Critical Thinking Glossary

[dandylife]

A - B  (There's alot!) Let me know if this is interesting....I'll try to post more. The art of "debate" can teach alot - arguing for a viewpoint you don't necessarily hold, etc. For myself, arguing was really really scary for a long time. Now that I have a better understanding of some of these points, it's not quite so scary.... So many times, though, we find ourselves arguing with someone who's emotionally invested in a certain outcome....or WE are. That's not a strong foothold.

Dandylife


accurate: Free from errors, mistakes, or distortion. Correct connotes little more than absence of error; accurate implies a positive exercise of one to obtain conformity with fact or truth; exact stresses perfect conformity to fact, truth, or some standard; precise suggests minute accuracy of detail. Accuracy is an important goal in critical thinking, though it is almost always a matter of degree. It is also important to recognize that making mistakes is an essential part of learning and that it is far better that students make their own mistakes, than that they parrot the thinking of the text or teacher. It should also be recognized that some distortion usually results whenever we think within a point of view or frame of reference. Students should think with this awareness in mind, with some sense of the limitations of their own, the text's, the teacher's, the subject's perspective. See perfections of thought.

ambiguous: A sentence having two or more possible meanings. Sensitivity to ambiguity and vagueness in writing and speech is essential to good thinking. A continual effort to be clear and precise in language usage is fundamental to education. Ambiguity is a problem more of sentences than of individual words. Furthermore, not every sentence that can be construed in more than one way is problematic and deserving of analysis. Many sentences are clearly intended one way; any other construal is obviously absurd and not meant. For example, "Make me a sandwich." is never seriously intended to request metamorphic change. It is a poor example for teaching genuine insight into critical thinking. For an example of a problematic ambiguity, consider the statement, "Welfare is corrupt." Among the possible meanings of this sentence are the following: Those who administer welfare programs take bribes to administer welfare policy unfairly; Welfare policies are written in such a way that much of the money goes to people who don't deserve it rather than to those who do; A government that gives money to people who haven't earned it corrupts both the giver and the recipient. If two people are arguing about whether or not welfare is corrupt, but interpret the claim differently, they can make little or no progress; they aren't arguing about the same point. Evidence and considerations relevant to one interpretation may be irrelevant to others.

analyze: To break up a whole into its parts, to examine in detail so as to determine the nature of, to look more deeply into an issue or situation. All learning presupposes some analysis of what we are learning, if only by categorizing or labeling things in one way rather than another. Students should continually be asked to analyze their ideas, claims, experiences, interpretations, judgments, and theories and those they hear and read. See elements of thought.

argue: There are two meanings of this word that need to be distinguished: 1) to argue in the sense of to fight or to emotionally disagree; and 2) to give reasons for or against a proposal or proposition. In emphasizing critical thinking, we continually try to get our students to move from the first sense of the word to the second; that is, we try to get them to see the importance of giving reasons to support their views without getting their egos involved in what they are saying. This is a fundamental problem in human life. To argue in the critical thinking sense is to use logic and reason, and to bring forth facts to support or refute a point. It is done in a spirit of cooperation and good will.

argument: A reason or reasons offered for or against something, the offering of such reasons. This term refers to a discussion in which there is disagreement and suggests the use of logic and the bringing forth of facts to support or refute a point. See argue.

to assume: To take for granted or to presuppose. Critical thinkers can and do make their assumptions explicit, assess them, and correct them. Assumptions can vary from the mundane to the problematic: I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in. I assumed that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in. Someone speaks gruffly to me. I feel guilty and hurt. I assume he is angry at me, that he is only angry at me when I do something bad, and that if he's angry at me, he dislikes me. Notice that people often equate making assumptions with making false assumptions. When people say, "Don't assume", this is what they mean. In fact, we cannot avoid making assumptions and some are justifiable. (For instance, we have assumed that people who buy this book can read English.) Rather than saying "Never assume", we say, "Be aware of and careful about the assumptions you make, and be ready to examine and critique them." See assumption, elements of thought.

