Be prepared to speak. Think about what you are going to say before it's said. Do the research necessary to back up your information.
Deborah,
This is an excellent summary of the characteristics. Very well stated.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
A critical thinker gathers information about a product, topic, political issue, or social issue then analyzes this information then forms an opinion. Analyzing information is the ability to discard information that is either faulty or does not have proper supporting evidence.
A crticial thinker asks questions and does not take information at face value. Also, this individual wants to make a decision based on facts rather than here say.
An example would be purchasing a new car. A critical thinker would take the commercials at their value. This individual would research the car looking such things as its safety record; ask people who have this particular car what they like versus what they don't like about the car;
specifications of the car like the type of brakes; gas mileage the car gets; are there any recalls on the car; amount of money to insure the car; warranty information; what is the future of this car--is the manufacturer going to discontinue the car within the next year; availability; and the list could go on depending on the information that is gathered.
The critical thinker takes time to do the research.
Pamela,
Stretching the limits, in a logical manner, is a key part of good critical thinking. Very good.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
I think that a critical thinker looks outside the box in every situation and understands that you can't go on auto pilot when dealing with people and the way that they are psychologically as well as emotionally. Because they both dictate how people react thus causing several differant scenarios to occur out of one action.
Critical thinks take the information in quickly and formulate their reactions based on past knowledge that they have stored in the left side of their brains where it is filed away and easily retrieved.
These "critical thinkers" do well in the medical field as well as the polital field because they are quick on their feet verbally as well as physically.
Deborah,
Yes, study and analyze the empirical data, then reflect on the relavant variables for positive change to the specific situation. Good points. Thank you for sharing.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
Someone who takes the time to study and analyze the situation. Shifting their mindset to process and problem solve the situation or problem at hand.
Linda,
Those are all very important qualities of a critical thinker. Thank you for your insights.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
In my opinion, a critical thinker is someone that maintains an open mind while gathering information and is able to take the total picture and make an educated decision based on their evaluation of the material presented.
Donna,
Yes, I believe this sums it up well. It is the "appropriately" that often introduces ambiguity into the situation. Thank you for your contribution.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
A good critical thinker is someone who analyzes all of the information available, assimilates the information, and is then able to apply the knowledge gained appropriately.
Chris,
This is an excellent description. Well stated.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
I believe a critacal thinker has developed his/her skills enought to be able to "see the forest for the trees". They are able to choose which information is important and relevant to their situation, ignore the irrelavant details, and feel comfortable that they have made the "right" choice or best decision for the problem at hand.
Angela Hutchinson,
I like your wheel analogy. Sometimes our "wheels" may have individual preferences that we use as knowledge at different times. If we can individually verify what we understand as our knowledge to be truly objective knowledge, then I believe your analogy is very accurate. The post. Thank you for your insights.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
A person who can take known data that was previously learned and apply that knowledge to a current problem. You gain knowledge throughout life and should apply this knowledge to current situations by association. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but you do need to examine how the knowledge of the wheel can help you to develop new ideas.
Stephanie,
I have enjoyed our dialogue. Thank you for your enthusiastic, and insightful contributions.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
No apology is necessary. Thank you for the explanation, though. I can see where you were coming from now, and I would tend to agree. Your perspective on morals is also very interesting. Something to think about...It seems to make some sense. History suggests that your theory holds--as people gain education and begin to learn how to think, they begin to agree on certain foundational moral principles... Hmm... Thank you for your conversation. This touches on ideas I've been interested in for some time, and I enjoyed hearing your perspective.
Stephanie,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I totally agree that Critical Thinking is not always the appropriate deciding approach (most of the Arts, for example come from a very affective perspective). My comments were related primarily to the application of Critical Thinking (as appropriate) within the cognitive realm. In most of us humans, those two are not often easily separated.
Additionally, even in the critical thinking arena (I believe) unique perspectives can be very helpful in so much as they are additive in nature (expanding the viewpoint) and not narrow, restrictive or exclusionary. As a science and technology teacher for over 25 years, I find that many unique perspectives often provide multiple opportunities for advancement and growth. These are the seeds for going beyond where we are. I apologize that I did not present my whole thought in an adequate manner the first time.
Nevertheless, I do believe that cultural issues rest on human preferences, but morals are likely to be more substantive at a level above individual preference, or popular vote. This comes from more easily identifiable extremes like murder (as opposed to killing) and slavery, where human lives are taken by strangers with no cause except that it is their preference to take the life. Yet, I do not believe any group or person, (current or past) has correctly identified all of the xxxxillions of those lesser obvious absolutes. In other words, I believe no mortal human has grasped the moral reality in whole. The discussions/arguments rage, but who can definitively say who is right, or who is closer to being right, or if no one is right. My thinking leads me to believe (like in science) just because a definitive answer is not available, it does not mean one does not exist. Morals, to me, seem to be too foundational to human dignity/equality (another moral?) to be equated to cultural or individual preferences...just my 2 cents...my opinion. ;-]
Thank you for your insights and contributions. I have greatly enjoyed this academic work out.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
Thank you for your reply; it certainly makes me think. I agree with a lot of what you've said.
I agree that the topic needs to be taken further, and often we end up discussing it up to the point of individual versus group/society, which typically ends in very strong opinions and deteriorates. Often, it ends with a brief discussion of how the argument demonstrates the importance of good reasoning and evidence, as well as how individual biases alter our perceptions. Of course, in a course meant to introduce critical thinking to undergraduates, my goal is often to get them to think at all beyond the "give me the multiple choice answer" they are used to. Maybe that's a cop-out on my part, but I only have a lot of material and very limited time...
Your last point is an interesting one. The characteristics of good critical thinkers may require a removal of individual and unique perspectives, but the question is, "Is that always needed (or even desirable)?" Do we need to apply "Critcial Thinker Characteristics" to everything, or is it only needed in certain situations, and how do we choose? Those are questions I'm faced with by students on a daily basis. Individual's unique perspectives are often exremely valuable and useful, from a cultural and moral perspective, if not from a strictly "logical" one...
Hello Stephanie,
This often a difficult construct to adequately demonstrate (with wide-range acceptance), especially at the undergraduate level. Many students desire a single correct or best answer. When, in fact, there may be many.
Especially when we discuss right or wrong, in today's society, it may need to be taken a few steps further in order to properly discern whether or not there is a single right answer. For instance, is it 'right' to let each person decide 'individually' when it may be right or wrong to kill someone. It may be that the real critical thinking it likely to appear during those next few steps.
Critical Thinking presupposes a dependable, objective logic outside of indiviual biases, culture and preferences. It may also be that the "Critical Thinker Characteristics" are best exemplified when the individual's unique perspectives are laid aside.
Thank you for your thoughtful input with this academic topic.
Dr. S. David Vaillancourt
