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT.” Innate sociocentrism: I assume that the
dominant beliefs of the groups to which I belong are true even though I have never questioned the basis for those beliefs. “IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I WANT TO BELIEVE IT.” Innate wish fulfillment: I believe
in whatever puts me (or the groups to which I belong) in a positive light. I believe what “feels good,” what does not require me to change my thinking in any significant way and/or what does not require me to admit I have been wrong. “IT’S TRUE BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT.” Innate self-validation: I
have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the extent to which those beliefs are justified by the evidence. “IT’S TRUE BECAUSE IT IS IN MY BEST INTEREST TO BELIEVE IT.” Innate
selfishness: I believe whatever justifies my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.
Feelings That Accompany Egocentrism
These are some of the many feelings that might accompany egocentric thinking. They often occur when egocentric thinking is “unsuccessful.” Note that some of these emotions may be concomitant with rational thought—depending on the context and particulars in a given case. When egocentric thinking is successful in getting what it wants, positive feelings
accompany it. But when egocentric thinking is not able to achieve its purposes, nega-tive feelings result.
The Problem of Sociocentric Thinking
Most people do not understand the degree to which they have uncritically internalized the dominant prejudices of their society or culture. Sociologists and anthropologists identify this condition as the state of being “culture bound.” This phenomenon is caused by sociocentric thinking, which includes: • The uncritical tendency to place one’s culture, nation, and/or religion above all others.
• The uncritical tendency to select self-serving positive descriptions of ourselves and negative descriptions of those who think differently from us.
• The uncritical tendency to internalize group norms and beliefs, take on group iden-tities, and act as we are expected to act—without the least sense that what we are doing might reasonably be questioned.
The tendency to blindly conform to group restrictions (many of which are arbitrary or coercive).
• The failure to think beyond the traditional prejudices of one’s culture. • The failure to study and internalize the insights of other cultures (improving thereby the breadth and depth of one’s thinking).
• The failure to distinguish universal ethics from relativistic cultural requirements and taboos.
• The failure to realize that mass media in every culture shapes the news from the point of view of that culture.
• The failure to think historically and anthropologically (and hence to be trapped in current ways of thinking).
• The failure to see sociocentric thinking as a significant impediment to intellectual development.
Sociocentric thinking is a hallmark of an uncritical society. It can be diminished
only when replaced by cross-cultural, fairminded thinking—critical thinking in the strong sense
Primary Forms of Sociocentric Thought
Consider four distinct forms of sociocentric thought. These forms function and are manifest in complex relationships with one another; all are destructive.1 They can be summarized as follows:
1. Groupishness2 (or group selfishness)—the tendency on the part of groups to seek the most for the in-group without regard to the rights and needs of others, in order to advance the group’s biased interests. Groupishness is almost certainly the primary tendency in sociocentric thinking, the foundational driving force behind it (probably connected to survival in our dim dark past). Everyone in the group is privileged; everyone outside the group is denied group privileges and/or seen as a potential threat.
2. Group validation—the tendency on the part of groups to believe their way is the right way and their views are the correct views; the tendency to reinforce one another in these beliefs; the inclination to validate the group’s views, however dysfunctional or illogical. These may be long-held or newly estab-lished views, but in either case, they are perceived by the group to be true and, in many cases, to advance its interests. This tendency informs the worldview from which everyone outside the group is seen and understood and by which everything that happens outside the group is judged. It leads to the problem of in-group thinking and behavior—everyone inside the group thinks within a collective logic; everyone outside the group is judged according to the stan-dards and beliefs of the in-group.
3. Group control—the tendency on the part of groups to ensure that group members behave in accordance with group expectations. This logic guides the intricate inner workings of the group, largely through enforcement, ostra-cism, and punishment in connection with group customs, conventions, rules, taboos, mores, and laws. Group control can also take the form of “recruit-ment” through propaganda and other forms of manipulation. It is often sophisticated and camouflaged.
4. Group conformity—a byproduct of the fact that in order to survive, people must figure out how to fit themselves into the groups they are thrust into or voluntarily choose to join. They must conform to the rules and laws set down by those in control. Dissenters are punished in numerous ways. Group control and group conformity are two sides of the same coin—each presupposes the other.
These four sociocentric tendencies interrelate and overlap in any number of
ways and thus should be understood as four parts of an interconnected puzzle. Sociocentric tendencies largely lie at the unconscious level. It isn’t that people
are aware of these tendencies and consciously choose to go along with them. Rather, these dispositions are, at least to some extent, hidden by self-deception, rationalization, and other native mechanisms of the mind that keep us from seeing and facing the truth in our thoughts and actions. The mind tells itself one thing on the surface (e.g., we are being fair to all involved) when in fact it is acting upon a different thought entirely (e.g., we are mainly concerned with our own interests). In most instances, the mind can find ways to justify itself—even when engaging in highly unethical acts.
It should be pointed out that there are many circumstances in which rational
behavior might be confused with sociocentric behavior. For instance, group members may well validate among themselves views that are reasonable. Groups should also expect group members to behave in ethical ways.
