This post is part three of a three-part series dealing with the concept of critical thinking.
Part 1: Overview: About critical thinking
Part 2: Self-test: Are you a critical thinker
Part 3: Self-help: How to develop critical thinking (this post)
Please see the previous two posts in the series for an overview of this topic and for a self-test to get an estimate of how your thought process is structured presently. This post provides a few tips to develop the tendency to think critically. Hopefully you would find these tips useful in everyday life.
1. Think independently
Independent thinking is the first and most important step towards critical thinking. Thinking independently essentially means thinking by yourself (which is not the same as thinking for yourself). Independent thinking involves looking at an argument from your perspective, interpreting it based on your understanding of it, and forming an opinion based on how applicable or appropriate you find it. Independent thinking means that instead of simply accepting what you are told, you take the effort to analyse the argument and draw your own conclusions. It means that you gather as much information as possible about a particular topic, and form your own independent opinions in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner.
In the instance cited in the questionnaire, the fact that everyone around you has a Camry does not necessarily mean that that would be the car best suited for you too. Certainly there would be a reason why everyone chose a Camry, but it is important to understand what that reason is and how applicable it is to your life and your preferences. Fuel efficiency, reliability and resale value may all have been reasons they chose a Camry, but how important are these factors to you? Do you want to get a car that has popular appeal or would you rather drive a car that has personal appeal – to you?
Thinking independently does not mean you need to disregard other people’s opinions – it just means that those opinions must be evaluated for their merits, and not simply be taken as ordained commandments.
2. Question assumptions
Almost every argument depends on assumptions. Even if the argument is fundamentally based on well-established fact, its effect on the listener is likely to depend on assumptions. For instance, the argument “Today is Friday, we can relax the next two days”, assumes that there will be no requirement to work over the weekend. To evaluate an argument critically, the assumptions underlying it need to be evaluated for their merit. We need to check how valid the assumptions are, how applicable they are to the particular argument and how likely they are to be correct.
Assumptions can be of two types: explicit or implicit. Consider this statement: carry an umbrella today because it may rain. This statement makes two assumptions: (i) that it would rain today, and (ii) that having an umbrella would prevent you from getting wet. The first assumption is an explicit assumption because the original statement refers to it without ambiguity. On the other hand, the second assumption is an implicit assumption because the original statement does not refer to it expressly. Explicit assumptions are easy to identify and deal with whereas implicit assumptions are a bit tricky to identify.
The argument about America makes a few important assumptions, both explicit and implicit. Explicit assumptions here include the assumptions that increased defense spending directly relates to increased military ability and that advanced weapon systems directly affect the result in battle. However, the implicit assumption here is more important to consider: that increased military might on paper can actually be translated into victory in the battlefield. Indeed, just evaluating this one assumption could completely change our stance on the argument, especially given the fact that this assumption has been proven to be false repeatedly through human history.
3. Seek alternative explanations
Do not judge a book by the cover. This maxim may sound cliche but it is highly relevant to everyday life. Surely, it is easy to draw judgements from what is superficial and apparent, but these judgements do not always reflect the reality that lie underneath. In other words, it is easy to jump to conclusions, but those conclusions are not always the correct ones.
Getting struck by a block concrete on the street may be a rare and serious occurrence. It does not happen to everyone. Given its serious consequences and its rarity, it would be tempting to label this as a twist of fate. The only explanation is that fate had it in for you that day, there is no other explanation to it. Or is there? Perhaps there is indeed an alternative explanation: maybe you inadvertently strayed into a construction zone, maybe the construction worker made a genuine mistake. In this case, seeking an alternate explanation has changed the very nature of a phenomenon from destiny to coincidence.
To not draw the wrong conclusions from an argument, it is essential to evaluate the argument from multiple perspectives in order to understand it more thoroughly. To think critically, we need to seek explanations other than the apparent, explanations that may not be obvious but that are more plausible and more reasonable.
4. Evaluate reasonableness
Your employer employs you for a specific purpose: to contribute to the process of building the business. He did not ask you to leave the country, and he certainly did not cause the immigration issues that prevented you from returning to the country. Given that he has a business to run, and that your absence means you are unable to contribute your part to the business, does it make business sense for him to keep you on the payrolls? Is he really discriminating against you for not being an active contributor to the enterprise? Is this reasoning reasonable?
