Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism

Democracy, Critical Thinking, & Journalism

The standard teacher/pupil teaching technique accentuates the importance of acquiring knowledge. The Socratic technique accentuates the importance of understanding and critical thinking. Being knowledgeable of a matter and understanding a matter are very different categories of comprehension.

I thought I might compare and contrast the professional journalist with the professional military officer in an attempt to focus upon the difference and importance of these two intellectual traits of comprehension.

What might be the ideal character traits of these two professions? It seems that the military officer should be smart, well trained, obedient, and brave. The journalist should be smart, well trained, critical thinking, and honest. The journalist must have well-developed intellectual character traits and be skillful in critical thinking. The military officer should be trained to act somewhat like an automaton in critical circumstances.

The officer’s behavior in each conceivable circumstance should follow precisely a well-established code of action. The officer is trained to follow well-established algorithms in every circumstance. Even those instances wherein the officer is authorized to deviate from standard procedure are clearly defined algorithms. The officer deviates from established behavior only when absolutely necessary and that ad hoc behavior should follow along prescribed avenues. The officer obeys all commands without critical analysis except in very unusual circumstances. Bravery and obedience are the two most desired character traits of a military officer.

The role of the journalist in wartime has evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. During WWII the journalist acted as cheerleader and propagandist. During the Vietnam War the journalist often played the role of critical analyst. While one can see some positive reasons for the cheerleader and propagandist I will assume that overall this is not a proper role for the journalist in a democracy. The ideal journalist must always be a critical analyst and communicate honestly to the reader the results of her investigation.

Since most people unconsciously seek opinion fortification rather than truth they become very agitated when they find news which does not fortify their opinion. Thus, most people have low opinions of journalists. Nevertheless, it is no doubt the ideal journalist who presents the facts fairly, accurately, and in a balanced manner. The ability ‘to connect the dots’ in each situation is of primary importance for the ideal journalist. Knowledge is important but understanding and critical thinking is more important.

We certainly want our military officers educated more in the didactic mode than in the Socratic mode whereas we would find that journalist educated in the Socratic mode would be the better journalist. The journalist must be able to recognize the prejudices of others as well as recognizing his/her own biases.

What might one say as regarding the contrasting importance of critical thinking and knowledge for a teacher, engineer, accountant, nurse, factory worker or secretary? With consideration we probably will find that knowledge is more important than critical thinking when analyzing the individual as a worker. The credentials that appear on most resumes are those testifying to a degree of knowledge by the job applicant. We do not even have a metric for understanding or critical thinking.

I think it is correct to assume that knowledge can be imparted by a teacher to an individual more quickly and efficiently using the standard technique whereas the Socratic technique, while developing understanding and critical thinking, is much less efficient in imparting knowledge. Here, as in everything else there is a trade off. In a set period of time more knowledge can be imparted using the standard mode.

The question then becomes: is it more important to have citizens with greater knowledge and less understanding and critical thinking or citizens with greater understanding and critical thinking and less knowledge?

I claim that democracy is more dependent upon the citizen who exemplifies more the characteristic of the ideal journalist than the ideal military officer.

Democracy will eventually live or die based upon the degree of sophistication for critical thinking and understanding by our citizens. Our schools and colleges have made some small attempt to teach Critical Thinking but adults cannot wait for the distant future when many of our citizens have learned Critical Thinking. Today’s adult must proceed with the effort to become a self-learner of Critical Thinking.

I think there are several levels of critical thinking, do you agree?

Do you think that the journalist or the military officer offers the best example for educating the citizens of a democracy?

I would suppose there are degrees of thought upon which reasoning is developed. These could vary in levels of refinement where a situation is broke down and analyzed. Depending on different individuals upbringing, environment, theisitic/non-theistic values and age, their opinions or conclusions will vary.

On the subject of of a journalist or officer being examples for a paradigm in instruction, I could vizualize the journalist applying the values of inquisitiveness and the officer providing structure/organization of discipline.

Our educational system needs to be revamped in the direction of teaching our children at an early age the importance of assertiveness, confidence, firm handshakes and looking people in the eye. Teach them how to speak in public, how to study, take notes and work in concert with others. This should continue through their high school years. Plus, the children need an evaluation conference twice a year to work on thie strengths and weaknesses. During the junior and high school years they should have a class every year to show how the subjects they are taking meshs with real world careers. My biggest concern is the educators of universities show no bias politically during classes and keep their opinions to themselves. My feeling is that students are impressionable and unintentionally put them on pedestals in an effort to gain the professor’s respect.