assumption: A statement accepted or supposed as true without proof or demonstration; an unstated premise or belief. All human thought and experience is based on assumptions. Our thought must begin with something we take to be true in a particular context. We are typically unaware of what we assume and therefore rarely question our assumptions. Much of what is wrong with human thought can be found in the uncritical or unexamined assumptions that underlie it. For example, we often experience the world in such a way as to assume that we are observing things just as they are, as though we were seeing the world without the filter of a point of view. People we disagree with, of course, we recognize as having a point of view. One of the key dispositions of critical thinking is the on-going sense that as humans we always think within a perspective, that we virtually never experience things totally and absolutistically. There is a connection, therefore, between thinking so as to be aware of our assumptions and being intellectually humble.

authority:

1) The power or supposed right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions.

2) A person with much knowledge and expertise in a field, hence reliable. Critical thinkers recognize that ultimate authority rests with reason and evidence, since it is only on the assumption that purported experts have the backing of reason and evidence that they rightfully gain authority. Much instruction discourages critical thinking by encouraging students to believe that whatever the text or teacher says is true. As a result, students do not learn how to assess authority. See knowledge.

bias: A mental leaning or inclination. We must clearly distinguish two different senses of the word ’’bias’’. One is neutral, the other negative. In the neutral sense we are referring simply to the fact that, because of one's point of view, one notices some things rather than others, emphasizes some points rather than others, and thinks in one direction rather than others. This is not in itself a criticism because thinking within a point of view is unavoidable. In the negative sense, we are implying blindness or irrational resistance to weaknesses within one's own point of view or to the strength or insight within a point of view one opposes. Fairminded critical thinkers try to be aware of their bias (in sense one) and try hard to avoid bias (in sense two). Many people confuse these two senses. Many confuse bias with emotion or with evaluation, perceiving any expression of emotion or any use of evaluative words to be biased (sense two). Evaluative words that can be justified by reason and evidence are not biased in the negative sense. See criteria, evaluation, judgment, opinion.


This comes from the Critical Thinking Community (criticalthinking.org)

[teartracks]

Hi dandylife,

Good heavens, I wish it were briefer, but I nuderstand that glossaries aren't necessarily brief.  I for one will read the glossary.  Thank you.

tt

[dandylife]

Leah, I'm glad you have discovered the site, it is truly useful.

tt, here is the C Glossary. to see the rest, here is the link: http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/glossary.cfm

Glossary: C

An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

clarify: To make easier to understand, to free from confusion or ambiguity, to remove obscurities. Clarity is a fundamental perfection of thought and clarification a fundamental aim in critical thinking. Students often do not see why it is important to write and speak clearly, why it is important to say what you mean and mean what you say. The key to clarification is concrete, specific examples. See accurate, ambiguous, logic of language, vague.

concept: An idea or thought, especially a generalized idea of a thing or of a class of things. Humans think within concepts or ideas. We can never achieve command over our thoughts unless we learn how to achieve command over our concepts or ideas. Thus we must learn how to identify the concepts or ideas we are using, contrast them with alternative concepts or ideas, and clarify what we include and exclude by means of them. For example, most people say they believe strongly in democracy, but few can clarify with examples what that word does and does not imply. Most people confuse the meaning of words with cultural associations, with the result that ‘democracy’’ means to people whatever we do in running our government-any country that is different is undemocratic. We must distinguish the concepts implicit in the English language from the psychological associations surrounding that concept in a given social group or culture. The failure to develop this ability is a major cause of uncritical thought and selfish critical thought. See logic of language.

conclude/conclusion: To decide by reasoning, to infer, to deduce; the last step in a reasoning process; a judgment, decision, or belief formed after investigation or reasoning. All beliefs, decisions, or actions are based on human thought, but rarely as the result of conscious reasoning or deliberation. All that we believe is, one way or another, based on conclusions that we have come to during our lifetime. Yet, we rarely monitor our thought processes, we don't critically assess the conclusions we come to, to determine whether we have sufficient grounds or reasons for accepting them. People seldom recognize when they have come to a conclusion. They confuse their conclusions with evidence, and so cannot assess the reasoning that took them from evidence to conclusion. Recognizing that human life is inferential, that we continually come to conclusions about ourselves and the things and persons around us, is essential to thinking critically and reflectively.

