22
Permission to Reprint This essay is published by Insight Assessment. The original appeared in 1992, was updated in 1998 and 2004, and again now in 2006. Although the Author and the Publisher hold all copyrights, in the interests of advancing education and improving critical thinking, permission is hereby granted for paper, electronic, or digital copies to be made in unlimited amounts, provided that their distribution is free of charge and provided that whenever material from this essay is cited or extracted in whole or in part that appropriate citation is made by indicating this essay’s full title, author’s name, publisher’s name, year, and page or pages where it appears in this edition. For permission for reprints intended for sale contact Insight Assessment at 650-697-5628. About the Author Dr. Peter A. Facione and his co-investigators have been engaged in research and teaching about reasoning, decision-making, and effective individual and group thinking processes since 1967. Over the years they developed instruments to measure the core skills and habits of mind of effective thinking, these instruments are now in use in many different languages throughout the world. They are available through http://www.insightassessment.com/t.html as are other reports and teaching materials. Since 1992 Dr. Facione has presented hundreds of workshops about effective teaching for thinking and about leadership, decision-making, leadership development, planning and budgeting, and learning outcomes assessment at national and international professional association meetings and on college and university throughout the nation. Dr. Facione, is former Provost at Loyola University Chicago and a Senior Scholar with the National Center for Science and Civic Engagement. A philosopher, he earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State, chaired the Department of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, and served as Dean of the School of Human Development and Community Service at California State University, Fullerton before joining Santa Clara University in 1990. At Santa Clara, he was Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Director of the Graduate Division of Counseling Psychology and Education for many years. Dr. Facione served as the President of the American Conference of Academic Deans. He has been on many boards and panels, including the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the ACE Presidents’ Task Force on Education. In 2005 he became Senior Director for Academic Leadership with Keeling and Associates, a higher education consulting firm. Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 1 2006 Update Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts Peter A. Facione George Carlin worked “critical thinking” into one of his monologue rants on the perils of trusting our lives and fortunes to the decision-making of a gullible, uninformed, and unreflective citizenry. The argument that higher education, while surely both, is more of a public good than a private good, is beginning to be recognized. Is it not a wiser social policy to invest in the education of the future workforce, rather than to suffer the financial loses and endure the fiscal and social burdens associated with economic weakness, public health problems, crime, and avoidable poverty? Teach people to make good decisions and you equip them to improve their own futures and become contributing members of society, rather than burdens on society. Becoming educated and practicing good judgment does not absolutely guarantee a life of happiness, virtue, or economic success, but it surely offers a better chance at those things. And it is clearly better than enduring the consequences of making bad decisions and better than burdening friends, family, and all the rest of us with the unwanted and avoidable consequences of those poor choices.

Critical Thinking Facione

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Critical Thinking Facione

Permission to ReprintThis essay is published by Insight Assessment. The original appeared in 1992, was updated in 1998 and 2004, and again now in 2006.Although the Author and the Publisher hold all copyrights, in the interests of advancing education and improving critical thinking,permission is hereby granted for paper, electronic, or digital copies to be made in unlimited amounts, provided that their distribution isfree of charge and provided that whenever material from this essay is cited or extracted in whole or in part that appropriate citation ismade by indicating this essay’s full title, author’s name, publisher’s name, year, and page or pages where it appears in this edition. Forpermission for reprints intended for sale contact Insight Assessment at 650-697-5628.

About the AuthorDr. Peter A. Facione and his co-investigators have been engaged in research and teaching about reasoning, decision-making, andeffective individual and group thinking processes since 1967. Over the years they developed instruments to measure the core skills andhabits of mind of effective thinking, these instruments are now in use in many different languages throughout the world. They areavailable through http://www.insightassessment.com/t.html as are other reports and teaching materials. Since 1992 Dr. Facione haspresented hundreds of workshops about effective teaching for thinking and about leadership, decision-making, leadership development,planning and budgeting, and learning outcomes assessment at national and international professional association meetings and oncollege and university throughout the nation.

Dr. Facione, is former Provost at Loyola University Chicago and a Senior Scholar with the National Center for Science and CivicEngagement. A philosopher, he earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State, chaired the Department of Philosophy at Bowling Green StateUniversity, and served as Dean of the School of Human Development and Community Service at California State University, Fullertonbefore joining Santa Clara University in 1990. At Santa Clara, he was Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Director of theGraduate Division of Counseling Psychology and Education for many years. Dr. Facione served as the President of the AmericanConference of Academic Deans. He has been on many boards and panels, including the California Commission on TeacherCredentialing and the ACE Presidents’ Task Force on Education. In 2005 he became Senior Director for Academic Leadership withKeeling and Associates, a higher education consulting firm.

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 1

2006 Update

Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts

Peter A. Facione

George Carlin worked “criticalthinking” into one of his monologue rants onthe perils of trusting our lives and fortunes tothe decision-making of a gullible, uninformed,and unreflective citizenry. The argument thathigher education, while surely both, is more ofa public good than a private good, isbeginning to be recognized. Is it not a wisersocial policy to invest in the education of thefuture workforce, rather than to suffer thefinancial loses and endure the fiscal andsocial burdens associated with economicweakness, public health problems, crime,and avoidable poverty? Teach people to

make good decisions and you equip them toimprove their own futures and becomecontributing members of society, rather thanburdens on society. Becoming educated andpracticing good judgment does not absolutelyguarantee a life of happiness, virtue, oreconomic success, but it surely offers a betterchance at those things. And it is clearlybetter than enduring the consequences ofmaking bad decisions and better thanburdening friends, family, and all the rest ofus with the unwanted and avoidableconsequences of those poor choices.

Page 2: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 2

Defining “Critical Thinking”

Yes, surely we have all heardbusiness executives, policy makers, civicleaders, and educators talking about criticalthinking. At times we found ourselveswondering exactly what critical thinking wasand why is it considered so useful andimportant. This essay takes a deeper look atthese questions.

But, rather than beginning with anabstract definition – as if critical thinking wereabout memorization, which is not the case –give this thought experiment a try: Imagineyou have been invited to a movie by a friend.But it’s not a movie you want to see. So, yourfriend asks you why. You give your honestreason. The movie offends your sense ofdecency. Your friend asks you to clarify yourreason by explaining what bothers you aboutthe film. You reply that it is not the languageused or the sexuality portrayed, but you findthe violence in the film offensive.

