The words to say it

Mas, encurralados na grande prisão da linguagem, não chegamos a nenhuma noção plausível, muito menos "traduzível", do que poderia assemelhar-se a um pensamento impossível de ser expresso, indizível (será que um surdo-mudo estará mais próximo disso?). É possível que o significado indizível da música, tão flagrantemente somático em algumas das suas componentes filtrais, ofereça uma analogia. Os níveis que a psicologia profunda, tais como a psicanálise ou a hipnose, identifica como subconscientes, para não dizer inconscientes, são superficiais, quando emergem em palavras, imagens, sonhos ou representações simbólicas. Na geofísica da psique humana, estão longe da crosta. E, mesmo na superfície, não se verifica nada mais do que um controlo intermitente.

George Steiner, ‘Dez Razões (Possíveis) para a Tristeza do Pensamento

Robert & Shana ParkeHarrison - Photography

The Philosopher's Zone

The simplest questions often have the most complex answers. The Philosopher's Zone is your guide through the strange thickets of logic, metaphysics and ethics.
Here

Motivated reasoning

"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up your men to collect wood, and give orders and distribute the work. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery



You think you're right, even when you're wrong.

"If you really want to improve your judgement as individuals and as societies, what we need most is not more instruction in logic or rhetoric or probability or economics. Even though those things are quite valuable. But what we most need to use those principles well, is the 'scout mindset'. We need to change the way we feel. We need to learn how to feel proud, instead of ashamed, when we notice we might have been wrong about something. We need to learn how to feel intrigued instead of defensive, when we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs. What do you most yearn for? Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs? Or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"
Julia Galef



"This is a case of what scientists refer to as “motivated reasoning,” a phenomenon in which our unconscious motivations, desires and fears shape the way we interpret information. Some pieces of information feel like our allies — we want them to win; we want to defend them. And other pieces of information are the enemy, and we want to shoot them down."

"I dream my painting and then I paint my dream" – Van Gogh

Wu-wei or Trying Not to Try

"Let’s begin with a little exercise. Go down the column of words below, and as quickly as possible read each word silently and then say out loud either “upper” or “lower,” depending on whether the word itself is written in upper-or lowercase letters.

UPPER
lower
lower
upper
LOWER

Unless you are an alien cyborg from Alpha Centauri, you were probably cruising along until you reached the last two, where you stumbled a bit and took longer to say “lower” while reading upper, and then “upper” while reading LOWER. That slight catch as you began to talk—that feeling of needing to stop yourself, to not read the word but instead focus on its case—has been referred to as the oomph that is the hallmark of conscious will or effort. A task that presents someone with this kind of mismatch between the meaning of a word and its physical appearance is commonly referred to as a “Stroop task,” after the American psychologist who published a paper on the effect in the 1930s, originally using words printed in incompatible colors (for example, the word green printed in red ink). The Stroop task is a classic example of what’s called a cognitive control or executive control task—that is, a situation where the cold, conscious mind (System 2) has to step in and override automatic, effortless processes (System 1)."

"Armed with this information, we can now see how a brain on wu-wei might function. We can even get a reasonably precise picture of it, thanks to some recent neuroscientific work on wu-wei–like states. A clever study by Charles Limb and Allen Braun peered into what’s happening in the minds of professional jazz pianists in action. They designed a special, nonferromagnetic keyboard that could be taken inside the fMRI scanner, which is basically a huge magnet. The researchers then had them play in two different conditions. In the first, “Scales,” they were required to play, over and over, a one-octave C scale. In the “Jazz Improv” condition, they were asked to remain in the same key but improvise a melody based upon a composition they’d previously been asked to memorize."

Aqui

Why Cultivating Nonconformity is More Important Than Ever

"Along with the natural fact that physical frontiers have receded, four social trends have conspired to root out belief in secrets… First is incrementalism. From an early age, we are taught that the right way to do things is to proceed one very small step at a time, day by day, grade by grade… Second is risk aversion. People are scared of secrets because they are scared of being wrong… Third is complacency. Social elites have the most freedom and ability to explore new thinking, but they seem to believe in secrets the least. Why search for a new secret if you can comfortably collect rents on everything that has already been done?… Fourth is “flatness.” As globalization advances, people perceive the world as one homogeneous, highly competitive marketplace: the world is “flat.” Given that assumption, anyone who might have had the ambition to look for a secret will first ask himself: if it were possible to discover something new, wouldn’t someone from the faceless global talent pool of smarter and more creative people have found it already?"


The Smart Parent series suggests 10 tips:

1. Choosing a school where critical thinking is valued
2. Modeling creative work and service
3. Advocating that every learner is unique
4. Go outside, raise a wild child
5. Dropping everything and exploring the world
6. Talk about the world at the dinner table
7. Build a portfolio of creative work product
8. Abandoning gender stereotypes
9. Find a mentor
10. Promote powerful learning experiences

Aqui

The Rage to Conclude

"The rage for wanting to conclude is one of the most deadly and most fruitless manias to befall humanity. Each religion and each philosophy has pretended to have God to itself, to measure the infinite, and to know the recipe for happiness. What arrogance and what nonsense! I see, to the contrary, that the greatest geniuses and the greatest works have never concluded."
Flaubert

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

Dialética

Philosophy is the synthesis of collaboration and opposition, par excellence.



How philosophy works: it's collaborative.
The progress is made through opposition.
This means that, when philosophers get together, they try to investigate a problem. They try to find out what is true, what is right, what makes sense.
But in order to do so, they have to oppose each other, they have to challenge each other, question each other's assumptions.
The word that captures all these "checking" principles is RE-EVALUATION.
Philosophy demands that one re-evaluate.

Penso, logo existo

"Se o pensamento correcto não é verdade absoluta, nem o caminho da salvação, então não há razão para lutar com qualquer pessoa cujo pensamento a tenha levado a ter opiniões diferentes da nossa." […] A ênfase dada ao pensamento tem ainda uma outra consequência histórica de peso. A ideia de se poder encontrar a verdade no pensamento conduziu não só à formação de dogmas, mas também ao desenvolvimento da ciência. No pensamento científico, só o pensamento correcto interessa, tanto do ponto de vista da honestidade intelectual como do ponto de vista da técnica, ou seja, da aplicação da ciência à prática."
Erich Fromm, in A Arte de Amar