I remember a discussion I had with a coworker regarding our production and the system we
used. In this discussion, my coworker assumed that because his production was high he was
recording his information correctly. Using that information, he tried to convince those
around him that he was the top producer within the team. What he did not realize was that
he had not been entering the time it took to complete each activity. This gave him an
incorrect result. Once corrected, it showed that he was not a top producer but in danger of
not meeting production requirements. If my coworker had used proper critical thinking
skills, he could have better analyzed the information to find missing information. I also
believe that if he had not been biased towards himself, he could have been more objective to
the process.Another situation was when my father attempted to convince me to buy a car
solely based on the brand. My father was bias towards that specific brand blinding him to
the facts. He attempted to persuade me to purchase a car, even though the deal was not
beneficial. His only reasoning behind it was that it was the best brand. If critical thinking
had been used in this situation, he could have seen the factual evidence to make a logical
decision. Is it a good brand or is the car worth the deal? Those are questions that could have
been taken into consideration; ultimately allowing for a decision not based on emotion and
bias. My first example is one that happened at the workplace. The principal sent out to all
staff about getting to work on time. Some people that I work with got defensive about the
email. A few people that had not been getting to work on time felt like the email wasn’t
about them; because they aren’t as late as some other people. And they also felt like if it was
truly meant for them, the email would have only went to them instead of everyone. They
used a bias called diffusion of responsibility. In order to feel less accountable to change what
they were doing even though they probably knew the email was about them. This argument
could have been adjusted if my coworkers reflected on themselves. If they did this, they
would have realized it was about them and think about what they could do to fix it and get
back on the right track.One time my dad and I were talking about what we thought was the
best brand of phone. My dad favours Android phones and I favor Apple phones. To argue
my point, I said Apple has better phones because there is no one who makes better phones.
And my dad said the Android has better phones because there is no one who makes better
phones. Neither of us had evidence or valid points to support which brand we thought makes
a better phone. Our argument went nowhere. Instead, we both used the fallacy called
begging the question by restating our claim in another way to support our claim. This only
restates what has already been said and doesn't add anything to support the argument. These
arguments could have been adjusted by finding and using valid points and evidence; instead
of just voicing our opinions, which means nothing without having something to back it up. I
can think of two instances with two different friends of mine, of which one involved
assumption and the other situation was based on bias. The first example is that I have a
friend that automatically assumes when someone relocates to a different state, that they’re
running from some problem and need to relocate to establish a new identity. This was a
topic that we had an in-depth conversation about because I’m from Michigan and relocated
to Texas and was slightly offended. I had to explain to him that the reason I had relocated
was due to my work and to venture out in a new environment. I then went on to explain the
many different reasons as to why people relocate and that he shouldn’t automatically assume
that it’s due to something shady. Had he used reasoning and did some research beforehand,
he would have seen for himself.
The second instance would be when a friend and myself were discussing open relationships
and if they qualified as true relationships or not. I, myself, personally feel strongly that open
relationships aren’t considered as real and that it was just a gateway to date other people. He
obviously had a different opinion on the topic because he was in fact in an open relationship
at the time. Rather than to take the time t hear him out, I had allowed my bias to overpower
my judgement. Had I use critical thinking in that argument, I could have at lease heard his
point view objectively and then done some research instead of outright dismissing him
without any facts to support my stance. When I was growing up my parents always told me
that it was illegal to turn on the car light while driving. Once, I wanted to turn the light on
and they responded with that reasoning. I never questioned it or asked for a reason why. It
isn't actually illegal to have the inside car light on while driving. They just didn't want me to
turn the light on. The fallacy in this is that the idea that having the car light on while driving
had no reason to back it up. I should have asked why it was illegal and maybe then I could
have deduced from their answer that it was untrue.