Sure, that should be a good enoughanswer. But suppose your friend, perhapsbeing a bit philosophically inclined or simplycurious or argumentative, pursues the matterfurther by asking you to define what youmean by “offensive violence.”

Take a minute and give it a try. Howwould you define “offensive violence” as itapplies to movies? Can you write acharacterization which captures what thiscommonly used concept contains? Takecare, though, we would not want to make thedefinition so broad that all movie violencewould be automatically “offensive.” Andcheck to be sure your way of defining“offensive violence” fits with how the rest ofthe people who know and use English wouldunderstand the term. Otherwise they will notbe able to understand what you mean whenyou use that expression.

Did you come up with a definition thatworks? How do you know?

What you just did with the expression“offensive violence” is very much the same aswhat had to be done with the expression“critical thinking.” At one level we all knowwhat “critical thinking” means — it meansgood thinking, almost the opposite of illogical,irrational, thinking. But when we test ourunderstanding further, we run into questions.For example, is critical thinking the same ascreative thinking, are they different, or is onepart of the other? How do critical thinking andnative intelligence or scholastic aptituderelate? Does critical thinking focus on thesubject matter or content that you know or onthe process you use when you reason aboutthat content?

It might not hurt at all if you formedsome tentative preliminary ideas about thequestions we just raised. We humans learnbetter when we stop frequently to reflect,rather than just plowing from the top of thepage to the bottom without coming up for air.

Fine. So how would you propose wego about defining “critical thinking.” You don*treally want a definition plopped on the pagefor you to memorize, do you? That would besilly, almost counterproductive. The goalhere is to help you sharpen your criticalthinking skills and cultivate your criticalthinking spirit. While memorization definitelyhas many valuable uses, fostering criticalthinking is not among them. So, let*s lookback at what you might have done to define“offensive violence” and see if we can learnfrom you. Did you think of some scenes inmovies that were offensively violent, and didyou contrast them with other scenes thatwere either not violent or not offensivelyviolent? If you did, good. That is one (but notthe only) way to approach the problem.Technically it*s called finding paradigm cases.Happily, like many things in life, you do nothave to know its name to do it well.

Back to critical thinking. What mightbe some paradigm cases? How about theadroit and clever questioning of Socrates?

Page 3: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 3

Or, what about police detectives, crime sceneanalysts, or trial lawyers, as portrayed in TVdramas and movies? What about peopleworking together to solve a problem? Howabout someone who is good at listening to allsides of a dispute, considering all the facts,and then deciding what is relevant and whatis not, and then rendering a thoughtfuljudgment? And maybe too, someone who isable to summarize complex ideas clearly withfairness to all sides, or a person who cancome up with the most coherent andjustifiable explanation of what a passage ofwritten material means? Or the person whocan readily devise sensible alternatives toexplore, but who does not become defensiveabout abandoning them if they don*t work?And also the person who can explain exactlyhow a particular conclusion was reached, orwhy certain criteria apply?

An international group of experts wasasked to try to form a consensus about themeaning of critical thinking.1 One of the firstthings they did was to ask themselves thequestion: Who are the best critical thinkerswe know and what is it about them that leadsus to consider them the best? So, who are

the best critical thinkers you know? Why doyou think they are good critical thinkers? Canyou draw from those examples a descriptionthat is more abstract? For example, considereffective trial lawyers, apart from how theyconduct their personal lives or whether theirclient is really guilty or innocent, just look athow the lawyers develop their cases in court.They use reasons to try to convince the judgeand jury of their client*s claim to guilt orinnocence. They offer evidence and evaluatethe significance of the evidence presented bythe opposition lawyers. They interprettestimony. They analyze and evaluate thearguments advanced by the other side.

Now, consider the example of theteam of people trying to solve a problem. Theteam members, unlike the courtroom*sadversarial situation, try to collaborate. Themembers of an effective team do not competeagainst each other. They work in concert, likecolleagues, for the common goal. Unlessthey solve the problem, none of them haswon. When they find the way to solve theproblem, they all have won. So, fromanalyzing just two examples we cangeneralize something very important: criticalthinking is thinking that has a purpose(proving a point, interpreting what somethingmeans, solving a problem), but criticalthinking can be a collaborative,noncompetitive endeavor. And, by the way,even lawyers collaborate. They can worktogether on a common defense or a jointprosecution, and they can also cooperate witheach other to get at the truth so that justice isdone.

We will come to a more precisedefinition of critical thinking soon enough. Butfirst, there is something else we can learnfrom paradigm examples. When you werethinking about “offensive violence” did youcome up with any examples that were toughto classify? Borderline cases, as it were —an example that one person might consideroffensive but another might reasonablyregard as non-offensive. Yes, well, so did

1The quotation from John Chaffee is from Conversations withCritical Thinkers , John Esterle and Dan Clurman (Eds.). Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993.

How Has CT Changed My Life?

"Critical Thinking is my life, it's myphilosophy of life. It's how I definemyself... I'm an educator because Ithink these ideas have meaning.I'm convinced that what we believein has to be able to stand the testof evaluation."

John Chaffee, author of Critical Thinking

Page 4: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 4

we. This is going to happen with all abstractconcepts. It happens with the concept ofcritical thinking as well. There are people ofwhom we would say, on certain occasionsthis person is a good thinker, clear, logical,thoughtful, attentive to the facts, open toalternatives, but, wow, at other times, lookout! When you get this person onsuch-and-such a topic, well it*s all over then.You*ve pushed some kind of button and theperson does not want to hear what anybodyelse has to say. The person*s mind is madeup ahead of time. New facts are pushedaside. No other point of view is tolerated.

Do you know any people that might fitthat general description?

Good. What can we learn aboutcritical thinking from such a case? Maybemore than we can learn from just looking atthe easy cases. For when a case is on theborderline, it forces us to make importantdistinctions. It confronts us and demands adecision: In or Out! And not just that, butwhy? So, our friend who is fair-minded aboutsome things, but close-minded about others,what to do? Let*s take the parts we approveof because they seem to us to contribute toacting rationally and logically and includethose in the concept of critical thinking, andlet*s take the parts that work against reason,that close the mind to the possibility of newand relevant information, that blindly denyeven the possibility that the other side mighthave merit, and call those poor,counterproductive, or uncritical thinking.