consistency: To think, act, or speak in agreement with what has already been thought, done, or expressed; to have intellectual or moral integrity. Human life and thought is filled with inconsistency, hypocrisy, and contradiction. We often say one thing and do another, judge ourselves and our friends by one standard and our antagonists by another, lean over backwards to justify what we want or negate what does not serve our interests. Similarly, we often confuse desires with needs, treating our desires as equivalent to needs, putting what we want above the basic needs of others. Logical and moral consistency are fundamental values of fairminded critical thinking. Social conditioning and native egocentrism often obscure social contradictions, inconsistency, and hypocrisy. See personal contradiction, social contradiction, intellectual integrity, human nature.

contradict/contradiction: To assert the opposite of; to be contrary to, go against; a statement in opposition to another; a condition in which things tend to be contrary to each other; inconsistency; discrepancy; a person or thing containing or composed of contradictory elements. See personal contradiction, social contradiction.
criterion (criteria, pl): A standard, rule, or test by which something can be judged or measured. Human life, thought, and action are based on human values. The standards by which we determine whether those values are achieved in any situation represent criteria. Critical thinking depends upon making explicit the standards or criteria for rational or justifiable thinking and behavior. See evaluation.

critical listening: A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying. By understanding the logic of human communication — that everything spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has implications, etc. — critical thinkers can listen so as to enter sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought, intellectual empathy.
critical person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking.

critical reading: Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text, to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought.

critical society: A society which rewards adherence to the values of critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to imagine a society in which independent critical thought became embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly formulated the ideal:

The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators and are never deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. (Folkways, 1906)

Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge.
critical thinking:

1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking.

2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities.

3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish" or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought, domains of thought, intellectual virtues.

critical writing: To express ourselves in language requires that we arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of language.

critique: An objective judging, analysis, or evaluation of something. The purpose of critique is the same as the purpose of critical thinking: to appreciate strengths as well as weaknesses, virtues as well as failings. Critical thinkers critique in order to redesign, remodel, and make better.

cultural association: Undisciplined thinking often reflects associations, personal and cultural, absorbed or uncritically formed. If a person who was cruel to me as a child had a particular tone of voice, I may find myself disliking a person who has the same tone of voice. Media advertising juxtaposes and joins logically unrelated things to influence our buying habits. Raised in a particular country or within a particular group within it, we form any number of mental links which, if they remain unexamined, unduly influence our thinking. See concept, critical society.

cultural assumption: Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we perceive, conceive, think, and experience within assumptions we have taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving "things as they are," not "things as they appear from a cultural vantage point". Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions so that we might critically examine them is a crucial dimension of critical thinking. It is, however, a dimension almost totally absent from schooling. Lip service to this ideal is common enough; a realistic emphasis is virtually unheard of. See ethnocentricity, prejudice, social contradiction.

I'm glad you are taking an interest in this glossary. It's fruitless (IMO) to communicate with someone when you aren't mindful of the same semantics.

Dandylife

[dandylife]

tt,

When you know that this glossary exists, you can utilize it to say something such as, "Pause. Can we agree on a definition of _____ (bias or whatever)?" when you gain agreement on that, you can move on. (And by the way, that is a principle of influence - when you gain agreement on a small thing, it is more likely you'll gain agreement on a bigger thing later.)

Would I change any? Not that I've seen so far. (I'll keep reading them with a "critical eye"!)

Dandylife

[dandylife]

Hi tt!

I am intrigued by the concept because I have been in the position to "argue" with a person afflicted with BPD all through our marriage/divorce/reconciliation.

Arguing with someone with BPD can be enough to drive anyone to the brink - BUT if you discover some things - like critical thinking, outcome based thinking, sticking to the subject at hand, empathizing with the other person ("You must be feeling very ____, I would, too"), validating the other person even if you don't agree ("I can see how you might feel that way") and just implementing THESE things and seeing the huge shift that happens....well, it becomes a sort of "worship" if you will. At the very least, a class of wisdom that bears study!

