Critical thinking - currently a lost art, how to retrieve it? How do we get university’s to reengage students in historical facts, geopolitical facts, just facts to engage the crucial need for asking critical questions
Are critical thinking skills best introduced to children using Boolean logic leading on to predicate logic which stresses the importance for constructing arguments which make sense?
(Such methods used to be taught in advanced level maths in the UK, but I recall at the age of 18 wondering why I hadn't been introduced to them much earlier.)
I see nonsense arguments and illogical ideas accepted by media and academics all the time. Sometimes for decades until they’re accepted in the mainstream. Things that are logically impossible on the face of it. I’d hope that can be taught but you would need teachers capable of understanding and teaching that to others. Not easy. Even Peter Boghossian who tried so hard, often let flawed arguments go unchallenged in an effort to show respect to all sides and avoid conflict. Great teachers and a well designed curriculum would be critical.
Its introduction is no more difficult than basic Trig and Calculus at 13/14, I'd argue, Plus it's more fun because language becomes part of maths (faulty syllogisms for example: All birds fly, an ostrich is a bird, an ostrich can fly.) It gets you thinking about truth.
Are critical thinking skills always positively associated with intelligence or is there a certain point they decline with increasing intelligence as you fail to let youself see the flaws in your own arguments/ideas/opinions?
Intelligence is crucial, but most people can be taught to think more effectively. For example, even really smart people can benefit from an introduction to Bayesian framing and easily made cognitive misconceptions.
There is a Bayesian mantra from medicine: base rate, sensitivity, specificity. The test for breast cancer is 90% accurate- catches 9 out of 10 cancers- but in this low-risk population, only 1 in 100 women actually have breast cancer. So for every 100 tests: 1 true positive, 9 false positives. That “positive” result? Only a 10% chance it’s real cancer.
On the flip side smart people have stronger motivational bias. The research on Solution Aversion shows that the only way that smart people and mere lesser mortals differ is that smarter people can usually come up with more reasons to dismiss evidence with which they emotionally or ideologically disagree.
I try to have rational discussions with friends about US and UK politics but many seem incapable of seeing other perspectives or accepting facts counter to the narrative they seem to be stuck on i.e trump is a fascist/warmonger/evil, people putting up England flags are racist, empathy for all illegal migrants, transwomen are women etc.
Why is this and how do you break this spell, as facts and reasonable discussion seem to repeatedly fail?
Means versus ends can work with the less ideologically possessed. If you acknowledge the ambition might be noble, but the means by which it is achieved CAN cause more harm than good, then some people are open to this approach, given it doesn't jeopardise their status as a morally good person.
Here's a good one. DEI might be a noble aim, but in practice it causes more Black and LGBT to leave their employers because DEI training makes the workplace more uncomfortable for them. Explain the concept of attributional ambiguity and argue that DEI training causes other people in the workplace to walk on eggshells around the marginalised, inhibiting natural human informal and empathetic relations like workplace banter, gripes and small talk.
Attributional ambiguity is awful. The more current research highlights hostile attribution bias, a close cousin of attributional ambiguity. In short bad DEI training makes minorities miserable, by making them see most interactions in a more negative light.
Thanks for the response, but have tried similar lines of reasoning and it's like these things simply don't compute for some. It's almost like cult programming when I talk to some people, where I will have a clear rational explanation, showing understanding of their perspective but offering others. But anything counter to their narrative simply can't exist or they have then simply got angry or defaulted to essentially saying they are right and any other view is racist/evil/nazi/bigotry. Ironically these people think they have a lot of empathy but are unable to have any empathy for other plights and perspectives outside of the Omnicause.
Yes, well that's why I stated it only worked with the less ideologically possessed. With many it's a hopeless cause- they've been conditioned to see arguments which run counter to their preferred narratives as unconsciously serving the White Straight Patriarchy.
It is such a shame as many of my left leaning friends think this like this and would consider themselves reasonable/moderate. It's like they believe their form of hate is acceptabe because they are the 'good' guys.
To be clear I still feel I am a lefty for the most part, but I have truly held to my liberal values (free speech, live and let live, suspicious of corporate influence etc) where they will reveal they haven't held to these in discussion but can't overcome the cognitive dissonance they experience with this.
Hi Kaizen , will the left actually change their minds around the propaganda (fine people hoax, hands up dont shoot, injecting bleach etc) or have they got so much ego invested in the lies that they would rather double down than admit they are wrong? Ie thankyou for trying but is it winnable!
I love Kaizen’s video posts on X and am really looking forward to hearing his back story and how he got to where he is today. Is he the next Thomas Sowell??
To break the spell of captured ideological people who have no interest in listening to or debating with people who don’t hold their views is going to take a mammoth effort starting with schools and universities. In your experience how can this be achieved
Why isn't anyone going on Joe Rogon's podcast and talking about the podcasters influence on the younger generations ability to critically think? Why critically think or think at all when you can let Joe Rogon's guest do it for you?
So you changed your mind about Trump. I don’t think the man’s perfect by any stretch so my question is what policies do you like from the Trump presidency and what policies do you not like and why?
Critical thinking - currently a lost art, how to retrieve it? How do we get university’s to reengage students in historical facts, geopolitical facts, just facts to engage the crucial need for asking critical questions
Are critical thinking skills best introduced to children using Boolean logic leading on to predicate logic which stresses the importance for constructing arguments which make sense?