Now, formulate a list of cases —people that are clearly good critical thinkersand clearly poor critical thinkers and somewho are on the borderline. Considering allthose cases, what is it about them that ledyou to decide which were which?Suggestion: What can the good criticalthinkers do (what mental abilities do theyhave), that the poor critical thinkers havetrouble doing? What attitudes or approachesdo the good critical thinkers habitually seem

to exhibit which the poor critical thinkersseem not to possess?Critical Thinking Skills

Above we suggested you look for a listof mental abilities and attitudes or habits, theexperts, when faced with the same problemyou are working on, refer to their lists asincluding cognitive skills and dispositions. Asto the cognitive skills here*s what the expertsinclude as being at the very core of criticalthinking: interpretation, analysis, evaluation,inference, explanation, and self-regulation.(We*ll get to the dispositions in just asecond.) Did any of these words or ideascome up when you tried to characterize thecognitive skills — mental abilities — involvedin critical thinking?

Quoting from the consensusstatement of the national panel of experts:interpretation is “to comprehend andexpress the meaning or significance of a widevariety of experiences, situations, data,events, judgments, conventions, beliefs,

“Very few really seek knowledge inthis world. Mortal or immortal, fewreally ask. On the contrary, theytry to wring from the unknown theanswers they have already shapedin their own minds – justification,explanations, forms of consolationwithout which they can’t go on. Toreally ask is to open the door to thewhirlwind. The answer mayannihilate the question and thequestioner.”

Spoken by the Vampire Marius in Ann Rice’s book The Vampire Lestat

Ballantine Books. New York, NY. 1985.

Page 5: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 5

INFERENCEANALYSIS

EXPLANATION

EVALUATION

INTERPRETATION

Critical Thinking

SELF-REGULATION

Core Critical Thinking Skills

rules, procedures, or criteria.”2 Interpretationincludes the sub-skills of categorization,decoding significance, and clarifyingmeaning. Can you think of examples ofinterpretation? How about recognizing aproblem and describing it without bias? Howabout reading a person*s intentions in theexpression on her face; distinguishing a mainidea from subordinate ideas in a text;constructing a tentative categorization or wayof organizing something you are studying;paraphrasing someone*s ideas in your ownwords; or, clarifying what a sign, chart orgraph means? What about identifying anauthor*s purpose, theme, or point of view?How about what you did above when youclarified what “offensive violence” meant?

Again from the experts: analysis is “toidentify the intended and actual inferentialrelationships among statements, questions,concepts, descriptions, or other forms ofrepresentation intended to express belief,judgment, experiences, reasons, information,or opinions.” The experts include examiningideas, detecting arguments, and analyzingarguments as sub-skills of analysis. Again,can you come up with some examples ofanalysis? What about identifying thesimilarities and differences between twoapproaches to the solution of a givenproblem? What about picking out the mainclaim made in a newspaper editorial andtracing back the various reasons the editor

offers in support of that claim? Or, whatabout identifying unstated assumptions;constructing a way to represent a mainconclusion and the various reasons given tosupport or criticize it; sketching therelationship of sentences or paragraphs toeach other and to the main purpose of thepassage? What about graphically organizingthis essay, in your own way, knowing that itspurpose is to give a preliminary idea aboutwhat critical thinking means?

The experts define evaluation asmeaning “to assess the credibility ofstatements or other representations which areaccounts or descriptions of a person*sperception, experience, situation, judgment,belief, or opinion; and to assess the logicalstrength of the actual or intended inferentialrelationships among statements, descriptions,questions or other forms of representation.”Your examples? How about judging anauthor*s or speaker’s credibility, comparingthe strengths and weaknesses of alternativeinterpretations, determining the credibility of asource of information, judging if twostatements contradict each other, or judgingif the evidence at hand supports theconclusion being drawn? Among theexamples the experts propose are these:“recognizing the factors which make a persona credible witness regarding a given event ora credible authority with regard to a giventopic,” “judging if an argument*s conclusionfollows either with certainty or with a highlevel of confidence from its premises,”

2The findings of expert consensus cited or reported inthis essay are published in Critical Thinking: A Statement ofExpert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment andInstruction. Peter A. Facione, principle investigator, The CaliforniaAcademic Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990. (ERIC ED 315 423). In1993/94 the Center for the Study of Higher Education at ThePennsylvania State University undertook a study of 200 policy-makers, employers, and faculty members from two-year and four-year colleges to determine what this group took to be the corecritical thinking skills and habits of mind. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Study, under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Jones, wasfunded by the US Department of Education Office of EducationalResearch and Instruction. The Penn State study findings,published in 1994, confirmed the expert consensus described inthis paper.

Page 6: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 6

“judging the logical strength of argumentsbased on hypothetical situations,” “judging ifa given argument is relevant or applicable orhas implications for the situation at hand.”

Do the people you regard as goodcritical thinkers have the three cognitive skillsdescribed so far? Are they good atinterpretation, analysis, and evaluation?What about the next three? And yourexamples of poor critical thinkers, are theylacking in these cognitive skills? All, or justsome?

To the experts inference means “toidentify and secure elements needed to drawreasonable conclusions; to form conjecturesand hypotheses; to consider relevantinformation and to educe the consequencesflowing from data, statements, principles,evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions,concepts, descriptions, questions, or otherforms of representation.” As sub-skills ofinference the experts list querying evidence,conjecturing alternatives, and drawingconclusions. Can you think of someexamples of inference? You might suggestthings like seeing the implications of theposition someone is advocating, or drawingout or constructing meaning from theelements in a reading. You may suggest thatpredicting what will happen next based whatis known about the forces at work in a givensituation, or formulating a synthesis of relatedideas into a coherent perspective. How aboutthis: after judging that it would be useful toyou to resolve a given uncertainty, developinga workable plan to gather that information?Or, when faced with a problem, developing aset of options for addressing it. What about,conducting a controlled experimentscientifically and applying the properstatistical methods to attempt to confirm ordisconfirm an empirical hypothesis?

