There’s no question in my mind that formal or classical Rhetoric and debate should be taught starting early. That’s how it was always done going back centuries. if they aren’t providing instruction for it in recent decades, then there’s probably a reason for that. This is where parents need to pick up the slack.
Sorry to poison the plug (to mix metaphors) but Ted Cruz has won multiple debate championships.
I am not sure that winning debates is quite the same thing as critical thinking.
I don’t know. I’ve taught a university course called “critical thinking” a time or two, and the last time was in the middle of a lot of major protests worldwide. Looking at those current events, I concluded that critical thinking is very useful for understanding and deconstructing what other people are doing and why, but the way to change people’s minds is pure manipulation and fallacious appeals to emotion etc. I imagine that successful debating relies a lot on formulas, and there’s pressure to rebut in a hurry rather than going away and thinking it over.
On another note, I had a salesman come to my door today. He started his pitch by telling me that my neighbours (and he named them) had signed up, and because of that, he could offer a special deal. Both of these set off alarm bells. In the moment, I recognized that “the neighbours signed up” was a manipulative tactic, but it didn’t occur to me until later that he might have been lying about it. So in the moment I recognized this and a couple of other issues, but thinking about it later, there were a lot more. He didn’t make the sale, but probably more because I’m grumpy about cold sales than because of my mad reasoning skillz.
Ha! Yeah, one of my favorites in the political realm, basically boils down to nothing more than “All the other states are doing it!” therefore, Our State should too. We never really leave High School, do we? Maybe voters should do X, maybe citizens should vote against X, doesn’t matter - the “bandwagon” is not necessarily a good place to be by itself. And if we believe most or many people are ignorant, why should we believe in the collective wisdom of ignorant people to make our decisions?
Years ago, my parents took us kids down to the Ozarks, and stayed in a condo at a reduced price or free or something for a few days. Part of the deal, was though, you had to sit through and listen to a time share spiel, I think. My dad was smart enough to resist the siren call apparently. It was a beautiful area I remember that.
I also remember after about 200 miles down the highway my older brother was crying, like someone had denied him the puppy he was promised, really bawling he was probably about 12 or so. Dad asked him what was wrong, nobody had any idea.
“I just can’t believe you turned him down, Dad. I don’t want you to lose out on such a great deal, it’s a limited time opportunity, blah blah blah.” LOL
I was gradually taught the scientific method through many very strict teachers gradually, that knew latin, and greek… i was taught classically, rudimentary, and with with great discipline, and grammatical rule.
A lot of study has been put into the science of changing attitudes in the past decade. I am going to share this and more with the board I’m the future, but if you are interested in learning more about non-devious ways to change minds, give one or several of the books from this list a read or listen.
The thing we were most critical of when I was in elementary school was… elementary school.
They weren’t going to teach us how to do an even better job of analyzing what was so utterly wrong about this arrangement.
The rest of public school, same story.
Thanks: very useful!
I once taught a class where I spent an hour with the students deconstructing the end-of-semester student evaluation forms and process, right before doing the evaluations. Some of them were quite upset with me about that! (Others found it very enlightening.)
Not the USA, but when I was in high school in Australia (mid 1970’s) we had a class that was actually called, ‘Critical Thinking’. It wasn’t a private school, but a government school in a (then) very disadvantaged area, but I credit that subject (and teacher) more than most for my skills now in being able to detect bullshit pretty quickly.
The class relied on basic Logic: 101, but it was incredibly helpful and important. This of course was in the days before the interwebs with the barrage of bullshit that now hits the waves, but even then, being able to discern inconsistent arguments, understanding bias in the media, and blatant propaganda gave me an upper hand.
I try now to impart some of those skills to the grandkids in the hope they will turn out to be as cynical and unconvinced as moi!
Changing minds is very difficult, and might indeed require some rhetorical tricks, like you say.
Although I think changing minds in the moment, versus later, is an important distinction.
You can leave someone with facts and reasoning, and later on, as they mull it over, their position may shift. At the very least, they may decide they don’t want to try to defend their previous position any more.
Meanwhile, in one of those debate clubs, sure, various confusion tactics might be useful, like gish galloping say, which is another reason why I don’t think it’s the best way to teach critical thinking.
But anyway, what I was talking about was giving people good critical thinking skills such that they don’t form bad opinions in the first place.