I ordered a salad at a drive through window and I didn't specify what dressing I wanted. I
assumed that they would give me ranch. I thought this was the automatic dressing that came
with salads. I got home and unpacked my salad to realize there was no dressing at all. There
was no ranch. I should not have assumed that they would put ranch in the bag. I should have
realized I can not assume someone would understand what I want if I don;t say so. If I had
only told them I wanted ranch and thought more clearly then I would have had a tastier
salad. I should also not have had the bias that ranch was the automatic dressing that came
with salads. It doesn't say that in writing anywhere. I had no proof. It was only the fact that
I preferred ranch that led to my bias. Growing up in a rural, farming community, I had not
seen many African American individuals before. However, when I entered middle school
and started traveling for sports, I met many new people, including African American girls
that were my age. In track I met a girl who was an amazing athlete. She ran the 100 meter
dash and 200 meter dash, and was extremely fast. One day I asked her where her extra bone
was that made her so fast, and she looked at me with confusion and anger. My grandparents
had told me that “black people have an extra bone in their leg that makes them faster than
white people” and I completely believed it. Little did I know, this was a fallacy of division.
I had just offended her because I assumed something completely untrue about her race. I had
grown up in a place that was not racist, but did not have many people of color in it, therefore
there were many false truths about black people that were completely incorrect. I now know
that the color of your skin does not change the amount of bones in the body. Knowing what
I do now about critical thinking, I would have approached this in a completely different way.
I would have first asked questions about her, and gotten to know her better and after that, I
should have asked her if this statement was true, trying to find more reason before I
automatically assumed that this false rumor was real. I went to school at a time where school
shootings were just beginning. Therefore, lockdowns and lockouts were practiced very
frequently in school. At home, Kids learned that the person who executed the Columbine
shooting had a mental handicap, which was assumed to be a form of Autism. My friend
came to school one day very concerned, and told our friend group that she had something to
tell us. She told us that Autistic people were dangerous because the person who shot students
at the school in Denver was Autistic. This was a fallacy of composition. Being very young
at the time, nobody questioned what she had to say. Not to mention, we had an Autistic boy
in our grade, and all started staying as far away as possible from him. That day I went home
and told my mom the new fact I learned at school. She quickly told me that people with
mental illnesses and handicaps had no control over their brains, and just because they were
different than me didn’t mean they were dangerous. We all learned a very valuable lesson,
just because one person does something bad, doesn’t mean that another person like them
will do the same things. This lesson sticks with me to this day. Now, as a better critical
thinker I am able to use reason when assessing people. I know that each person is different,
and should not be judged by their appearance or certain things about them like a mental
disability. I often witness individuals who rely on bias, fallacies and assumptions to persuade
others. My employer requires me to attend County Commission meetings every month. The
meetings are structured to allow public comment before Commissioners vote on any actions.
At a recent meeting, an ordinance to impose paid time off (PTO) to all individuals who
worked at least 30 hours was being considered. Over 50 people signed up to persuade the
commissioners to vote on the ordinance in their favor. Those in support of the ordinance
shared stories of having to go to work to provide for their family even though they were
sick. Others shared stories of losing their job because they were sick and could not go to
work, so their employer fired them. Several individuals expressed they deserved PTO just
like everyone else. Those individuals that did not support the ordinance, expressed the
detriment to small businesses. Others conveyed the government did not considered the costs
to implement such an action. The ordinance was approved however, several amendments
had to be considered to address implementation and establish deliverables that will need to
be evaluated annually. Both arguments failed to provide factual evidence. Those in favor
grouped together to persuade the commissioners by using the fallacy of popular appeal and
appeal to pity. Those that did not support used the fallacy of scare tactics and appeal to pity.
Ultimately the commission sided with the majority of their constituents. This created
arguments between the commissioners since several of them had large numbers of small
businesses in their districts while others had fewer small business but had large numbers of
working class. By analyzing and evaluating evidence to support the arguments, each side
could have considered each perspective and worked collaboratively to reach a conclusion
that addressed each side.
