Moving from Analysis to Evaluation Or your opinion isn’t enough anymore

How do we make judgments? Often quick, instinctive, even “knee-jerk” Often rely on non-critical thinking “That’s what I like.” “We’ve always done it this way.” “That’s how people around here think.” Rarely stop to consider the underlying criteria for making our judgments— We judge on autopilot, not on standards.

Intellectual Traits Required Intellectual Integrity: willingness to hold yourself to the same high standards you hold others to. Pursuit of truth: willingness to change your mind, even if it’s painful or leads you to an uncomfortable place.

Standards of Critical Thinking Clearness (C) Accuracy (A) Importance, Relevance (I,R) Sufficiency Depth Breadth Precision CRTW shorthand for all of these is “CAIR STANDARDS”

Characteristics of Clear Thought Easily understood: uses language, examples, and illustrations appropriate to the subject & the audience Free from the likelihood of misunderstanding Implications of the argument are readily apparent

Impediments to Clear Writing I-focused, not you-focused Not anticipating what others won’t understand Not overcoming filters and barriers that inhibit clearness

Accurate Thinking Describing the way things actually are Bound by what is provable—but standards of proof may vary. Can’t be based on “Well, it could have been like this…” (e.g. Obama’s birth certificate) Assumptions and evaluative criteria can be articulated and defended

Impediments to Accuracy Fear Inertia, Habits, Enculturation Wishful thinking and denial Hasty generalization Folk wisdom Limited or non-representative sampling Non-critical thinking

Importance, Relevance Elements that really matter in deciding an issue—often founded on concepts underlying the assumptions Not always the glamorous or exciting parts, and not always the comfortable or likable ones, either May vary from person to person (both in the writer and the reader)

Impediments to Relevancy Losing sight of the purpose Losing sight of the context Not setting “weights” on information Refusing to consider evidence presented Jumping to conclusions Succumbing to undue outside influence

Sufficiency Has to do with both quantity and quality Makes you slow down and ask about all the steps Requires you to get past old habits and enculturation i.e., “show your work”

Depth Making yourself look at concepts and theories underlying the assumptions Checking the sources to see what the information is based on Thinking about an issue in 3-D: scuba diving, not jet-skiing Antidote to “surf and click” reading and thinking

Breadth Expanding the world-view of the question (responding to egocentrism and developmental thinking) Seeing the “big picture” Thinking “outside the box” Not thinking in clichés, not using a cliché as proof instead of thinking based on a new angle or from fresh view

Precision Using the right terms, not the nearly-right terms Avoiding hyperbole (too much) and sound bites (not enough) Not relying on generalities and stereotypes but going for specifics (e.g. not “Democrats raise taxes” but “Obama’s economic plan will raise taxes for the top 1% of wage earners”)

Evaluating these standards often is contextual—depends on the moment, the purpose, and the audience bound by point of view

Overcoming impediments to applying the standards Intellectual integrity: the resolve to do the work and not take short-cuts (especially in a hurry) Replacing stereotypes, egocentrism, haste, enculturated patterns, and habitual thinking with reasoned examination of real evidence Accepting that some things can’t be proven “absolutely”— Asking yourself, “have I done enough thinking for what my stance and moment require?”