Beyond being able to interpret,analyze, evaluate and infer, good criticalthinkers can do two more things. They canexplain what they think and how they arrived

at that judgment. And, they can apply theirpowers of critical thinking to themselves andimprove on their previous opinions. Thesetwo skills are called “explanation” and“self-regulation.”

The experts define explanation asbeing able to present in a cogent andcoherent way the results of one*s reasoning.This means to be able to give someone a fulllook at the big picture: both “to state and tojustify that reasoning in terms of theevidential, conceptual, methodological,criteriological, and contextual considerationsupon which one*s results were based; and topresent one*s reasoning in the form of cogentarguments.” The sub-skills under explanationare describing methods and results, justifyingprocedures, proposing and defending withgood reasons one’s causal and conceptualexplanations of events or points of view, andpresenting full and well-reasoned, argumentsin the context of seeking the bestunderstandings possible. Your examplesfirst, please... Here are some more: toconstruct a chart which organizes one*sfindings, to write down for future referenceyour current thinking on some important andcomplex matter, to cite the standards andcontextual factors used to judge the quality ofan interpretation of a text, to state researchresults and describe the methods and criteriaused to achieve those results, to appeal toestablished criteria as a way of showing thereasonableness of a given judgment, todesign a graphic display which accuratelyrepresents the subord inate andsuper-ordinate relationship among conceptsor ideas, to site the evidence that led you toaccept or reject an author*s position on anissue, to list the factors that were consideredin assigning a final course grade.

Maybe the most remarkable cognitiveskill of all, however, is this next one. This oneis remarkable because it allows good criticalthinkers to improve their own thinking. In asense this is critical thinking applied to itself.Because of that some people want to call this

Page 7: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 7

“meta-cognition,” meaning it raises thinking toanother level. But “another level” really doesnot fully capture it, because at that next levelup what self-regulation does is look back atall the dimensions of critical thinking anddouble check itself. Self-regulation is like arecursive function in mathematical terms,which means it can apply to everything,including itself. You can monitor and correctan interpretation you offered. You canexamine and correct an inference you havedrawn. You can review and reformulate oneof your own explanations. You can evenexamine and correct your ability to examineand correct yourself! How? It*s as simple asstepping back and saying to yourself, “Howam I doing? Have I missed anythingimportant? Let me double check before I gofurther.”

The experts define self-regulation tomean “self-consciously to monitor one*scognitive activities, the elements used inthose activities, and the results educed,particularly by applying skills in analysis, andevaluation to one*s own inferential judgmentswith a view toward questioning, confirming,validating, or correcting either one*sreasoning or one*s results.” The twosub-skills here are self-examination andself-correction. Examples? Easy — toexamine your views on a controversial issuewith sensitivity to the possible influences ofyour personal biases or self-interest, to checkyourself when listening to a speaker in orderto be sure you are understanding what theperson is really saying without introducingyour own ideas, to monitor how well youseem to be understanding or comprehendingwhat you are reading or experiencing, toremind yourself to separate your personalopinions and assumptions from those of theauthor of a passage or text, to double checkyourself by recalculating the figures, to varyyour reading speed and method mindful ofthe type of material and your purpose forreading, to reconsider your interpretation orjudgment in view of further analysis of thefacts of the case, to revise your answers in

view of the errors you discovered in yourwork, to change your conclusion in view ofthe realization that you had misjudged theimportance of certain factors when coming toyour earlier decision.

The Delphi Method

The panel of experts we keep referringto included forty-six men and women fromthroughout the United States and Canada.They represented many different scholarlydisciplines in the humanities, sciences, socialsciences, and education. They participated ina research project that lasted two years andwas conducted on behalf of the AmericanPhilosophical Association. Their work waspublished under the title Critical Thinking: AStatement of Expert Consensus for Purposesof Educational Assessment and Instruction.(The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA,1990). You may download the executivesummary of that report free. Visitwww.insightassessment.com/articles.html

You might be wondering how such alarge group of people could collaborate onthis project over that long a period of time andat those distances and still come toconsensus. Good question. Rememberwe’re talking the days before e-mail.

Not only did the group have to rely onsnail mail during their two-year collaboration;they also relied on a method of interaction,known as the Delphi Method, which wasdeveloped precisely to enable experts to thinkeffectively about something over large spansof distance and time. In the Delphi Method acentral investigator organizes the group andfeeds them an initial question. [In this case ithad to do with how college level criticalthinking should be defined so that peopleteaching at that level would know which skillsand dispositions to cultivate in their students.]The central investigator receives allresponses, summarizes them, and transmitsthem back to all the panelists for reactions,replies, and additional questions.

Page 8: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 8

Wait a minute! These are all well-known experts, so what do you do if peopledisagree? And what about the possibleinfluence of a big name person? Goodpoints. First, the central investigator takesprecautions to remove names so that thepanelists are not told who said what. Theyknow who is on the panel, of course. Butthat*s as far as it goes. After that eachexpert*s argument has to stand on its ownmerits. Second, an expert is only as good asthe arguments she or he gives. So, thecentral investigator summarizes thearguments and lets the panelists decide ifthey accept them or not. When consensusappears to be at hand, the central investigatorproposes this and asks if people agree. Ifnot, then points of disagreement among theexperts are registered. We want to sharewith you one important example of each ofthese. First we will describe the expertconsensus view of the dispositions which areabsolutely vital to good critical thinking. Thenwe will note a point of separation among theexperts.

The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking

What kind of a person would be apt touse their critical thinking skills? The expertspoetically describe such a person as having“a critical spirit.” Having a critical spirit doesnot mean that the person is always negativeand hypercritical of everyone and everything.The experts use the metaphorical phrasecritical spirit in a positive sense. By it theymean “a probing inquisitiveness, a keennessof mind, a zealous dedication to reason, anda hunger or eagerness for reliableinformation.” Almost sounds like SupremeCourt Justice Sandra Day O’Connor orSherlock Holmes The kind of person beingdescribed here is the kind that always wantsto ask “Why?” or “How?” or “What happensif?”. The one key difference, however, is thatin fiction Sherlock always solves the mystery,while in the real world there is no guarantee.Critical thinking is about how you approach

problems, questions, issues. It is the best waywe know of to get to the truth. But! There stillare no guarantees — no answers in the backof the book of real life. Does thischaracterization, that good critical thinkerspossess a “critical spirit, a probinginquisitiveness, a keenness of mind...” fit withyour examples of people you would call goodcritical thinkers?

