At my state school, there were two exceptional professors in the Speech Communications department. One also served as the forensics team coach. She taught us how to apply critical thinking skills to all that we took in whether it was a news broadcast, or articles we read in magazines like TIME, Newsweek, US News & World Report, et al.
At my state school, there were two exceptional professors in the Speech Communications department. One also served as the forensics team coach. She taught us how to apply critical thinking skills to all that we took in whether it was a news broadcast, or articles we read in magazines like TIME, Newsweek, US News & World Report, et al.
The weekly assignment was to objectively analyse an article from any previous week's issue of the periodical of our choice – that exercise forced us to recognise our own biases, and to keep them out of the analysis. One of the best courses I in which I enrolled, ever!
The other taught public speaking – so every week, we had to prepare and give a speech, but we were not allowed to use 3x5 cards – whatever was our topic, we were expected to know it inside and out. Eventually, those speeches became akin to press conferences because we had to allow for a few minutes of Q & A.
We learned to think more critically, and to think on our feet because we knew our material so well. I doubt the likes of those two professors exist anywhere, anymore – though I do hope I'm wrong.
I've never been taught critical thinking, but i think i have been doing it without realising since this Covid fiasco began. I call it "my gut feeling", read as Faith.
Have enjoyed experiences similar to yours. My English literature professors taught me how to approach thinking critically/analytically. To ask questions. One reminded us of the who/what/when/where/why to get us started in that direction. Later by a few decades, I had a speech class, with a conservative professor (indeed a rarity!) who would allow us a few notes at the podium but would also grade us on maintaining eye contact and the more eye contact we had with the audience, the better the grade. We also had Q&A sessions afterwards. Loved what these experiences have done for me!
I'm being a devil's advocate here, but that doesn't really answer the question.
1. Giving speeches isn't critical thinking. If it were then politicians would be widely acknowledged as the sharpest minds in society, never prone to fallacious or incautious thought.
2. You were asked to analyze an article from any magazine, and the magazine was chosen by you. So you were probably selecting magazines and articles that already agreed with your biases without even being aware of it, making the feeling of being objective easy. Even if you managed to avoid this obvious trap, by what objective criteria did the professor evaluate your analysis? They don't necessarily know anything about the topic so that sounds very hard.
Over time, I've come to believe that the idea universities teach objective thinking is some sort of very clever trap. There's absolutely no detail on what they mean when they say this, I've seen no evidence of degree holders being more critical thinkers (if anything it's the opposite), and blatantly low quality thought is rampant in universities especially in the humanities that make the boldest claims in this regard.
My guess is that people go along with this because a humanities course is the first time people get asked to write something about their own thoughts as an adult. They're told that bias exists and to watch out for it. Then whatever is submitted, they're told that this is learning "critical thinking skills" which sounds so great nobody wants to object especially because it's usually the only generalizable skill the course claims to teach at all!
If they were really teaching critical thinking, the first thing students would ask is "what justifies this claim that you're teaching us critical thinking?"
Your response betrays a great deal you don't know - can't know - and that you don't acknowledge that ignorance, I'll respectfully decline on the advice of Mark Twain.
I once was a representative for Jeeps. I had to memorize the specifications and marketing talking points. Then I had to engage people in public. It didn't mean that I believed it all, but I agreed to be paid to convey their points. This is like speech and a press conference without needing to believe nor question it at all, and with no bother of analysis.
I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either.
I also went to a fancy critical thinking boasting university. We were all told how we were truly engaging in critical thinking there. Did I?
I think I have had some pride in seeing more, questioning more, but I have consistently discovered my past self not thinking and questioning about things I thought must be true at that time, and I would often discover this in a moment in which it was to my detriment. My best supposition right now is that I can think independently to a certain degree, but I also happen to miss quite a lot. I'm not God, so I figure it is pretty straightforward to have humility and accept my condition, but also to be vigorous and alive and participate in my own maturation to the best of my ability.
When I think of my family members who buy into the Covid crap, I don't really want to spend too long lamenting their lack of critical thinking. I do want to notice where they are inquisitive, curious, or have had experiences of coming to new awareness or standing apart with an independent viewpoint, and then I want to see where they might go with that. I've been wrong often enough that I'd prefer to shift my focus from us/them regarding critical thinking. I think we all have plenty to work with.
"I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either."
Absolutely correct – it is not – but it was a place to begin, to acquire the skills that would need to be developed for the rest of one's life. An attorney need not believe his client is not guilty, but he needs to be able to think like his opposite to raise reasonable doubt.
A crucial part of the exercise was to read the article, and begin to parse editorial comment presented as fact, from actual fact, then subject to scutiny both the editorial content, and the reported fact for accuracy, truth (supported by contextual data, or someone else's talking point?); put in writing, and write a paper that presents the analysis, conclusions, and reasoning behind them in a readable manner.
Yes. One professor stated on the first day of class to say nothing without several supporting quotes and context must be considered, etc. The difference as I see it from them till today is that then, we were required to study it, research it, ask questions, take a position on it and defend that position (often being required to take the opposite position and defend it as well!), and so. But today, it seems information is presented, swallowed whole uncritically, and how well it is regurgitated determined what your final grade is.
I'm wondering about a function of era. I had classes like these - debate classes, speech classes, critical thinking, logic. Many of them in high school. I graduated HS in 1980 - so . . . . I think it's gone downhill, since.
