Does the average person have no critical thinking?
Does the average person have no critical thinking?
I don't know about y'all, but if I grew up in a country that never has the news criticizing its leaders, I'd be very skepical and deduce that there is censorshop going on and the offical news could be exaggerated or entirely falsified. Do people in authoritarian countries actually just eat the propaganda? To what extent do they believe the propaganda?
You're viewing a single thread.
The average person has lots of critical thinking.
It's just not a life hack to truth. You can critical think yourself into any conclusion. The average person uses critical thinking to reinforce their biased instead of challenge them.
That's not critical thinking at all. Critical thinking is process that questions assertions and sources, and approaches them objectively. If it is ultimately just confirming your own bias, you haven't used critical thinking.
But what if i started with something true?
Example I was raised being told the earth was round. After watching some flat earth debates i did learn a lot about old experiments the show the earth is round. All critical thinking could do os just re confirm my starting belief
The Scientific Method includes a step in which you state your Hypothesis - an educated guess, based on information you already know. There is nothing wrong with that, because it means you are already familiar the established science.
The issue comes when the experiment uncovers unexpected data and/or conclusions. The proper scientific response is to adjust, or even reject, the hypothesis based on the new data. Someone with good Critical Thinking Skills would have no problem doing that, because a subjective approach, coming up with a truthful conclusion, supported by the data, is always the objective.
Unfortunately, too many people have a personal desire to make their original hypothesis the truth, either because of their ego, or because they have some sort of personal or economic investment in that hypothesis, etc. These are people who are only using the promise of Critical Thinking to add credibility to their conclusions, when in reality, they were always looking to confirm their own bias.
And sometimes the research DOES confirm your hypothesis. That's not necessarily confirmation bias, as long as your hypothesis was always based on accepted scientific principles. Scientists often have a pretty good idea of the outcome of an experiment. A person looking for confirmation bias goes into an experiment hoping to prove their hypothesis correct, while a true scientist goes in hoping that something unexpected will happen, because that gives them something new and interesting to study.
This is a no true scottsman on critical thinking.
I'm going to copy my reply to Barney above.
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don’t agree with.
You can say “that’s not critical thinking” and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won’t have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
Simply not true, at all. People change behavior based on evidence all the time.
Critical Thinking requires a totally objective perspective, and emotion has no place in it.
Sorry but that is wrong. You are using the textbook definition of confirmation bias.
Critical thinking "is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences."
All of that can be done, badly. Which is how people do it. See the discourse around any popular drama, people have the skills, they just use them in service of their own pre conceived notions.
Then they arent using critical thinking skills, they just think they are. With proper use of critical thinking, the conclusion arises from the evidence, it doesnt confirm "pre conceived notions."
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don't agree with.
You can say "that's not critical thinking" and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won't have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.