But, you might say, I know people whohave skills but don*t use them. We can*t callsomeone a good critical thinker just becauseshe or he has these cognitive skills, howeverimportant they might be, because what if theyjust don*t bother to apply them?

One response is to say that it is hardto imagine an accomplished dancer whonever dances. After working to develop thoseskills it seems such a shame to let them growweak with lack of practice. But dancers gettired. And they surrender to the stiffness ofage or the fear of injury. In the case of criticalthinking skills, we might argue that not usingthem once you have them is hard to imagine.It*s hard to imagine a person deciding not tothink.

Considered as a form of thoughtfuljudgment or reflective decision-making, in avery real sense critical thinking is pervasive.There is hardly a time or a place where itwould not seem to be of potential value. Aslong as people have purposes in mind andwish to judge how to accomplish them, aslong as people wonder what*s true andwhat*s not, what to believe and what to reject,good critical thinking is going to benecessary.

And yet weird things happen, so it*sprobably true that some people might let theirthinking skills grow dull. It*s easier to imaginetimes when people are just too tired, too lax,or too frightened. But imagine it you can,Young Skywalker, so there has to be more tocritical thinking than just the list of cognitiveskills. Human beings are more than thinking

Page 9: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 9

The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking

Truthseeking

Open-minded

Analytical

Systematic Judicious

Confident In Reasoning

Inquisitive

machines. And this brings us back to thoseall-important attitudes which the expertscalled “dispositions.”

The experts were persuaded thatcritical thinking is a pervasive and purposefulhuman phenomenon. The ideal criticalthinker can be characterized not merely byher or his cognitive skills but also by how sheor he approaches life and living in general.This is a bold claim. Critical thinking goesway beyond the classroom. In fact, many ofthe experts fear that some of the thingspeople experience in school are actuallyharmful to the development and cultivation ofgood critical thinking. Critical thinking camebefore schooling was ever invented, it lies atthe very roots of civilization. It is a cornerstone in the journey human kind is takingfrom beastly savagery to global sensitivity.Consider what life would be like without thethings on this list and we think you willunderstand.

The approaches to life and livingwhich characterize critical thinking include:

* inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range ofissues,

* concern to become and remain well-informed,* alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking,* trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry,* self-confidence in one*s own abilities to reason,* open-mindedness regarding divergent world views,* flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions* understanding of the opinions of other people,

* fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning,* honesty in facing one*s own biases, prejudices,

stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies,* prudence in suspending, making or altering

judgments,* willingness to reconsider and revise views where

honest reflection suggests that change iswarranted.

What would someone be like wholacked those dispositions?

It might be someone who does notcare about much of anything, is not interestedin the facts, prefers not to think, mistrustsreasoning as a way of finding things out orsolving problems, holds his or her ownreasoning abilities in low esteem, isclose-minded, inflexible, insensitive, can*tunderstand what others think, is unfair whenit comes to judging the quality of arguments,denies his or her own biases, jumps toconclusions or delays too long in makingjudgments, and never is willing to reconsideran opinion. Not someone we*re eager to sitnext to on a long bus ride or to elect to publicoffice!

The experts went beyond approachesto life and living in general to emphasize thatgood critical thinkers can also be described interms of how they approach specific issues,questions, or problems. The experts said youwould find these sorts of characteristics:

* clarity in stating the question or concern,* orderliness in working with complexity,* diligence in seeking relevant information,* reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria,* care in focusing attention on the concern at hand,* persistence though difficulties are encountered,* precision to the degree permitted by the subject and

the circumstances.

So, how would a poor critical thinkerapproach specific problems or issues?Obviously, by being muddle-headed aboutwhat he or she is doing, disorganized andoverly simplistic, spotty about getting the

Page 10: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 10

facts, apt to apply unreasonable criteria,easily distracted, ready to give up at the leasthint of difficulty, intent on a solution that ismore detailed than is possible, or beingsatisfied with an overly generalized anduselessly vague response. Remind you ofanyone you know?

Someone strongly disposed towardcritical thinking would probably agree withstatements like these:

“I hate talk shows where people shout theiropinions but never give any reasons at all.”

“Figuring out what people really mean by whatthey say is important to me."

“I always do better in jobs where I'm expectedto think things out for myself.”

“I hold off making decisions until I*ve thoughtthrough my options.”

“Rather than relying on someone else's notes,I prefer to read the material myself.”

“I try to see the merit in another*s opinion, evenif I reject it later.”

“Even if a problem is tougher than I expected,I*ll keep working on it.”

“Making intelligent decisions is more importantthan winning arguments.”

A person with weak critical thinkingdispositions would probably disagree with thestatements above but be likely to agree withthese:

“I prefer jobs where the supervisor saysexactly what to do and exactly how to do it."

“No matter how complex the problem, youcan bet there will be a simple solution.”

"I don't waste time looking things up."“I hate when teachers discuss problems

instead of just giving the answers.” “If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to thecontrary is irrelevant."

“Selling an idea is like selling cars, you saywhatever works."

We used the expression “good criticalthinker” to contrast with the expression “poorcritical thinker.” But you will find people whodrop the adjective “good” and just say thatsomeone is a “critical thinker” or not. It*s justlike saying that a baseball player can hit, orcan*t hit, instead of saying the player is agood hitter or a poor hitter. Using the phrase“hitter” in place of “good hitter” (or “critical

thinker” in place of “good critical thinker”) is ahelpful shortcut. It suggests that “hitter” hasa laudatory sense. The word can be used topraise someone at the same time that itidentifies the person, as in “Look, nowthere*s what I call a hitter!”

We said the experts did not come tofull agreement on something. That thing hasto do with the concept of a “good criticalthinker.” This time the emphasis is on theword “good” because of a crucial ambiguity itcontains. A person can be good at criticalthinking, meaning that the person can havethe appropriate dispositions and be adept atthe cognitive processes, while still not beinga good (in the moral sense) critical thinker.For example, a person can be adept atdeveloping arguments and then, unethically,use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullibleperson, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberatelyconfuse and confound, and frustrate aproject.

