How do we make judgments?

1
How do we make judgments?

• Often quick, instinctive, even knee-jerk
• Often rely on non-critical thinking
• Thats what I like.
• Weve always done it this way.
• Thats how people around here think.
• Rarely stop to consider the underlying criteria
  for making our judgments
• We judge on autopilot, not on standards.

2
Intellectual Traits Required

• Intellectual Integrity willingness to hold
  yourself to the same high standards you hold
  others to.
• Pursuit of truth willingness to change your
  mind, even if its painful or leads you to an
  uncomfortable place.

3
Note that non-critical thinking isnt wrong
thinking

• only that it isnt based on critical
  (reason-based, logical) standards
• It often involves accepting other peoples
  thinking as your own
• It often involves personal comfort, habit,
  instinct, gut feelings
• Its NOT what you want to do in papers 2, 3, or 4

4
Standards of Critical Thinking

• Clearness (C)
• Accuracy (A)
• Importance, Relevance (I,R)
• Sufficiency
• Depth
• Breadth
• Precision
• CRTW shorthand for all of these is CAIR
  STANDARDS

5
Notice that CRITICAL standards dont include
things like

• Thiso is/isnt fair
• This is too long and too complicated
• This uses big words
• I had to look up words ideas to understand this
• This isnt a subject Im particularly interested
  in
• This subject makes me uncomfortable.

6
Standards of Non-Critical Thinking

• Fun, exciting, feels good
• Popular, attention-drawing
• Beneficial to me
• Evocative, deeply-felt
• Held with deep conviction (patriotism, religion,
  freedom, etc.)
• See pp 160-161

7
How would you evaluate The Climb?

• Non-critical reactions
• Liking /not liking
• Musical preferences
• Opinion
• Critical reactions
• Is it deep enough?
• Is it sufficient?
• Is it relevant?
• Is it clear?

8
Characteristics of Clear Thought

• Easily understood uses language, examples, and
  illustrations appropriate to the subject the
  audience
• Free from the likelihood of misunderstanding
• Implications of the pitch are readily apparent

9
Impediments

• Me-focused, not you-focused
• Not anticipating what others wont understand
• Not overcoming FBIs that inhibit clearness

10
Accurate Thinking

• Describing the way things actually are
• Bound by what is provablebut standards of proof
  may vary. Cant be based on Well, it could have
  been like this (e.g. Obamas birth
  certificate)
• Assumptions and evaluative criteria can be
  articulated and defended
• No mistakes in YOUR presentation

11
Impediments to Accuracy

• Fear
• Inertia, Habits, Enculturation
• Wishful thinking and denial
• Hasty generalization
• Folk wisdom
• Limited or non-representative sampling
• Non-critical thinking
• Lack of proof-reading!!!!!!!

12
Importance, Relevance

• Elements that really matter in deciding an
  issueoften founded on concepts underlying the
  assumptions
• Must avoid red herrings that distract us from
  relevant material
• Not always the glamorous or sexy parts, and not
  always the comfortable or likable ones, either
• May vary from person to person (both in the
  writer and the reader)

13
Impediments

• Losing sight of the purpose
• Losing sight of the context
• Not setting weights on information
• Refusing to consider evidence presented
• Jumping to conclusions
• Undue outside influence

14
Sufficiency

• Has to do with both quantity and quality
• Makes you slow down and ask about all the steps
• Requires you to get past old habits and
  enculturation
• i.e., show your work

15
Sufficiency Depth

• Making yourself look at concepts and theories
  underlying the assumptions
• Checking the sources to see what the information
  is based on
• Thinking about an issue in 3-D scuba diving, not
  jet-skiing
• Antidote to surf and click reading and thinking

16
Sufficiency Breadth

• Expanding the world-view of the question
  (responding to egocentrism and developmental
  thinking)
• Seeing the big picture
• Thinking outside the box
• Not thinking in clichés

17
Impediments

• Going for quick or easy solution
• Lack of intellectual perseverance
• Failure to do enough, appropriate homework to
  evaluate case or support pitch
• Good enough for government work attitude

18
Precision

• Using the right terms, not the nearly-right
  terms
• Expressing pitch in exactly the right language
  for the intended audience
• Avoiding hyperbole and sound bites
• Not relying on generalities and stereotypes but
  going for specifics (e.g. not Democrats raise
  taxes but Obamas economic plan will raise
  taxes for the top 1 of wage earners)

19
Much of the evaluation of these standards

• Is contextualdepends on the moment, the purpose,
  and the audience
• Is often bound by point of view/ discipline

20
Linked to these standards are

• Intellectual integrity the resolve to do the
  work and not take short-cuts (especially in a
  hurry)
• Replacing stereotypes, egocentrism, haste,
  enculturated patterns, and habitual thinking with
  reasoned examination of real evidence
• Given that some things cant be proven
  absolutelymaking a commitment to doing enough
  thinking for what your pitch and moment require