An argument is essentially the product of the thought process of an individual. It depends on the perspectives of that individual, and the opinions that those perspectives lead to. Arguments can seldom be classified as correct or wrong – they are simply not absolutes. However, arguments can, and should be, judged on a certain other criterion – their reasonableness. Anybody can propound any argument they take a fancy to: I can claim that Sun rises in the West, and you can claim that we grow younger every day. If each argument is to be taken at face value, how then can we evaluate its validity? They key to evaluating the validity of an argument, then, is its inherent reasonableness – how appropriate and how applicable it is to the question at hand.
5. Be willing to learn
Life is a process of learning. We learn to walk, to talk, to eat, to live. No one is born wise. The wise become wise only when they learn. There is no one who knows all, consequently there is no one who has nothing to learn. Each of us has much to learn. About the world, about our friends, about ourselves. Every event, every circumstance, every entity can be a source of learning. We do not need special classrooms or workshops to learn the most important things in life: all we need to do is to live, and keep our minds open. There is no limit to knowledge, just as there is no wasted knowledge. Every single thing we learn has some utility, and yet there is much more of utility that we haven’t yet learnt.
To think critically involves evaluating an argument on its merits. And merits can only be determined based on knowledge: what we know to be correct and incorrect. And knowledge is ever-expanding and ever-evolving: what is unknown today may be known tomorrow, what is correct today may be incorrect tomorrow. Thus, to think critically, we need to keep pace with knowledge. In essence, we need to keep learning. Pluto may have been classified a planet until yesterday, because that is what the then current knowledge dictated. But today’s learnings have changed that position, consequently so must our understanding. To not learn is to deny knowledge, and to deny knowledge is dogma.
6. Think beyond social norms
Holding hands in public was frowned upon in the 1850’s. Kissing in public was scandalous in the 1950’s. Any guesses where we are going to be in the 2050’s?
Social norms are local and transient in nature. What is acceptable to some may be unacceptable to some others, and what is appropriate today may be inappropriate tomorrow. Just because a concept seems inappropriate to you under current circumstances, it does not mean that that concept will be viewed the same way by different people under different circumstances. Marriage within family members may be frowned upon today, but the fact remains that this was the accepted norm in ancient Roman society. Does this necessarily make you right or them wrong?
Society, by definition of being the collective conscience of a people, is a reflection of the thought processes of that people. Society does not exist by itself – it only exists at the convenience of its people. As such, society is a tool that is shaped by and serves the interests of the people. It is the people that decide what is appropriate and inappropriate for the society. The limits of society are not absolute, they are only what they are held to be. And since you are part of society, you too contribute to determining where these limits fall. And this determination must be made not on the basis of norms, which are relative, but on the basis of principles, which are absolute.
7. Follow fact not opinion
Perhaps the trickiest aspect of critical thinking is the separation of fact from opinion. Consider this: “The sky is blue. Blue is the most pleasant colour”. Of these, the first statement is fact, while the second is opinion. Facts are universally applicable: what is true for you is just as true for me, whereas opinions are not. To say “lemon is bitter” may sound like a fact, but is it really? Although most people may think of lemon as bitter, there may still be a few who think otherwise. Taste is a personal perception, what you may perceive as bitter may be perceived as sweet by me.
Critical thinking requires developing a thought process that is based on evaluating an argument on its inherent merit not on personal prejudice. Opinions, being personal perceptions, can not aid critical thinking – you need to delve deeper into the underlying fact. The recession has been here for a while. This is fact. It probably has hit rock-bottom. But this is mere opinion. Facts are absolute, opinions are not. Facts are proven, they can not be wrong. Opinions are perceptions, they can be right or wrong. If you invest now on the basis of opinion, and the opinion turns out to be incorrect, whom would you have to blame but yourself? Opinions need not be discarded, they can certainly be considered for the merit they hold. However, they must not be simply subscribed to without evaluation. To do so would be antithetic to the first step toward critical thinking – that of thinking independently. For, to do so would mean that your position on an argument, your opinion, is based on the opinion of someone else. For, this would mean that you have shaped your thought process to conform to someone else’s parameters.
8. Base your opinions on reason not emotion
Granted, you may be being subject to increased security measures at the airport due to your identity. But does this automatically mean that you are being persecuted? Could it be that you belong to a community that has a track record of anti-social activity? If so, would it be wise to disregard this fact and treat you to the same measures as all other travellers? Given the fact that many troublemakers belong to a particular community, would it not be prudent to subject members of that community to extra measures as a safety precaution? True, this may be inconvenient and embarrassing to those members of the community that are clean, like you, but does this not serve the greater interests of society?