If you go on to one of those MAGA forums*, they make claim after claim that are ridiculous on their face to anyone with an understanding of skepticism…things that are not even self-consistent. And they throw around worldwide conspiracies like candy, which no appreciation of how far-fetched even one would be.
Like I say, my own experience is that I was into the paranormal in my early teens, then one day looked at it with a skeptical eye, and it all immediately fell apart. There’s no reason that some MAGAs can’t have the same experience, and I’m sure that some do…sadly just a very small proportion though in the absence of exposure to critical thinking.
* Sorry, I said I wouldn’t name which political party but it became too much of a strain.
Based on observations: least effective is trying to beat minds to changing with facts that show them how wrong they are, and by implication how much smarter you are than they are. Most effective is giving an impression that this is a conclusion they are coming to (they just hadn’t realized it) and that you are just following their train of thought and articulating it.
Not a skill I have myself but I’ve seen it done.
Otherwise the conversation is performative, possibly of impact on some other audience maybe.
I believe a major component of critical thinking is a strong sense of self. People tend to rely on sources for validation and these sources often become their tribe. Anything that threatens their position in the tribe tends to be rejected. Climate change is the ideal model for critical thinking simply because there are so many facets to it. Both sides of this immensely important issue discourage critical thinking. Making false statements should be argued but when asking questions starts a fight there is no room for critical thinking.
This is an interesting idea.
“Critical Thinking” also doesn’t mean “Agrees with Me.” Ted Cruz isn’t stupid. Evil through and through, but not dumb. One can also stop using critical thinking tools if it is to one’s benefit to do so.
While I disagree with this statement strongly it does raise a point.
We as society and as individuals rely on specialists and experts.
I simply do not have the knowledge base or skills to critically evaluate everything. Hell even in my profession I will in general defer to expert evidence based guidelines rather than critically evaluate all the evidence myself and come to my maverick independent conclusions and practice approach. A few I will get into weeds on, sometimes even disagreeing with expert conclusions, but it simply is not possible to do that for all expert guidance.
Does a default state of deference to specialists and experts mean I am abdicating my critical thinking responsibility?
Should I be skeptical of the conclusions of climate scientists because I know I don’t have the skills to follow the modeling myself?
Or is critical thinking in this case recognizing the limits of my own knowledge and skill sets and knowing who the actual experts are and trusting that overwhelming consensus of experts and specialists?
Absolutely correct. It is not the same thing at all. Rhetoric is the opposite of teaching critical reasoning. So is the educational system that generally is centered on memorization of information.
Advertisers have long had a very good idea of how to influence people using psychological quirks, such as popularity. A reasonably ethical book studied by many business students at some point is Influence. Of course, digital improvements presumably allow easier testing, better results, less regulation and fewer consequences.
I don’t know anyone who is not dependent on the opinion of experts on this topic. The thing is there are so many relevant factors. Suppose we fail in coming up with sufficient alternative sources. By the time this happens we should already have a firm grip on what we are dealing with. One time I asked the question , " What might be considered optimum levels of co2? " The question was met with nothing resembling an answer or even a follow up question. Another question" how do higher co2 levels affect agriculture and the biosphere in general?, Will the biosphere absorb my carbon as carbon levels rise? You cannot ask a question on this topic and expect anything resembling an objective answer. The reason! Because it detracts from the focus on the issue.
Another thing I have stated that appears to be factual is that sources of atmospheric co2 have gradually been slowing down primarily because volcanoes have become less active. if levels fall below 150ppm life of any kind on earth will be in serious peril. Several times in the last 1,000,000 years we have hit levels of 160, most likely contributing to mass extinctions, (I can verify this). To my knowledge and I am open here, a true climate scientist does not exist, they likely will soon. Simply because the climate is dependent on so many different sciences. I don’t deny climate science I simply want to know more about it, but that is heavily discouraged.
A question is how old a student has to be to be taught critical thinking.
In middle schooI American history, I was required to remember lists of war causes and Wilson’s 14 points. In high school, the idea was that we already had a framework so we could read differing primary sources and come up with our own opinions based on evidence.
I have a different, maybe narrower, conception, of critical thinking than some here. Elementary school students can be taught to be critical of ideas the teacher doesn’t like. Open-minded critical thinking before 16 or so? I don’t think it generally possible.