On Tue, 10 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> *IF* everybody thought "correctly"
Rather than an opinion-related "correctly", how about "If everybody were
taught to evaluate assumptions, or *not* to accept them blindly?" That is
Critical Thinking. One way that works is to say: "OK, you have heard or
read A and B. Have you looked for or tried to consider the existence of C
and D., and how do A and B relate to 1, 2, and 3?"
If the teaching takes hold then "a lot of problems would simply
disappear in our world" [Jim's comment]. If not at all [hardly likely], no
actual harm is done (compared to the present state of the world). If never
attempted, we'll never know, will we?
Just as examples: ...
> there is no chance for everyone to be trained to think in specific ways
That sentence contains several "fallacies" and "cognitive distortions and
biases": 2 "sweeping generalizations", an "irrelevant conclusion",
"begging the question", "straw man" conclusion, "all-or-nothing thinking",
"mental filtering", "jumping to conclusions", "magnification" beyond
objective reality, "framing", "hindsight bias", "confirmation bias",
"hyperbolic discounting", "negativity bias", "Semmelweis reflex",
"pessimism bias", "forward bias", "belief bias", etc.
> and I don't know how popular this would be anyway. In fact, I don't
> even know if *I* like that idea so much.
Here we have "authority bias", "argument by innuendo", "emotional
reasoning", elicitation of "bandwagon effect", "bias blind spot",
"expectation bias", "projection bias", "personalization", "false consensus
bias", etc.
> the point brought up by Mr. Line that that the term user education is,
> "meaningless, inaccurate, pretentious and patronising ..."
How many problems are inherent in that statement?
> [Mr. Line again:] "if only [!] librarians would ... [make] their
> libraries ... more [?] user friendly [?] then they wouldn't have to
> spend so much [!] time doing user education [?]"
Based on several over-generalizations and false assumptions, etc.
> I do believe that many people want materials selected for them by
> experts.
That is the exact problem with our society now, not to mention how
frequently people are neurophysiologically swayed by emotional
presentations. How many times have you heard a pastor or a media
personality or an authority figure or a tobacco company referred to as an
"expert"? How often do librarians "select" answers to questions based upon
inadequate experience and prejudice the expert-dependent questioner in the
process?
What makes an expert? Genuine "expertise" derives from the ability to
engage in Critical Thinking, so the average person can be taught to
dispense with external expertise [and librarians doing the teaching can be
considered the "experts" in information dispensation].
> They don't have the time to weigh and consider and research everything
> they read.
That cannot be used as an excuse to avoid consideration. Instead (rather
than appeal to "fallacy" and "bias" again), we should be critically
thinking about how to develop the time and preserve the consideration.
Let's say, for example, everyone tithes their time to public service or
teaching, with the implicit encouragement of their employers. Rather than
thinking that is a "pie-in-the-sky" idea, how about thinking of ways to
put the idea into effect?
> That's what a lot of school and university is all about: you pay experts
> to make a selection of the "best" information and methods and they
> relate that information to you.
Very problematic, in that the experts are teaching assumptions without
teaching the process of evaluating them, and you are assuming that that
process is adequate when it is the central reason why social- and
physical-environment degradation and conflict results ("Just drill the
well-- if we're sued, were covered!).
> Somehow and in some way, libraries need to make a splash!
If librarians could contribute toward the general population's
recognition and resolution of [at least] cognitive distortions and [at
least] anticipate the gradually increasing support of the public in the
process, your "splash" would be a basic shift in social structures from
negativity and self-interest to collaboration and maximized efficiency in
problem-solving.
Sure, I'm probably guilty too: perhaps of "bias blind spot",
"confirmation bias", "selective perception", and "optimism bias" [and
willing to admit it and work on it], but definitely not of "ambiguity
effect", "projection bias", "hyperbolic discounting", "neglect of
probability", "loss aversion", "status quo bias", "wishful thinking",
"herd instinct", or "system justification."
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Tue May 10 2011 - 17:11:08 EDT