Critical thinking as a fundamental life skill

I read a handful of blogs, and some of them are political or sports-related. (This post is NOT about politics or sports.)

One thing that I have noticed when reading the comments is just how much dogma is accepted as fact. The core beliefs are never questioned. Those who do the questioning are labeled "trolls" and attacked back into anonymity. This is especially true of political blogs, where a mix of group-identity, political doctrine, dogmatic beliefs, and culture serves to limit dialogue and crush civil discourse. Many of these blogs seem to encourage a comfortable insularity where one is always right and every one else agrees.

Then there are the sports blogs. Clearly, rooting for a team or person and disliking another is all part of the fan experience, so one would expect a certain level of trash talking. Civil discourse really isn't expected here, but the consequences of a lack of civility are far less important. My main problem with sports blogs is the adoption of "truths" with a lack of evidence. In fact, in the world of 24 hour sports coverage, it makes its way into television, radio, and print media. It's as if we need a simple short hand to understand complex issues. But that short hand leads to some really silly conclusions by both the writers and the consumers of sports news and opinion.

I think what we lack is the ability to think critically. For me, these are the two areas where this lack of ability routinely and visibly manifests itself everyday.

One of my favorite books in recent years is Critical Thinking by Richard W. Paul and Linda Elder. It is intended to be a textbook for a college course in critical thinking, but it really reads as a great introduction and handbook on the subject. (The book is apparently in a 2nd edition now. I have the first.)

I've always thought of myself as a decent critical thinker, but I have never thought about critical thinking. Paul and Elder have done a lot of thinking on that topic. They have come up with a model for critical thinking that satisfies both the theoretical and the practical.

The base for the model is the Universal Structures of Thought. These structures are there whether we think of them or not. If we're to improve our thinking then we'll need to think about these structures also. I'll note the structure in a moment.

They have also developed the "standards" of critical thinking that are applied to the "elements" of critical thinking (these elements are the components of the Universal Structures of Thought) while we continue to develop our intellectual "traits". I know, I know, that all sounds like a lot of mumbledepan gobbledegook theoretical nonsense. For now, just trust me that it isn't, please. It does make sense.

What I would like to do over a series of posts is define the standards, elements, and traits. I'll present them in no particular order. We'll dig in to what they mean and how they apply to our daily practical lives. As much as I would like to apply them to the stuff I read online, I don't want to violate my own rules. Application of this knowledge will be left up to you.

I encourage you to buy the book. The 2nd edition is a little larger than my 1st edition, so I'll probably obtain it to see what was added.

For now, though, let's look at a statement about the elements (or universal structures) of thinking. I'll italicize the elements.

Whenever we think,
we think for a purpose (What is my fundamental purpose?)
within a point of view (What is my point of view with respect to this issue?)
based on assumptions (What assumptions am I using in my reasoning?)
leading to implications and consequences (What are the implications of my reasoning if I am correct?)
we use data, facts, and experiences (What information do I need to answer my question?)
to make inferences and judgments (What are my most fundamental inferences or conclusions?)
based on concepts and theories (What is the most basic concept in the question?)
to answer a question or solve a problem. (What is the key question I am trying to answer?)

I've read people talking about deporting, attacking, taxing, spending, arresting, outlawing, enforcing, building, razing, voting, etc. and you can tell that they have never asked more than one or two of the above questions of themselves related to the topic on which they pontificate.

Ah, I've bored you enough with this. Let me know what you THINK about it though.

Historical self-help: a commentary #2

We continue with The Art of Worldly Wisdom by Baltasar Gracian, first published in Spain in 1647.

2. Mind and spirit: The two elements on which our faculties depend. One without the other is only half happiness. Mind is not enough; spirit is necessary. The fate of a fool is to fail in his calling, professional, commercial, political, social.

Well, that was short. A bit cryptic, too. Maybe not. Let's see.

Mind means mental powers; the ability to think; our cleverness. Spirit means the energy we bring to bear on life. It is our passion, our disposition, our emotional intelligence. Faculties is another word for our abilities or capabilities.

We can be very smart, but if we are depressed or frightened or unwise, that intellectual power won't do much good. Many people believe that being smart is enough. We know it isn't. Gracian is just reminding us that you have to develop your spirit.

More modern writers would probably add a point about making sure we take care of our bodies, too. An ill body makes it rough on the spirit. Also, fitness and activity are good for mental ability as well.

Gracian seems a bit rushed in his final sentence. When he refers to a fool it appears that he means someone lacking spirit, though he could mean someone lacking mind or spirit or both. I like how he ties foolishness to practical failure in our work, business, political career or living with other human beings. He has a common sense take on getting along in life, which is what Gracian means when he uses the term happiness.

