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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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”

5. 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

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

7. 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

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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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”

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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”)

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

16. 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?”