I think my context for critical thinking is going to bear down strongly upon my conflicts with my BPD person in my life. But, that said, I also have utilized these techniques in all other facets of life with success (business relationships, girlfriends, brother, sisters, etc.)

I would say that critical thinking is a subject of study that will beneficially impact anyone in relationships, in their career and in finding higher self-esteem for themselves. I think that once you capture and understand the concept of critical thinking the very core of the concept dictates that you take every interaction in its own context and judge from there.

Paradigm shaker. I love that term. Yes. To move someone's paradigm is an ultimate success of the art of communication.

Dandylife

[dandylife]

Leah,
Brilliant! Thank you for the definition.

tt,

I am life-schooled in critical thinking. Like I said 17 years of marriage, 3 years of on-again/off-again, 3 years of reconciled living with BPD has schooled me plenty.

But, also - part of my challenge has been being married to someone who the outside world looks at as an "intellectual", an "influencer", someone who writes on the subject of influence and persuasion. Someone who told me for so many years how much smarter he was than me. So, "Trust me" I now look at as a face with a big leer on it. My H and I both took an IQ test together years ago and were within 5 points of each other.

He had all the schooling. I had the school of hard knocks.

Dandylife

[dandylife]

tt,

to continue in answer to your questions - (I got interrupted to play a game of chess - another critical thinking teaching device!)  - yeah, I guess I do take to it like a duck to water - love it! Love to have antidotes to behaviors - absolutely love it.

"worship" I shouldn't have used - I was just being flowery with my words - a bit of an exaggeration on purpose. But I do love seeing a shift take place just because of the choice of words I used. (!) Yes.

People with BPD - yes have a tendency to be reactive - easily emotional, but emotional swings, highly stressed and on the verge of turmoil always. On the far end of the spectrum, you get the major drama kings and queens who will cut themselves, threaten suicide, etc.  It can be a hell of a ride.
Others can just be highly emotional, high strung, if you will, with other behavior traits as well.

What follows is the psychoanalyst Gunderson's criteria for BPD:

Gunderson, a psychoanalyst, is respected by researchers in many diverse areas of psychology and psychiatry. His focus tends to be on the differential diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, and Cauwels gives Gunderson's criteria in order of their importance:


Intense unstable relationships in which the borderline always ends up getting hurt. Gunderson admits that this symptom is somewhat general, but considers it so central to BPD that he says he would hesitate to diagnose a patient as BPD without its presence.

Repetitive self-destructive behavior, often designed to prompt rescue.

Chronic fear of abandonment and panic when forced to be alone.

Distorted thoughts/perceptions, particularly in terms of relationships and interactions with others.

Hypersensitivity, meaning an unusual sensitivity to nonverbal communication. Gunderson notes that this can be confused with distortion if practitioners are not careful (somewhat similar to Herman's statement that, while survivors of intense long-term trauma may have unrealistic notions of the power realities of the situation they were in, their notions are likely to be closer to reality than the therapist might think).

Impulsive behaviors that often embarrass the borderline later.

Poor social adaptation: in a way, borderlines tend not to know or understand the rules regarding performance in job and academic settings.

The Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines, Revised
Gunderson and his colleague, Jonathan Kolb, tried to make the diagnosis of BPD by constructing a clinical interview to assess borderline characteristics in patients. The DIB was revised in 1989 to sharpen its ability to differentiate between BPD and other personality disorders. It considers symptoms that fall under four main headings:

Affect
chronic/major depression
helplessness
hopelessness
worthlessness
guilt
anger (including frequent expressions of anger)
anxiety
loneliness
boredom
emptiness

Cognition
odd thinking
unusual perceptions
nondelusional paranoia
quasipsychosis

Impulse action patterns
substance abuse/dependence
sexual deviance
manipulative suicide gestures
other impulsive behaviors

Interpersonal relationships
intolerance of aloneness
abandonment, engulfment, annihilation fears
counterdependency
stormy relationships
manipulativeness
dependency
devaluation
masochism/sadism
demandingness
entitlement

The DIB-R is the most influential and best-known "test" for diagnosing BPD. Use of it has led researchers to identify four behavior patterns they consider peculiar to BPD: abandonment, engulfment, annihilation fears; demandingness and entitlement; treatment regressions; and ability to arouse inappropriately close or hostile treatment relationships.