That is why Gracian's book is still popular. It makes sense for everyday living.

Do you have a different take on his words? Do you agree with him?

Olympic sport: fencing - sabre

The Olympic games are fast approaching, and while it is a given that China will win the medal count (the home team always takes home more gold than they usually do, and China is a powerhouse,) the United States will do well in their traditional areas: basketball, softball, baseball, swimming, and track & field.

But there's another event where they are nearly guaranteed to excel: women's sabre. The women of the USA Fencing team have three of their four sabrueses ranked 2, 3, and 4 in the world. They have World Championships under their belts and, if you click on the photo, a window will open showing the NBC video of the first ever women's sabre gold medal match in the Olympics. It's great to watch. The Chinese fencer, Tan Xue, is currently ranked #1 in the world.

There are three types of fencing based on the weapon used. Foil is most common, meaning this is the weapon with which most people start. There are a number of rules a fencer must follow, including those regarding etiquette, but the important thing is to score a touch before your opponent. For foil, the valid touch area is the torso and groin. Touching the legs, head, or arms does not count.

The longest weapon is the epee. Here the entire body is a valid target, including the hands and feet. Epee is the style used in modern pentathlon. Epee is my favorite style. Anyone can score at any time, even while defending an attack. With other fencing weapons the fencer must establish the attack (or right of way.)

With both foil and epee, only the point of the sword can be used to touch. Bouts with foil and epee can appear to be much more like "movie" fencing. Lots of parrying and lunging. Some people refer to fencing as physical chess. It is a sport of the mind and body. You need to think in a series of actions and counteractions well before they happen.

But then there is sabre. Sabre is the aggressive cutting version of fencing. It is lightning quick. If you're new to it, watching it can be confusing because you aren't sure who scored the touch. Sabre touches cover everything from the waist up, including arms and head, but not the hands. With sabre, however, slashing is allowed. This is why sabreurs seem to be relaxed when a bout begins, rather than in the formal en garde position. Attacking with only your point is a quick way to lose.

Gabe has fenced for a couple of years. He hasn't fenced so far in 2008, mainly because he needs to work harder to keep up with school, but we'll get him back out there. He loves it.

Fencing clubs welcome beginners and offer lessons. It is a great form of exercise, you'll firm up your bottom and legs and you'll improve your balance. Don't worry about equipment right away. At most place you need only by an relatively inexpensive fencing glove. The clubs provide weapons, masks, jackets and other safety equipment.

If you try it, let us know about it.

Hungarian Goulash

My mom made hers with elbow macaroni. It was loaded with tomato sauce. I didn't like it.

But at least once every week or two, this was our dinner. I was reminded of the dish when I recently read Graham Greene's The Honorary Consul. One of the supporting characters likes to have the goulash at the "Italian Club". I immediately thought of this regular childhood meal.

We all have them, the staples of the dinners of our childhoods. Besides this dreaded tomatoey concoction, we regularly had cube steaks, liver and onions, hot dogs and sauerkraut, kielbasa, hamburgers, instant mashed potatoes, real mashed potatoes, cans of peas, green beans (french cut), corn, creamed corn, succotash, and carrots. We had pots of navy, lima, pinto, or great northern beans quite often, too. My least favorite would have been the lima beans. My favorite meal was probably chicken and dumplings.

We rarely, if ever, had fish. Fried chicken came from the Hitching Post in Cincinnati. Of course, we had our share of White Castles (my mom worked there when I was a baby) and either Gold Star or Skyline chili. Hot dogs came from Kahn's, beer came from Hudepohl and sometimes Burger or Schoenling, not that we were served beer as children, I just remember my dad having this.

Each week, during the summer when I wasn't visiting my maternal grandparents in Kentucky, I had lunch with my paternal grandmother, Elnora, in Cincinnati. We would go pick up her paycheck at Walgreen's each Friday. I would eat at the lunch counter. Chicken-fried steak was my typical choice.

Food is pretty simple when you're a kid. You either like it or you don't. If you don't, you have a strategy for dealing with it. For goulash, I ate the beef first. Cleaned the sauce off the pasta as best I could and used heaps of water or Mountain Dew to keep the acidic tomato taste off my palate. It isn't like I had options. Skipping a meal wasn't going to work. Though I could have made a meal out of Oreo's in those days. (According to Jocelyn, I could do so today, too.)

Was there a meal that you particularly dreaded? How did you cope? Was there one that you really looked forward to having? Did your family have a routine for meals? Leave a description in the comments.

(photo from belly-timber, who sadly doesn't seem to be producing entries anymore.)