The experts were faced with aninteresting problem. Some, a minority, wouldprefer to think that critical thinking, by its verynature, is inconsistent with the kinds ofunethical and deliberately counterproductiveexamples given. They find it hard to imagine

“If we were compelled to make achoice between these personalattributes and knowledge about theprinciples of logical reasoningtogether with some degree oftechnical skill in manipulating speciallogical processes, we should decidefor the former.”

John Dewey, How We Think, 1909.Republished as How We Think: A Restatement

of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to theEducational Process. D. C. Heath Publishing.

Lexington, MA. 1933.

Page 11: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 11

a person who was good at critical thinking notalso being good in the broader personal andsocial sense. In other words, if a person were“really” a “good critical thinker” in theprocedural sense and if the person had all theappropriate dispositions, then the personsimply would not do those kinds of exploitiveand aggravating things.

The large majority, however, hold theopposite judgment. They are firm in the viewthat good critical thinking has nothing to dowith any given set of cultural beliefs, religioustenants, ethical values, social mores,political orientations, or orthodoxies of anykind. Rather, the commitment one makes asa good critical thinker is to always seek thetruth with objectivity, integrity, and fair-mindedness. The majority of expertsmaintain that critical thinking conceived of aswe have described it above, is, regrettably,not inconsistent with abusing one’sknowledge, skills, or power. There have beenpeople with superior thinking skills and stronghabits of mind who, unfortunately, have usedtheir talents for ruthless, horrific, and immoralpurposes. Would that it were not so. Wouldthat experience, knowledge, mentalhorsepower, and ethical virtue were all oneand the same. But from the time of Socrates,if not thousands of years before that, humanshave known that many of us have one ormore of these without having the full set.

Any tool, any approach to situations,can go either way, ethically speaking,depending on the character, integrity, andprinciples of the persons who possess them.So, in the final analysis the majority of expertsmaintained that we cannot say a person is notthinking critically simply because wedisapprove ethically of what the person isdoing. The majority concluded that, “what‘critical thinking’ means, why it is of value,and the ethics of its use are best regarded asthree distinct concerns.”

Perhaps this realization forms part ofthe basis for why people these days are

demanding a broader range of learningoutcomes from our schools and colleges.“Knowledge and skills,” the staples of theeducational philosophy of the mid-twentiethcentury, are not sufficient. We must look to abroader set of outcomes including habits ofmind and dispositions, such as civicengagement, concern for the common good,and social responsibility.

“Thinking” in Popular Culture

We*ve said so many good thingsabout critical thinking that you might have theimpression that “critical thinking” and “goodthinking” mean the same thing. But that isnot what the experts said. They see criticalthinking as making up part of what we meanby good thinking, but not as being the onlykind of good thinking. For example, theywould have included creative thinking as partof good thinking.

Creative or innovative thinking is thekind of thinking that leads to new insights,novel approaches, fresh perspectives, wholenew ways of understanding and conceiving ofthings. The products of creative thoughtinclude some obvious things like music,poetry, dance, dramatic literature, inventions,and technical innovations. But there aresome not so obvious examples as well, suchas ways of putting a question that expand thehorizons of possible solutions, or ways ofconceiving of relationships which challengepresuppositions and lead one to see theworld in imaginative and different ways.

In working on how to understandcritical thinking the experts wisely left openthe entire question of what the other formsgood thinking might take. Creative thinking isonly one example. There is a kind ofpurposive, kinetic thinking that instantlycoordinates movement and intention as, forexample, when an athlete dribbles a soccerball down the field during a match. There isa kind of meditative thinking which may lead

Page 12: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 12

to a sense of inner peace or to profoundinsights about human existence. In contrast,there is a kind of hyper-alert, instinctivethinking needed by soldiers in battle. In thecontext of popular culture one finds peopleproposing all kinds of thinking or this-kind ofintelligence or that-kind of intelligence. Sometimes it is hard to sort out the science fromthe pseudo-science – the kernel of enduringtruth from the latest cocktail party banter.

“Thinking” in Cognitive Science

Theories emerging from morescientific studies of human thinking anddecision-making in recent years propose thatthinking is more integrated and less dualisticthan the notions in popular culture suggest. We should be cautious about proposalssuggesting oversimplified ways ofunderstanding how humans think. We shouldavoid harsh, rigid dichotomies such as“reason vs. emotion,” “intuitive vs. linear,”“creativity vs. criticality,” “right brained vs. leftbrained,” “as on Mars vs. as on Venus.”

There is often a kernel of wisdom inpopular beliefs, and perhaps that gem thistime is the realization that some times wedecide things very quickly almost asspontaneous, intuitive, reactions to thesituation at hand. Many accidents on thefreeways of this nation are avoided preciselybecause drivers are able to see and react todangerous situations so quickly. Many gooddecisions which feel intuitive are really thefruit of expertise. Decisions good driversmake in those moments of crisis, just like thedecisions which practiced athletes make inthe flow of a game or the decisions that agifted teacher makes as she or he interactswith students, are borne of expertise, training,and practice.

At the same time that we areimmersed in the world around us and in ourdaily lives, constantly making decisionsunreflectively, we may also be thinking quite

reflectively about something. Perhaps we’reworried about a decision which we have tomake about an important project at work, orabout a personal relationship, or about a legalmatter, whatever. We gather information,consider our options, explore possibilities,formulate some thoughts about what wepropose to do and why this choice is the rightone. In other words, we make a purposeful,reflective judgment about what to believe orwhat to do – precisely the kind of judgmentwhich is the focus of critical thinking.

Recent integrative models of humandecision-making propose that the thinkingprocesses of our species is not bestdescribed as a conflictive duality as in“intuitive vs. reflective” but rather anintegrative functioning of two mutuallysupportive systems “intuitive and reflective.”These two systems of thinking are present inall of us and can act in parallel to processcognitively the matters over which we aredeciding.

One system is more intuitive, reactive,quick and holistic. So as not to confuse thingswith the notions of thinking in popular culture,cognitive scientists often name this system,“System 1.” The other (yes, you can guess itsname) is more deliberative, reflective,computational and rule governed. You areright, it is called “System 2.”

