Human Egocentricity and Critical Thinking

— Can we support the idea that people are largely egocentric, with evidence?

• Egocentricity is self-centered thinking.

— Can we document problems in human life that come from selfishness, self-centeredness?

• Egocentric thought does two things:
 - It is selfish (self-centered, self serving, self protecting in a way that it is disfunctional).
 - The second motivater is its self validating. So that the idea is that my way is the right way. This is the source for rigidity in thinking.

— Egocentric thinking functions at the unconscious level. It cannot stand the light of day. The minute that it starts to come to light, that is, to the conscious level, something magnificent, in the mind, happens, called self-aception [?]:
— "I decieve myself into believing in all of these selfish things that I'm doing are actually perfectly fair for everyone around me. I decieve myself into thinking that I'm telling you the truth, when actually I'm telling you a lie." Or, — "I'm telling you a lie, I might admit it, but I'm doing it for your own good."


CRITICAL THINKING ABILITIES:

� Thinking independently
� Developing insight into egocentricity or sociocentricity
� Exercising fair-mindedness
� Exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying thoughts
� Developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment
� Developing intellectual courage
� Developing intellectual good faith or integrity
� Developing intellectual perseverance
� Developing confidence in reason
� Refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
� Comparing analogous situations: transferring insights to new contexts
� Developing one's perspective: creating or exploring beliefs, arguments, or theories
� Clarifying issues, conclusions, or beliefs
� Clarifying and analyzing the meanings of words or phrases
� Developing criteria for evaluation: clarifying values and standards
� Evaluating the credibility of sources of information
� Questioning deeply: raising and pursuing root or significant questions
� Analyzing or evaluating arguments, interpretations, beliefs, or theories
� Generating or assessing solutions
� Analyzing or evaluating actions or policies
� Reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts
� Listening critically: the art of silent dialogue
� Making interdisciplinary connections
� Practicing Socratic discussion: clarifying and questioning beliefs, theories, or perspectives
� Reasoning dialogically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or theories
� Reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories
� Comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
� Thinking precisely about thinking: using critical vocabulary
� Noting significant similarities and differences
� Examining or evaluating assumptions
� Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant facts
� Making plausible inferences, predictions, or interpretations
� Evaluating evidence and alleged facts
� Recognizing contradictions
� Exploring implications and consequences

Intellectual standards to use in thinking:

Clarity:
understandable, the meaning can be grasped:

Could you elaborate further?

Could you give me an example?

Could you illustrate what you mean?

Accuracy:
free from errors or distortions, true:

How could we check on that?

How could we find out if that is true?

How could we verify or test that?

Precision:
exact to the necessary level of detail:

Could you be more specific?

Could you give me more details?

Could you be more exact?

Relevance:
relating to the matter at hand:

How does that relate to the problem?

How does that bear on the question?

How does that help us with the issue?

Depth:
containing complexities and interrelationships:

What factors make this a difficult problem?

What are some of the complexities of this question?

What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?

Breadth:
encompassing multiple viewpoints:

Do we need to look at this from another perspective?

Do we need to consider another point of view?

Do we need to look at this in other ways?

Logic:
the parts make sense together, no contradictions:

Does all this make sense together?

Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?

Does what you say follow from the evidence?

Significance:
focusing on the important, not trivial:

Is this the most important problem to consider?

Is this the central idea to focus on?

Which of these facts are most important?

Fairness:
Justifiable, not self-serving (or egocentric):

Do I have any vested interest in this issue?

Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?

Am I putting views I oppose in their strongest form?

Intellectual traits:

Intellectual humility is knowledge of ignorance, sensitivity to what you know and what you do not know. It means being aware of your biases, prejudices, self-deceptive tendencies and the limitations of your viewpoint. Questions that foster intellectual humility include:

• What do I really know (about myself, about the situation, about another person, about my nation, about what is going on in the world)?
• To what extent do my prejudices or biases influence my thinking?
• To what extent have I been indoctrinated into beliefs that may be false?
• How do the beliefs I have uncritically accepted keep me from seeing things as they are?

Intellectual courage is the disposition to question beliefs you feel strongly about. It includes questioning the beliefs of your culture and the groups to which you belong, and a willingness to express your views even when they are unpopular. Questions that foster intellectual courage include:

• To what extent have I analyzed the beliefs I hold?
• To what extent have I questioned my beliefs, many of which I learned in childhood?
• To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to give up my beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented against them?
• To what extent am I willing to stand up against the majority (even though people ridicule me)?

Intellectual empathy is awareness of the need to actively entertain views that differ from our own, especially those we strongly disagree with. It is to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of our opponents and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. Questions that foster intellectual empathy include:

• To what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints I disagree with?
• Can I summarize the views of my opponents to their satisfaction? Can I see insights in the views of others and prejudices in my own?
• Do I sympathize with the feelings of others in light of their thinking differently than me?

Intellectual integrity consists in holding yourself to the same intellectual standards you expect others to honor (no double standards). Questions that foster intellectual integrity include:

• Do I behave in accordance with what I say I believe, or do I tend to say one thing and do another?
• To what extent do I expect the same of myself as I expect of others?
• To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in my life?
• To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception in my life?

Intellectual perseverance is the disposition to work your way through intellectual complexities despite the frustration inherent in the task. Questions that foster intellectual perseverance include:

• Am I willing to work my way through complexities in an issue or do I tend to give up when I experience difficulty?
• Can I think of a difficult intellectual problem concerning which I have demonstrated patience and determination in working through the difficulties?
• Do I have strategies for dealing with complex problems?
• Do I expect learning to be easy or do I recognize the importance of engaging in challenging intellectual work?

Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large are best served by giving the freest play to reason. It means using standards of reasonability as the fundamental criteria by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position. Questions that foster confidence in reason include:

• Am I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more reasonable position?
• Do I adhere to principles of sound reasoning when persuading others of my position or do I distort matters to support my position?
• Do I deem it more important to "win" an argument, or see the issue from the most reasonable perspective?
• Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions or do I try to force my views on them?

Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. It means thinking through issues using one's own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints of others. Questions that foster intellectual autonomy:

• To what extent am I a conformist?
• To what extent do I uncritically accept what I am told by my government, the media, my peers?
• Do I think through issues on my own or do I merely accept the views of others?
• Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to stand alone despite the irrational criticisms of others?

Mais aqui.

Sobre Linda Elder

Outros links:
The International Critical Thinking Test
The Watson-Glaser™ Critical Thinking Appraisal

The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking for Children

The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking-Concepts and Tools

Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Personal and Professional Life