On Wed, 11 May 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> while I am very sympathetic to critical thinking and fervently
> hope that many more people would dare to think critically, it's not a fix-all
> solution.
I agree that it is not a fix-all solution (depending upon how you define
"fix" and "all"), but it is a critical requirement for the interpretation
of information, data and interpretations of same, as well as for
underpinning the associated tasks of gathering and presenting information
and data.
Librarianship aside, the current and expanding tendency in modern
society is to accept limited information and data as complete and false
interpretations of same as truthful, because, as you said people are
busied (sometimes intentionally , sometimes by peer pressure, sometimes
by entertainments, sometimes by false assumptions about priorities) to the
extent of lacking the time to be "Critical."
In addition, people frequently come from environments where stereotypical
thinking or controlling influences result in dysfunctional thought and
analysis patterns, or such patterns are genetically produced. Such
situations might be dysfunctional families, incarceration, ideological and
"terrorist" societies and associations, rigidly controlled occupations
(e.g. military), etc. Acc. to a Wikipedia reference, one-third of people
suffer from mental disorders at some point in their lives. Instruction in
Critical Thinking can improve the brain structures of such people to make
them more effective interpreters of information, especially about
themselves.
> The fallacy applying this idea to the case of the traditional library,
> is that everybody else must change, and change in some highly specific
> ways, rather than change ourselves;
We must change ourselves and the library must change its "traditional"
role, of course. The very process of teaching facilitates those changes in
the teachers [and the institutions] (e.g. by developing self-awareness and
feedback).
Actually, the change required and to be facilitated is very general:
question any and all "assumptions" and consider whether doing so is a
valuable chronological priority (as in knowing what you might face *in
general* when confronted by a used-car salesman or a terrorist-recruiter).
The process might be to learn (teach) the "fallacies" and "biases" like
ones multiplication tables and use them to avoid cognitive missteps.
> "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves ...."
If that applies to those individual who blindly adhere to misleading and
manipulative emotional polemics, I heartily agree. The point is to
neutralize and supplant stereotypical thinking and emotional misdirection
with Critical Thinking.
> There is truly only so much that a person can do and what we can expect from
> others.
The question, dear Brutus, is what should we do and expect from others in
order to salvage libraries, truth, and Western Civilization.
> Believing the answer is that everyone must begin to think critically is
> simply not realistic in any way, as history has shown us time and time
> again.
What history has shown is that people have been subjected to psychopathic
[see "Factor 1" behaviors) manipulation constantly and have increasingly
submitted to them (larger armies, more conflict, increasing "terrorism",
popularity of misinformation) due to a lack of training in how to
recognize and avoid manipulation.
> Each individual takes all kinds of things for granted ...
Exactly-- they do not "question assumptions."
> based on (1) their own special natures, (2) the culture they were raised
> in, and (3) the friends and mentors they have chosen.
(1) Genetically-, injury-, or conditioning-determined neurophysiology;
(2) Conditioning;
(3) Peer-pressure.
> No one of these people are any more right or any better than any other
"Right" or Wrong" has nothing to do with "Critical Thinking", except than
maladaptive, inefficient, and harmful ways of thinking can be brought into
question rather than simply assumed to be "natural."
> getting them to think in certain ways is far more difficult.
I think you have that backwards. Most people already think in "certain"
ways and all are constantly being bombarded with "certain" ways of
thinking. The idea of Critical Thinking is simply to alleviate the
"certainty" and allow for the neutralization of the bombardments.
> ... we *must" take people as they are ... *None* of us can take the time
> to learn *everything* to make *deeply* informed decisions, there is simply
> *too much* to know and it would be an *unending* task; as a result, we
> would accomplish *nothing* at all.
There go those exaggerations, "fallacies" and "biases" again.
There are way too many people who say such things followed (implicitly or
explicitly) by "So let me be the Great Decider for you!" Our society does
not have to run amok creating as many products and customers and as little
personal time as possible-- there are, or can be, alternatives.
> I "believe" that the environment is changing on a more or less permanent
> basis.
"Beliefs" are great motivators, but must never go unquestioned,
regardless of which *side* you may be on. That is the essence of Critical
Thinking.
> I trust the judgments of the majority of experts
It isn't unreasonable to trust the "majority", but the nature of the
"majority" itself can be misrepresented, and the "majority" itself may
"have no clue", but it can rush to a crowd-inspired judgment, without
Critical Thinking being *required* in judgments (e.g., in voting,
condemning religious leaders (e.g. Christ), joining "terrorist"
organizations, or electing demagogues (those who cannot think critically
because the idea never occurred to them as practical).
> just as I place my trust in my plumber or my dentist or my mechanic.
Ones experiences certainly do effect ones levels of "trust." I have yet
to be rewarded by any faith in "experts." Now, what that proves is that
there are two sides to the equation, and there may be just as many
deceptive and/or incompetent "experts" as there are competent ones.
Certainly, the deceptive ones are the ones who most frequently (or at
least most effectively and detrimentally) obtain positions of power and
control, "as history has shown us time and time again."
> ... a seismologist ... I am ignoring it
Your decision is either an example of Critical Thinking or blind
skepticism.
> A person cannot be master of all things and must take at least some
> things for granted.
Knowing how to determine which things to take for granted and for what
reason(s) is the key.
> This is why society has established procedures such as adherence to
> standards, peer-review and all kinds of--I'll call them "fail-safes"
Not really. Those things have been established in lieu of Critical
Thinking, because Critical Thinking is very often subjugated to pressures
of time and profit, and they have the effect of justifying the application
of societal controls in place of, rather than in support of, Critical
Thinking. "You don't have to think-- just obey!" Remember the discussions
we have had of the dangers of establishing inflexible cataloging codes
("laws") as written in stone?
> I believe the world's "expertise" should be mustered in some fashion to
> help others. Librarians can be a major part of such an endeavor.
The definition, explication and requirement and application of Critical
Thinking can become the means of validating genuine "expertise"
(particularly of those individuals in positions of power and authority, as
in the media), and your latter comment is absolutely true.
Well folks, Rush Limbaugh, Joseph McCarthy, John Dewey, A.S. McPherson,
O. bin Laden, George Rappleyea, the Koch brothers, and B.H. Obama are (or
were) "experts" that have provided what they represented as factual
information or data which has had exceptional effects on society. Make a
list of each's "expertise" and you will see *why awareness* of Critical
Thinking" [even if you have to watch "reality" TV shows without using it
instead) is essential.
:) (:
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 Wed May 11 2011 - 14:18:37 EDT