DSM-IV criteria
The DSM-IV gives these nine criteria; a diagnosis requires that the subject present with at least five of these. In I Hate You -- Don't Leave Me! Jerold Kriesman and Hal Straus refer to BPD as "emotional hemophilia; [a borderline] lacks the clotting mechanism needed to moderate his spurts of feeling. Stimulate a passion, and the borderline emotionally bleeds to death."

Traits involving emotions:
Quite frequently people with BPD have a very hard time controlling their emotions. They may feel ruled by them. One researcher (Marsha Linehan) said, "People with BPD are like people with third degree burns over 90% of their bodies. Lacking emotional skin, they feel agony at the slightest touch or movement."
1. Shifts in mood lasting only a few hours.

2. Anger that is inappropriate, intense or uncontrollable.


Traits involving behavior:
3. Self-destructive acts, such as self-mutilation or suicidal threats and gestures that happen more than once
4. Two potentially self-damaging impulsive behaviors. These could include alcohol and other drug abuse, compulsive spending, gambling, eating disorders, shoplifting, reckless driving, compulsive sexual behavior.


Traits involving identity
5. Marked, persistent identity disturbance shown by uncertainty in at least two areas. These areas can include self-image, sexual orientation, career choice or other long-term goals, friendships, values. People with BPD may not feel like they know who they are, or what they think, or what their opinions are, or what religion they should be. Instead, they may try to be what they think other people want them to be. Someone with BPD said, "I have a hard time figuring out my personality. I tend to be whomever I'm with."
6. Chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom. Someone with BPD said, "I remember describing the feeling of having a deep hole in my stomach. An emptiness that I didn't know how to fill. My therapist told me that was from almost a "lack of a life". The more things you get into your life, the more relationships you get involved in, all of that fills that hole. As a borderline, I had no life. There were times when I couldn't stay in the same room with other people. It almost felt like what I think a panic attack would feel like."


Traits involving relationships
7. Unstable, chaotic intense relationships characterized by splitting (see below).
8. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment


Splitting: the self and others are viewed as "all good" or "all bad." Someone with BPD said, "One day I would think my doctor was the best and I loved her, but if she challenged me in any way I hated her. There was no middle ground as in like. In my world, people were either the best or the worst. I couldn't understand the concept of middle ground."

Alternating clinging and distancing behaviors (I Hate You, Don't Leave Me). Sometimes you want to be close to someone. But when you get close it feels TOO close and you feel like you have to get some space. This happens often.
Great difficulty trusting people and themselves. Early trust may have been shattered by people who were close to you.
Sensitivity to criticism or rejection.
Feeling of "needing" someone else to survive
Heavy need for affection and reassurance
Some people with BPD may have an unusually high degree of interpersonal sensitivity, insight and empathy

9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

This means feeling "out of it," or not being able to remember what you said or did. This mostly happens in times of severe stress.


Miscellaneous attributes of people with BPD:
People with BPD are often bright, witty, funny, life of the party.
They may have problems with object constancy. When a person leaves (even temporarily), they may have a problem recreating or remembering feelings of love that were present between themselves and the other. Often, BPD patients want to keep something belonging to the loved one around during separations.
They frequently have difficulty tolerating aloneness, even for short periods of time.
Their lives may be a chaotic landscape of job losses, interrupted educational pursuits, broken engagements, hospitalizations.
Many have a background of childhood physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or physical/emotional neglect.

Dandylife

edited: added spaces for easier reading

[Certain Hope]

Hi Dandy,

Hi tt,

I've appreciated reading the exchange you two have had here. Although much of this develops into a tangle in my brain, a few facts are settling into place and I can definitely see the value of honing these critical thinking skills AND being aware of the terms involved.