Emotion clouds judgement. When you feel strongly about something, from the heart, it is likely that your mind will be biased by that feeling. “My country is best”, is a feeling experienced by many people. Such a feeling can bias opinions about one’s country: we could tend to overlook its economic situation, its cultural emptiness and its military history. Emotion is a not a sound basis for evaluating an argument. Since emotion arises from the thought process of an individual, it is likely to different from individual to individual. As a result, what is sensible to you from your emotional standpoint could be completely insensible to someone else from his emotional standpoint. Indeed, just as you think of your country as being best, there may be millions others who their of their respective countries in the same vein.
On the other hand, reason is a logic that is based on knowledge and fact. It is universal and can not be denied or deemed inapplicable or inappropriate. Reason allows you to view an argument away from emotion, from a detached and unbiased perspective. Without the baggage of emotion, it allows you to think freely, clearly and logically. Reason gives you a sense of moderation and prevents you from backing yourself into extremities. It allows you to form opinions based not on relative measures, such as morals, but on absolute measures, such as principles. An opinion based on reason will always be sensible, defensible, and most importantly, reasonable.
9. Have the courage of conviction
Every individual thought process is different, which means that each of us likely to have differing thoughts, perceptions and opinions. As such, it is very likely that each of us would run into situations where our opinions are contrastingly different from that of those around us. In these situations, it would be very easy to dissolve our opinions and simply adapt to the common position. This would, however, be tantamount to a dissolution of your individualism. This would amount to forfeiting all the effort invested in developing your own critical thought process. An essential ingredient of critical thinking, then, is the ability to have the courage of conviction: the courage to believe that your opinions, even if different from everyone else’s, are well-founded, justified and reasonable.
This does not mean that you should close your mind to contradictory opinions and facts – that would be dogma. All it means is that if you have reason to believe your opinions are reasonable, you should develop the conviction to defend those opinions until you are presented with opinions or facts that influence you to change them. It means evaluating the merits of contrasting opinions, but not getting cowed down by them.
It is not difficult to find people that have a particular opinion in private but completely change it in a group setting – in order to conform with the views of others. This lack of conviction in opinions arises from a lack of belief in the reasoning behind that opinion, a feeling that they may be ridiculed in a public setting. The courage of conviction can not developed artificially: it arises naturally from knowing that your opinions are based on reason, facts and principles, on measures that are in-transient, universally applicable and absolute. For these reasons, the courage of conviction is a direct consequence of the process of critical thinking. When you develop an opinion after thinking about it in a critical fashion, you get the courage to believe that that opinion is sensible and defensible. For instance, it is my opinion that no multi-ethnic society can survive as a nation-state for long. I believe this opinion of mine is well-founded, justifiable and reasonable, and as such I have the conviction to defend this opinion in a discussion. However, I am always open to hearing arguments to the contrary and to change my opinions if the counter-arguments are convincing.
10. Accept the consequences
The ideal world is guided by reason and principles. But this is not an ideal world – it is often guided by emotion and conveniences. Given this, a person who has developed the habit of thinking critically, a habit of basing his thought process on absolute measures, may find himself in socially uncomfortable positions. The easy solution here would be to conform to social standards, but is this the correct thing to do? Bending over today for reasons of convenience would set a precedent: what happens the next time a similar situation comes up? When does the cycle of buckling to pressure, when you know it is not right, end? Obviously, the correct thing to do in these situations is to stand your ground and accept the consequences.
Accepting the consequences means standing up for what you believe in, for acting on your convictions without fearing the consequences of doing so. If Anne Frank had feared the consequences of standing up to the system, the world would have been much diminished today. If standing up for principles at the workplace means your getting fired, perhaps it would best to get fired. Perhaps it would be best to unshackle yourself from an environment that does not value the principles that you do. For, to remain compliant under such an environment would mean mortgaging your individuality to an objective that you do not agree with. Such compliance can only lead to an attrition of your critical thought process. Sure the consequences of standing your ground may be costly in terms of the conveniences you have come to take for granted, but it would still give you a sense of contentment, of satisfaction of having defended your convictions.
Many people prefer to conform and comply for one simple reason: fear of consequence. Regardless of their personal opinions, many prefer to accept thoughts that are socially current simply because they do not want to inconvenience themselves with the consequences of challenging common practice. They fear ridicule, they fear ostracism, they fear non-conformity, they fear differentiation. They fear fear itself. How, then, is one to express individuality? How, then, is one to enrich society? How, then, is society to evolve? The fear of consequence is extremely debilitating because it completely annuls the process of critical thought: all the carefully reasoned opinions you have held come to naught. We are then back to square one.