In System 1 thinking, one reliesheavily on a number of heuristics (cognitiveshortcuts), key situational characteristics,readily associated ideas, and vivid memoriesto arrive quickly and confidently at ajudgment. System 1 thinking is particularlyhelpful in familiar situations when time is shortand immediate action is required.

While System 1 is functioning, anotherpowerful system is also at work, that is,unless we shut it down by abusing alcohol ordrugs, or with fear or indifference. Called“System 2,” this is our more reflectivethinking system. It is useful for making

Page 13: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 13

judgments when you find yourself inunfamiliar situations and have more time tofigure things out. It allows us to processabstract concepts, to deliberate, to planahead, to consider options carefully, to reviewand revise our work in the light of relevantguidelines or standards or rules of procedure.While System 2 decisions are also influencedby the correct or incorrect application ofheuristic shortcuts, this is the system whichrelies on well articulated reasons and morefully developed evidence. It is reasoningbased on what we have learned throughcareful analysis, evaluation, explanation, andself-correction. This is the system whichvalues intellectual honesty, analyticallyanticipating what happens next, maturity ofjudgment, fair-mindedness, elimination ofbiases, and truth-seeking. This is the systemwhich we rely on to think carefully troughcomplex, novel, high-stakes, and highlyintegrative problems.3

Educators urge us to improve ourcritical thinking skills and to reinforce ourdisposition to use those skills because that isperhaps the best way to develop and refineour System 2 reasoning.

System 1 and System 2 are bothbelieved to be vital decision-making toolswhen stakes are high and when uncertainty isan issue. Each of these two cognitivesystems are believed to be capable offunctioning to monitor and potentially overridethe other. This is one of the ways our speciesreduces the chance of making foolish, sub-optimal or even dangerous errors injudgment. Human thinking is far from perfect.Even a good thinker makes both System 1and 2 errors. At times we misinterpret things,

or we get our facts wrong, and we makemistakes as a result. But often our errors aredirectly related to the influences andmisapplications of cognitive heuristics.Because we share the propensity to usethese heuristics as we make decisions, let’sexamine how some of them influence us.

Cognitive heuristics are thinkingshortcuts which, at times, appear to be almosthardwired into our species. They influenceboth systems of thinking, the intuitive thinkingof System 1 and the reflective reasoning ofSystem 2. Five heuristics more frequentlyoperating in our System 1 reasoning areknown as availability, affect, association,simulation, and similarity.

Availability, the coming to mind of astory or vivid memory of something thathappened to you or to someone close to you,inclines a person make inaccurate estimatesof the likelihood of that thing’s happeningagain. People tell stories of things thathappened to themselves or their friends allthe time as a way of explaining their owndecisions. The stories may not bescientifically representative, the events maybe mistaken, misunderstood, ormisinterpreted. But all that aside, the powerof the story is to guide, often in a good way,the decision toward one choice rather thananother.

The Affect heuristic operates whenyou have an immediate positive or annegative reaction to some idea, proposal,person, object, whatever. Sometimes calleda “gut reaction” this affective response setsup an initial orientation in us, positive ornegative, toward the object. It takes a lot ofSystem 2 reasoning to overcome a powerfulaffective response to an idea, but it can bedone. And at times it should be, becausethere is no guarantee that your gut reaction isalways right.

The Association heuristic isoperating when one word or idea reminds us

3To learn more about this integrative model of thinkingand about cognitive heuristics, which will be described next, youmay wish to consult the references listed at the end of this essay.The material presented in this section is derived from these booksand related publications by many of these same authors andothers working to scientifically explain how humans actually makedecisions.

Page 14: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 14

of something else. For example, somepeople associate the word “cancer” with“death.” Some associate “sunshine” with“happiness.” These kinds of associationalreasoning responses can be helpful at times,as for example if associating cancer withdeath leads you not to smoke and to go in forregular checkups. At other times the sameassociation may influence a person to makean unwise decision, as for example ifassociating “cancer” with “death” were to leadyou to be so fearful and pessimistic that youdo not seek diagnosis and treatment of aworrisome cancer symptom until it was reallytoo late to do anything.

The Simulation heuristic is workingwhen you are imagining how variousscenarios will unfold. People often imaginehow a conversation will go, or how they willbe treated by someone else when they meetthe person, or what their friends or boss orlover will say and do when they have toaddress some difficult issue. Thesesimulations, like movies in our heads, help usprepare and do a better job when the difficultmoment arrives. But they can also lead us tohave mistaken expectations. People may notrespond as we imagined, things may go muchdifferently. Our preparations may fail usbecause the ease of our simulation misled usinto thinking that things would have to go aswe had imagined them. And they did not.

The Similarity heuristic operateswhen we notice some way in which we arelike someone else and infer that whathappened to that person is therefore morelikely to happen to us. The similaritymight be fundamental and relevant, whichwould make the inference more warranted.For example, the boss fired your coworker formissing sales targets and you draw thereasonable conclusion that if you miss yoursales targets you’ll be fired too. Or thesimilarity might be superficial or notconnected with the outcome, which wouldmake the inference unwarranted. Forexample you see a TV commercial showing

trim-figured young people enjoying fatteningfast foods and infer that because you’reyoung too you can indulge your cravings forfast foods without gaining a lot of excessunsightly poundage.

Heuristics and biases often associatedmore with System 2 thinking include:satisficing, risk/loss aversion, anchoring withadjustment, and the illusion of control.

Satisficing occurs as we consider ouralternatives. When we come to one which isgood enough to fulfil our objectives we oftenregard ourselves as having completed ourdeliberations. We have satisficed. And whynot? The choice is, after all, good enough. Itmay not be perfect, it may not be optimal, itmay not even be the best among the optionsavailable. But it is good enough. Time todecide and move forward.

The running mate of satisficing istemporizing. Temporizing is deciding that theoption which we have come to is “goodenough for now.” We often move through lifesatisficing and temporizing. At times we lookback on our situations and wonder why it isthat we have settled for far less than we mighthave. If we had only studied harder, workedout a little more, taken better care ofourselves and our relationships, perhaps wewould not be living as we are now. But, at thetime each of the decisions along the way was“good enough for the time being.”