At my state school, there were two exceptional professors in the Speech Communications department. One also served as the forensics team coach. She taught us how to apply critical thinking skills to all that we took in whether it was a news broadcast, or articles we read in magazines like TIME, Newsweek, US News & World Report, et al.
The weekly assignment was to objectively analyse an article from any previous week's issue of the periodical of our choice – that exercise forced us to recognise our own biases, and to keep them out of the analysis. One of the best courses I in which I enrolled, ever!
The other taught public speaking – so every week, we had to prepare and give a speech, but we were not allowed to use 3x5 cards – whatever was our topic, we were expected to know it inside and out. Eventually, those speeches became akin to press conferences because we had to allow for a few minutes of Q & A.
We learned to think more critically, and to think on our feet because we knew our material so well. I doubt the likes of those two professors exist anywhere, anymore – though I do hope I'm wrong.
I've never been taught critical thinking, but i think i have been doing it without realising since this Covid fiasco began. I call it "my gut feeling", read as Faith.
Have enjoyed experiences similar to yours. My English literature professors taught me how to approach thinking critically/analytically. To ask questions. One reminded us of the who/what/when/where/why to get us started in that direction. Later by a few decades, I had a speech class, with a conservative professor (indeed a rarity!) who would allow us a few notes at the podium but would also grade us on maintaining eye contact and the more eye contact we had with the audience, the better the grade. We also had Q&A sessions afterwards. Loved what these experiences have done for me!
Invaluable, are they not?
Indeed, yes!
I'm being a devil's advocate here, but that doesn't really answer the question.
1. Giving speeches isn't critical thinking. If it were then politicians would be widely acknowledged as the sharpest minds in society, never prone to fallacious or incautious thought.
2. You were asked to analyze an article from any magazine, and the magazine was chosen by you. So you were probably selecting magazines and articles that already agreed with your biases without even being aware of it, making the feeling of being objective easy. Even if you managed to avoid this obvious trap, by what objective criteria did the professor evaluate your analysis? They don't necessarily know anything about the topic so that sounds very hard.
Over time, I've come to believe that the idea universities teach objective thinking is some sort of very clever trap. There's absolutely no detail on what they mean when they say this, I've seen no evidence of degree holders being more critical thinkers (if anything it's the opposite), and blatantly low quality thought is rampant in universities especially in the humanities that make the boldest claims in this regard.
My guess is that people go along with this because a humanities course is the first time people get asked to write something about their own thoughts as an adult. They're told that bias exists and to watch out for it. Then whatever is submitted, they're told that this is learning "critical thinking skills" which sounds so great nobody wants to object especially because it's usually the only generalizable skill the course claims to teach at all!
If they were really teaching critical thinking, the first thing students would ask is "what justifies this claim that you're teaching us critical thinking?"
</devils-advocate>
So critical thinker, now analyze why I'm wrong.
Your response betrays a great deal you don't know - can't know - and that you don't acknowledge that ignorance, I'll respectfully decline on the advice of Mark Twain.
I once was a representative for Jeeps. I had to memorize the specifications and marketing talking points. Then I had to engage people in public. It didn't mean that I believed it all, but I agreed to be paid to convey their points. This is like speech and a press conference without needing to believe nor question it at all, and with no bother of analysis.
I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either.
I also went to a fancy critical thinking boasting university. We were all told how we were truly engaging in critical thinking there. Did I?
I think I have had some pride in seeing more, questioning more, but I have consistently discovered my past self not thinking and questioning about things I thought must be true at that time, and I would often discover this in a moment in which it was to my detriment. My best supposition right now is that I can think independently to a certain degree, but I also happen to miss quite a lot. I'm not God, so I figure it is pretty straightforward to have humility and accept my condition, but also to be vigorous and alive and participate in my own maturation to the best of my ability.
When I think of my family members who buy into the Covid crap, I don't really want to spend too long lamenting their lack of critical thinking. I do want to notice where they are inquisitive, curious, or have had experiences of coming to new awareness or standing apart with an independent viewpoint, and then I want to see where they might go with that. I've been wrong often enough that I'd prefer to shift my focus from us/them regarding critical thinking. I think we all have plenty to work with.
"I don't really think that taking an article, doing your analysis, and then making yourself capable to speak to it in a press conference is the final word on critical thinking either."
Absolutely correct – it is not – but it was a place to begin, to acquire the skills that would need to be developed for the rest of one's life. An attorney need not believe his client is not guilty, but he needs to be able to think like his opposite to raise reasonable doubt.
A crucial part of the exercise was to read the article, and begin to parse editorial comment presented as fact, from actual fact, then subject to scutiny both the editorial content, and the reported fact for accuracy, truth (supported by contextual data, or someone else's talking point?); put in writing, and write a paper that presents the analysis, conclusions, and reasoning behind them in a readable manner.
Yes. One professor stated on the first day of class to say nothing without several supporting quotes and context must be considered, etc. The difference as I see it from them till today is that then, we were required to study it, research it, ask questions, take a position on it and defend that position (often being required to take the opposite position and defend it as well!), and so. But today, it seems information is presented, swallowed whole uncritically, and how well it is regurgitated determined what your final grade is.
I'm wondering about a function of era. I had classes like these - debate classes, speech classes, critical thinking, logic. Many of them in high school. I graduated HS in 1980 - so . . . . I think it's gone downhill, since.
1980 is when I graduated HS, as well - my guidance counselor steered me toward American, and English Literature...
Indeed, I was - I began to realise that ~1-2 years after I'd graduated and was working in the real world.