Thanks to both of you for the enlightenment!

And Dandy.... I posted something over on the What Helps board today about principles of sustainability and accountability skills... which kinda seems to be along similar lines. Thought you might like it.

Thanks again!

Carolyn

[teartracks]

Hi Carolyn,

You're welcome for whatever I brought to this discussion that you find beneficial.

I think critical thinking is a useful skill.  I think that those who can should develope it.

I have to tell you though that right now, I view the Critical Thinking Movement (not critical thinking) critically.  The fault I find with it is that in the big picture sense of the word, it seems geared to developing a one-mindedness of the masses, or if you please a global think. 

Dandylife, I'd love to hear your view on this.  And again, I thank you for introducing me to the dicipline.


tt

[dandylife]

Carolyn, thanks - I will check that out!

tt, I just finished reading "Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are" by Daniel Nettles.

He proposes a 5 Factor Model that basically says that each person has a personality made up of:

1) genetically inherited tendencies

plus

2) environment - related tendencies

And all of these can be boiled down into 5 factors:  (all on a continuum, of course)

Level of:

1) Extraversion
2) Neuroticism
3) Conscientiousness
4) Agreeableness
5) Openness

There have been many, many models of personality in the past but this one seems to encompass them all and address many issues and questions. The book has a (very) short questionairre to help you determine your basic level of each area.

Have you ever studied evolutionary biology? There's a fascinating chapter in the book that talks about how Darwin came up with some of his theories when he visited the Galapogas islands. There was a certain type of bird whose beak would grow bigger or get smaller over the seasons depending upon if a certain type of food was available or not. Thus, evolution in action!

But, an interesting point was that a bigger beak was not necessarily ALWAYS better. Sometimes, when the going got tough, it was necessary to have a smaller beak to root out smaller food.

So, evolution goes in cycles depending much upon the atmosphere.

It seems this would also work with certain behaviors. In the book, Nettles actually used the example of a sociopath to illustrate that his kind could begin to proliferate because he can bully himself and his genes around. BUT it would make sense that later on, his descendents would meet each other and fight or kill each other off, making the "nice" people more proliferate again. Thus, a cycle.

I guess this is a roundabout way of answering your question about the global thinking one-mindedness question. I believe we are all so different in the mix of our personalities that there is just no way that one group (thinkers) are ever going to over-populate the earth!

Great book - made me sit and ruminate for a long time. VERY much explained the sociopath behavior and the makeup of that - if anyone is interested I could post a little of Nettle's explanations. I do recommend this book highly.

Thanks for your questions - they do make me dig a little deeper and that's great.

Dandylife

[teartracks]

Hi dandylife,

I skimmed your reply about the global think.  My computer is apparently evolving into something else, but whatever it is has made it sick and it is in the hospital.  Meanwhile, I'm at the library and will see if Nettles book is available.  Anyway, until I get my puter back, I'll be scarce on the board.
Hope to resume our discussion(s) when I'm up and running again.

tt

Edit in:  dandylife says:    Have you ever studied evolutionary biology? There's a fascinating chapter in the book that talks about how Darwin came up with some of his theories when he visited the Galapogas islands. There was a certain type of bird whose beak would grow bigger or get smaller over the seasons depending upon if a certain type of food was available or not. Thus, evolution in action!

But, an interesting point was that a bigger beak was not necessarily ALWAYS better. Sometimes, when the going got tough, it was necessary to have a smaller beak to root out smaller food.

So, evolution goes in cycles depending much upon the atmosphere.

tt says:  dandylife, No, I haven't studied evolution biology.  I want to read Nettles' book, but,  my first thought is that the big beak/smaller beak was  adaptation.  Something to think about. 

 

[dandylife]

tt,

Yes, adaptation. that is correct.

I gave my daughter the Nettles book to read, as she is going to minor in Psychology - starting college this fall. She was interested....

Catch up again when you are re-computerized.

D.

[teartracks]

Hi dandylife,

I was enjoying this thread before my computer went whacko about a month ago.  So I decided pick up where we left off. 

tt, I just finished reading "Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are" by Daniel Nettles.

