7 Guidelines for Critical Thinking

Our focus today: “Research shows that experts can solve problems that novices cannot handle because experts have an edge in knowledge and have more experience in their area of expertise” (from Halpern, 1996) Today we will start becoming experts: (1)Knowledge – we will learn 7 principles (2)Experience – we will apply those principles

Guideline #1 Critical thinkers are flexible – they can tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty Open-minded Avoiding black-and-white analysis Enjoy mysteries and complexities Willing to test their ideas and assumptions

Guideline #2 Critical thinkers identify inherent biases and assumptions Identify biases and assumptions in others Confront our own biases and predispositions

Guideline #3 Critical thinkers maintain an air of skepticism Willingness to self-correct Maintain a skeptical attitude especially about ideas with which we agree

Guideline #4 Critical thinkers separate fact from opinions Evidence, Evidence, Evidence Remain emotionally detached Base conclusions on facts from variety of settings and individuals

Guideline #5 Critical thinkers don’t oversimplify Think divergently Imagine and explore alternative explanations

Guideline #6 Critical thinkers use logical inference processes Total omniscience (knowing everything infinitely) is impossible, so everyone makes inferences based upon the limited information available. Inferences must be logical and well-thought out

Guideline #7 Critical thinkers examine available evidence before drawing conclusions If we examine only one source, we may fall prey to a particular set of biases If we examine several sources, we can identify convergent evidence Source #2 Source #3 Source #4 Source #1

Ongoing dynamic process… Critical Thinking FACTS and EVIDENCE EVALUATE LOGICAL INFERENCES Conclusion

Applying the 7 Guidelines… “On Being Sane in Insane Places” David Rosenhan’s 1973 study described in the Preface of the Ruscio book

“On Being Sane in Insane Places” Purpose of study: - Could mental health professionals tell the “sane” from the “insane” How was it conducted? - 8 mentally healthy individuals admitted to hospitals for complaints of distressing auditory hallucinations. - Once admitted, all acted normally to determine whether the staff would discover their “sanity” and release them What were results? - Released after average of 19 days, with most given revised diagnosis of “schizophrenia in remission”

“On Being Sane in Insane Places” Possible flaws? Confirmation bias: selectively recorded information to support their hypothesis Ignored relevant empirical data Made simplistic overgeneralizations Used faulty logic when arguing that the diagnoses were invalid because schizophrenia is the appropriate diagnosis for the type of “symptoms” reported by the “subjects” Some assertions based upon insufficient evidence Presented no comparative data