The logistics of pulling something like this off is tremendous. It would mean re-educating our educators. If something like this were to take place, years and billions of dollars would be needed for change to take effect. This country languishes in the status quo sadly. It’s hard for us to be far sighted while in the meantime other countries prevail from their old school thinking. The potential for improving is there, but it seems the drive to institute it is severely lacking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

  1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
  2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
  3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
  4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
  5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
  6. Can our democracy survive that long?
  7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
  8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html

chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/f … inste.html

criticalthinking.org/resourc … sary.shtml

I have no formal training in regard to critical thinking, although I recognize some of it’s aspects. I have a discussion folder in my online room labled critical thinking in which I would enjoy having you placing your thoughts in at:

Common sense in my opinion needs to be the foundation where critical thinking finds it’s best footholds. This is to say it being totally without emotion is not necessary. Reasoning is somehow afilliated partially with emotional affectations. A place where emotion should be harnessed is in rational dission areas.

In regard to our ‘democracy’ I believe socialistic reformational thinking will undermine it’s foundations. This country was founded on the idea of it being a republic utilizing a president as being head of a democracy. A captain of a ship with the crew using checks and balances so the head will not evolve into a tyrant. Chritianity at the time of the inception of this republic was the major reason it had a strong basis of certitude of it being implented well in my opinion.

Wherein you mention adults becoming self actualized learners of critical thought is a good concept. Unfortunately, slothful tendencies pervade the majority of adults of this nation. Discussion boards such as this is good for recognizing attributes like these is all well and good, but does not introduce it in a more macro setting. It emulates treasure buried on a desert isle hidden away for few to know about.

I am curious to know what you think about my proposals in my earlier post:
“Our educational system needs to be revamped in the direction of teaching our children at an early age the importance of assertiveness, confidence, firm handshakes and looking people in the eye. Teach them how to speak in public, how to study, take notes and work in concert with others. This should continue through their high school years. Plus, the children need an evaluation conference twice a year to work on thie strengths and weaknesses. During the junior and high school years they should have a class every year to show how the subjects they are taking meshs with real world careers. My biggest concern is the educators of universities show no bias politically during classes and keep their opinions to themselves. My feeling is that students are impressionable and unintentionally put them on pedestals in an effort to gain the professor’s respect.”
Do you think it has merit? Or would it be expecting to much of the ‘status quo’?

liteninbolt

Yes I think your suggestions have merit but I must say that I would place nothing before CT (Criical Thinking) except your fundamental reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I haven’t heard of CT before, but I’m in Australia. The education system here is probably best described as teaching knowledge, but in a way that tries to encourage you to think critically.

For example, our Higher School Certificate includes Modern History (an elective). One of the topics we covered was Nazi Germany.

Instead of just citing facts and dates, much of the topic was devoted to answering questions such as whether the Nazi System could be classified as totalitarian, whether the Final Solution was a result of the structure of Nazi polity, or whether it was intended all along (the structuralist/functionalist vs intentionalist…for those who know, its Christopher Browning v Daniel Goldhagen).

Basically, we’re taught facts, then we’re taught to postulate ideas etc arising from those facts. But then I attended a selective school, so the normal high school might not teach in that way

Making good judgments is an important and complex matter. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. To make better judgments requires many kinds of knowledge, skills, and character traits all working together.

Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach these things but it is an effort that is just beginning and it is a difficult one to accomplish.

Just to give you an idea of what CT is about I have copied the following info from the Internet:

This info was taken from workbooks for classes K-12. This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.

A. Affective Strategies
S-1 thinking independently
Thru
S-9 developing confidence in reason

B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities
S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
Thru
S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills
S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
Thru
S-35 exploring implications and consequences

S-1 Thinking Independently

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others’ points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

Principle: An idea’s power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers’ ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

S-12 Developing One’s Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to “divide up” and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

And so on

============================================================

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don’t find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

{This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/ … a3crit.htm

the religion of “critical thinking”…

think like a slave to society and all will be good…

think for yourself and you are evil.

how democratic.

-Imp