Critical Thinking

This entire blog, Prequellia (so titled because it is mostly about that which comes before where we are now) is based on single blog that was written in my usual stream-of-consciousness circumstantial, tangent filled style. I pulled it. It was long, so I’m breaking it up into smaller bites that are easier to chew and digest.

The older I get, the more I notice how little critical thinking is used. It’s rarer than I keep expecting it to be, even among the smug intellectuals (I have considerable faith, ha-ha!). They may be as likely as anyone to reject potentially invalidating information without honest consideration. Maybe more likely, because they have their egos deeply invested in their ideas. It's hard for me to accept how little rational thinking people do. Intellectual dishonesty is offensive to me.

People can believe whatever, for whatever reason they choose, rational or irrational. I do. I have a great many beliefs that are intuitively true for me, but I don't have much objective fact to support them. I don't demand that others adopt my private beliefs. Conversely, as a matter of respect for my personal boundaries, I expect others to accept that my beliefs are based on subjective information that they cannot access, therefore, my beliefs should not be ridiculed or demeaned. In other words, because I acknowledge that certain of my beliefs are based on private information that others can't verify, it would be an ego boundary violation for me impose these beliefs on others and demand that my beliefs be accepted as true for them as it is for me. It is also a boundary violation for another person to invalidate my private truth. Get it? That is an important, but poorly understood, concept and the secret to world peace.

I'll even happily respect anyone's belief as true for them, just don't expect me to treat poorly informed and illogical opinions as ...ummm... I'll say it, morally equivalent to ideas that are well reasoned and have basis in fact. I'm saying that a lot of people, smart people, are intellectually dishonest and expect others to accept their confabulations as rational thought. Believe whatever, but if anyone expects another individual to respect the belief (as opposed to respecting the person's right to hold it), they should be prepared to be intellectually honest and be able to support that belief with objective facts that the other people are able to access. In other words, stop deceiving yourself that you hold rational beliefs when these beliefs can't stand scrutiny. Just admit that you believe whatever for your own reasons and leave others out of it. I keep taking the bait. If you hold an idea up to be rational, I will treat it as such, so be prepared to defend it with good data and honest arguments.

I have a great deal of faith and optimism. This blog is about my fundamental (isn’t this an overused word? I just heard a guy on Fox News use the word three times in a single sentence, and how do you like my lengthy and awkwardly place parenthetical phrase, pay attention to the word that precedes the next period, it's important) values. My “world view” or “Jackie Doctrine” has been fundamentally consistent since shortly after the 1968 election when my eyes were opened to the fact that my parents had a lot of beliefs that were inconsistent with their own stated values and frankly, didn’t make sense.

....several minutes later....

Well. I’m going to have to tweak my doctrine. I just now fact checked developmental psychology, moral development, “Age of Reason” to see at what age children begin to think independently and critically. I read that 35% of adolescents and adults never develop the capacity for formal reasoning. Never. I must say that this explains some phenomena I have long observed.

I just asked the college students who work for me if they had taken logic. One had taken “Logic and Critical Thinking”, a lower level undergraduate course. She stated as matter-of-fact that she was surprised that the percentage was as high as 35%. I’ll have to think on this more. My question is why don’t 65% of people have the capacity for critical thinking? What percentage of this 65% have the potential but don’t develop it? What would block this development? Is there an adaptive advantage in being unable to think critically? Or is simple denial? A way to resist the need for adaptation? Fear?

When I started writing, my goal was to encourage readers to use rational decision making, facts, truth, and clear thinking as it relates to the 2008 presidential election. Politics exposes the extent to which individuals will deny the obvious and assume facts not in evidence according their prejudices. I am particularly concerned that many people have come to believe ideas that are the opposite of what the facts actually represent, and so are undermining their own stated goals and values. If 65% don’t have the capacity for critical thinking, it’s likely that those that I most want to understand what I’m saying won’t be open to it. They will be uninterested. Preaching to the choir is a waste of words. I need to rethink this. Then I’ll continue on with the whole objective/subjective pseudo-bloviating about religion and politics.

If I decide it still makes a difference.

Next: I’m not sure, except that I intend to keep my promises.