How do we make judgments?

1. How do we make judgments? • Often quick, instinctive, even “knee-jerk” • Often rely on non-critical thinking • “That’s what I like.” • “We’ve always done it this way.” • “That’s 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 it’s painful or leads you to an uncomfortable place.

3. Note that non-critical thinking isn’t wrong thinking… • …only that it isn’t based on critical (reason-based, logical) standards • It often involves accepting other people’s thinking as your own • It often involves personal comfort, habit, instinct, “gut feelings” • It’s 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 don’t include things like… • Thiso is/isn’t fair • This is too long and too complicated • This uses big words • I had to look up words & ideas to understand this • This isn’t a subject I’m 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 won’t understand • Not overcoming FBIs that inhibit clearness

10. Accurate Thinking • Describing the way things actually are • Bound by what is provable—but standards of proof may vary. Can’t be based on “Well, it could have been like this…” (e.g. Obama’s 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 issue—often 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 “Obama’s economic plan will raise taxes for the top 1% of wage earners”)

19. Much of the evaluation of these standards • Is contextual—depends 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 can’t be proven “absolutely”—making a commitment to doing enough thinking for what your pitch and moment require