(Such methods used to be taught in advanced level maths in the UK, but I recall at the age of 18 wondering why I hadn't been introduced to them much earlier.)
I see nonsense arguments and illogical ideas accepted by media and academics all the time. Sometimes for decades until they’re accepted in the mainstream. Things that are logically impossible on the face of it. I’d hope that can be taught but you would need teachers capable of understanding and teaching that to others. Not easy. Even Peter Boghossian who tried so hard, often let flawed arguments go unchallenged in an effort to show respect to all sides and avoid conflict. Great teachers and a well designed curriculum would be critical.
Its introduction is no more difficult than basic Trig and Calculus at 13/14, I'd argue, Plus it's more fun because language becomes part of maths (faulty syllogisms for example: All birds fly, an ostrich is a bird, an ostrich can fly.) It gets you thinking about truth.
Are critical thinking skills always positively associated with intelligence or is there a certain point they decline with increasing intelligence as you fail to let youself see the flaws in your own arguments/ideas/opinions?
Intelligence is crucial, but most people can be taught to think more effectively. For example, even really smart people can benefit from an introduction to Bayesian framing and easily made cognitive misconceptions.
There is a Bayesian mantra from medicine: base rate, sensitivity, specificity. The test for breast cancer is 90% accurate- catches 9 out of 10 cancers- but in this low-risk population, only 1 in 100 women actually have breast cancer. So for every 100 tests: 1 true positive, 9 false positives. That “positive” result? Only a 10% chance it’s real cancer.
On the flip side smart people have stronger motivational bias. The research on Solution Aversion shows that the only way that smart people and mere lesser mortals differ is that smarter people can usually come up with more reasons to dismiss evidence with which they emotionally or ideologically disagree.
I try to have rational discussions with friends about US and UK politics but many seem incapable of seeing other perspectives or accepting facts counter to the narrative they seem to be stuck on i.e trump is a fascist/warmonger/evil, people putting up England flags are racist, empathy for all illegal migrants, transwomen are women etc.
Why is this and how do you break this spell, as facts and reasonable discussion seem to repeatedly fail?
Means versus ends can work with the less ideologically possessed. If you acknowledge the ambition might be noble, but the means by which it is achieved CAN cause more harm than good, then some people are open to this approach, given it doesn't jeopardise their status as a morally good person.
Here's a good one. DEI might be a noble aim, but in practice it causes more Black and LGBT to leave their employers because DEI training makes the workplace more uncomfortable for them. Explain the concept of attributional ambiguity and argue that DEI training causes other people in the workplace to walk on eggshells around the marginalised, inhibiting natural human informal and empathetic relations like workplace banter, gripes and small talk.
Attributional ambiguity is awful. The more current research highlights hostile attribution bias, a close cousin of attributional ambiguity. In short bad DEI training makes minorities miserable, by making them see most interactions in a more negative light.
Thanks for the response, but have tried similar lines of reasoning and it's like these things simply don't compute for some. It's almost like cult programming when I talk to some people, where I will have a clear rational explanation, showing understanding of their perspective but offering others. But anything counter to their narrative simply can't exist or they have then simply got angry or defaulted to essentially saying they are right and any other view is racist/evil/nazi/bigotry. Ironically these people think they have a lot of empathy but are unable to have any empathy for other plights and perspectives outside of the Omnicause.
Any other advice welcome, thanks for replying 👍
Yes, well that's why I stated it only worked with the less ideologically possessed. With many it's a hopeless cause- they've been conditioned to see arguments which run counter to their preferred narratives as unconsciously serving the White Straight Patriarchy.
It is such a shame as many of my left leaning friends think this like this and would consider themselves reasonable/moderate. It's like they believe their form of hate is acceptabe because they are the 'good' guys.
To be clear I still feel I am a lefty for the most part, but I have truly held to my liberal values (free speech, live and let live, suspicious of corporate influence etc) where they will reveal they haven't held to these in discussion but can't overcome the cognitive dissonance they experience with this.
Hi Kaizen , will the left actually change their minds around the propaganda (fine people hoax, hands up dont shoot, injecting bleach etc) or have they got so much ego invested in the lies that they would rather double down than admit they are wrong? Ie thankyou for trying but is it winnable!
I am thinking of mirroring Kaizen's name change based on Lean Principles. I'm going with "Muda".
I love Kaizen’s video posts on X and am really looking forward to hearing his back story and how he got to where he is today. Is he the next Thomas Sowell??
I have enjoyed Kaizen's methodical explorations of statements, accusations, and straight up propaganda. Facts are the foundation of his analysis.
1. What drew him to philosophy as a field of study and, which philosophers' lives-not just their thoughts and teachings- does he most admire and why?
2. What were the best and worst parts of studying at Harvard?
To break the spell of captured ideological people who have no interest in listening to or debating with people who don’t hold their views is going to take a mammoth effort starting with schools and universities. In your experience how can this be achieved
Why isn't anyone going on Joe Rogon's podcast and talking about the podcasters influence on the younger generations ability to critically think? Why critically think or think at all when you can let Joe Rogon's guest do it for you?
So you changed your mind about Trump. I don’t think the man’s perfect by any stretch so my question is what policies do you like from the Trump presidency and what policies do you not like and why?
Who has been your greatest influence?