I was in a small town library.  They didn't have Nettles book, nor could they borrow it.  I'll still try to get my hands on it.  Sounds interesting.

CB, 

From what I gather, there is a movement embracing critical thinking.  I think CT is a very good thing.  I have some  concern though where a movement is concerned, for instance, if every culture used the same glossary regardless of its (the culture and the glossary)  prejudices, biases, traditions, spirituality, etc.  wouldn't these cultural peculiarities be overlooked and force a one size fits all mentality.  In a global sense, I think that would become its weakest link. 

Comparing Socratic thinking, rabbinical teaching and the university systems of the medieval world and their impact on Western thinking has been of necessity influenced deeply in modern times, first by the printing press and now the Internet.  The printing press didn't have the capacity to drive a global movement, but the Internet does with very convincing bells and whistles and even charlatans.     

I have never thought of critical thinking as a movement.  It has been such an underpinning of western thought throughout history.  Critical thinking made Socrates famous.  It is the basis of rabbinical teaching.  It's the basis of the whole university system of the medieval world which was passed down to us in the United States by the early founders.  I can't imagine education without it--much like grammar is the foundation to language and can't exist without it.

Critical thinking is like the underpinning for discussion about every other subject--science, philosophy, history, etc.  Just like language, you only need to study it when your unfamiliarity with it makes it impossible to communicate.  Critical thinking is kind of absorbed as you grow up at home (like language), is taught in school to understand the mechanics of it (like grammar), and then is simply the vehicle for communication after that. 

I would be interested in what you and others think of this question.  The Egyptians and the Sumerian civilizations, as I understand it, developed concurrently, going from hunter gatherers,  to agrarians,  to city states.  Eventually, traversing the fertile crescent that lay between them became commonplace.  So my question is, could these civilizations have developed and worked in conjunction with each other without a few critical thinkers somewhere in the mix?   Or put another way, could societies as successful  as these even flourish without the influence of some pretty incisive and profound critical thinking?  I guess I'm thinking that the Greeks get too much credit where thinking is concerned.  I hope y'all can straighten me out on this.

tt

[dandylife]

tt,

the human race, it seems, can be looked at as a well-oiled machine in some senses. Looking at it from above, globally, we have those who produce (farmers, et.al.), those who consume, those who invent, those who build, those who pollute, those who clean up, those who breed, those who bury the dead, etc. etc. etc.

Everyone has their "place" among the other citizens of the world. In some instances, we fit many molds.

Have you heard of the Pareto theory? (otherwise known as the 80-20 rule) In anything, a few (20 percent) are vital and many (80 percent) are not.

Not everyone can be an inventor. Not everyone can be a scientist. etc. etc.

Not everyone will be a critical thinker.

There is no worry that this will become a worrisome thing.

(Just like not everyone will like Britney Spears) Yes, she was a sensation at one time. But even at her peak, lots of people did NOT like her or her music at ALL.

See what I'm saying?

There will always be those who take the opposite stance, simply because they are contrarians, etc.

I'm not really sure what you're asking as far as past civilizations go. It sounds like a philosophical question akin to "where would the world be without organized religion?" It's anyone's best guess....!

Dandylife

[dandylife]

tt,
Hah! I love the quote as well!

The article was very interesting, too.

I have read a bit about NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) and it teaches about certain "types" such as "same" thinkers, etc. I think I've mentioned this on the board before. You can do a little trick to see what kind of thinker a person is by putting 3 coins of differing sizes on a table. Say, a penny, a nickel and a quarter.

Ask the person, "so what do you notice about these coins?"

Depending on their answer, you can see how they process.

If they say, "they are all round" - they are a "sameness" thinker.

If they say, "they are all different" - they are likely a contrarian thinker.

There are some other ones, though, too. Like they can say, "They are all round, but different sizes." So, they have a sameness filter, with a contrarian bent. So to speak.

I think it's a kind of fascinating little thing. People tend to process everything the same way they do this little trick. Try it!

Dandylife