We are by nature a species that isaverse to risk and loss. Often we makedecisions on the basis of what we are tooworried about losing, rather than on the basisof what we might gain. This works out to bea rather serviceable approach in manycircumstances. People do not want to losecontrol, they do not want to lose theirfreedom, they do not want to lose their lives,their families, their jobs, their possessions.High stakes gambling is best left to those whocan afford to lose the money. Las Vegasdidn’t build all those multi-million dollar casino

Page 15: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 15

hotels because vacationers are winning allthe time! And so, in real life, we takeprecautions. We avoid unnecessary risks.The odds may not be stacked against us, butthe consequences of losing at times are sogreat that we would prefer to forego thepossibilities of gain in order not to lose whatwe have. And yet, on occasion this can be amost unfortunate decision too. History hasshown time and time again that businesseswhich avoid risks often are unable to competesuccessfully with those willing to move moreboldly into new markets or into new productlines.

Any heuristic is only a shortcut, not afailsafe rule. It may work out well much of thetime to rely on the heuristic, but it will notwork out for the best all of the time.

For example, people with somethingto lose tend toward conservative choicespolitically as well as economically. Nothingwrong with that necessarily. Just anobservation about the influence of LossAversion heuristic on actual decision making.We are more apt to endure the status quo,even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are tocall for “radical” change. Regrettably,however, when the call for change comes, itoften requires a far greater upheaval to makethe necessary transformations, or, onoccasion, the situation has deterioratedbeyond the point of no return. In thosesituations we find ourselves wondering whywe waited so long before doing something.

The heuristic known as Anchoringwith Adjustment is operative when we findourselves making evaluative judgments. Thenatural thing for us to do is to locate or anchorour evaluation at some point along whateverscale we are using. For example, a professorsays that the student’s paper is a C+. Then,as other information comes our way, we mayadjust that judgment. The professor, forexample, may decide that the paper is asgood as some others that were given a B-,and so adjust the grade upward. The

interesting thing about this heuristic, is thatwe do not normally start over with a freshevaluation. We have dropped anchor and wemay drag it upward or downward a bit, but wedo not pull it off the bottom of the sea torelocate our evaluation. First impressions, asthe saying goes, cannot be undone. The goodthing about this heuristic is that it permits usto move on. We have done the evaluation;there are other papers to grade, otherprojects to do, other things in life that needattention. We could not long endure if we hadto constantly re-evaluate every thing anew.The unfortunate thing about this heuristic isthat we sometimes drop anchor in the wrongplace; we have a hard time giving people asecond chance at making a good firstimpression.

The heuristic known as Illusion ofControl is evident in many situations. Manyof us over-estimate our abilities to controlwhat will happen. We make plans for how weare going to do this or that, say this or that,manipulate the situation this way or that way,share or not share this information or thatpossibility, all the time thinking that some howour petty plans will enable us to control whathappens. We act as if others are dancing onthe ends of the strings that we are pulling,when in actuality the influences our words oractions have on future events may be quitenegligible. At times we do have somemeasure of control. For example we mayexercise, not smoke, and watch our diet inorder to be more fit and healthy. We arecareful not to drink if we are planning to driveso that we reduce the risks of being involvedin a traffic accident. But at times we simplyare mistaken about our ability to actuallyexercise full control over a situation. Sadlywe might become ill even if we do work hardto take good care of ourselves. Or we maybe involved in an accident even if we aresober. Our business may fail even if we workvery hard to make it a success. We may notdo as well on an exam as we might hopeeven if we study hard.

Page 16: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 16

Related to the Illusion of Controlheuristic is the tendency to misconstrue ourpersonal influence or responsibility for pastevents. This is called Hindsight Bias. Wemay over-estimate the influence our actionshave had on events when things go right, orwe may underestimate our responsibility orculpability when things go wrong. We haveall heard people bragging about how they didthis and how they did that and, as a result,such and such wonderful things happened.We made these great plans and look howwell our business did financially. Which maybe true when the economy is strong; but notwhen the economy is failing. It is not clearhow much of that success came from theplanning and how much came from thegeneral business environment. Or, we haveall been in the room when it was time to ownup for some thing that went wrong andthought to ourselves, hey, I may have hadsome part in this, but it was not entirely myfault. “It wasn’t my fault the children were latefor school, hey I was dressed and ready to goat the regular time.” As if seeing that thefamily was running late I had no responsibilityto take some initiative and help out.

Research on our shared heuristicpatterns of decision-making does not aim toevaluate these patterns as necessarily goodor bad patterns of thinking. I fear that mywording of them above may not have been asentirely neutral and descriptive as perhaps itshould have been. In truth, reliance onheuristics can be an efficient ways of decidingthings, given how very complicated our livesare. We cannot devote maximal cognitiveresources to every single decision we make.

Those of us who study these heuristicthinking phenomena are simply trying todocument how we humans do think. Thereare many useful purposes for doing this. Forexample, if we find that people repeatedlymake a given kind of mistake when thinkingabout a commonly experienced problem, thenwe might find ways to intervene and to helpourselves not repeat that error over and overagain.

This research on the actual patterns ofthinking used by individuals and by groupsmight prove particularly valuable to those whoseek interventions which could improve howwe make our own heath care decisions, howwe make business decisions, how we leadteams of people to work more effectively incollaborative settings, and the like.

Popular culture offers one other mythabout decision-making which is worthquestioning. And that is the belief that whenwe make reflective decisions we carefullyweigh each of our options, giving dueconsideration to all of them in turn, beforedeciding which we will adopt. Althoughperhaps it should be, research on humandecision-making shows that this simply is notwhat happens.4 When seeking to explainhow people decide on an option with suchconviction that they stick to their decision overtime and with such confidence that they acton that decision, the concept that what we dois build a Dominance Structure has beenput forth. In a nutshell this theory suggeststhat when we settle on a particular optionwhich is good enough we tend to elevate itsmerits and diminish its flaws relative to theother options. We raise it up in our minds untilit becomes for us the dominant option. In thisway, as our decision takes shape, we gainconfidence in our choice and we feel justifiedin dismissing the other options, even though

4Henry Montgomery, “From cognition to action: Thesearch for dominance in decision making.” In Process andStructure in Human Decision-Making, Montgomery H, Svenson O(Eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1989.

“Insanity is doing the same thingover and over again whileexpecting a different outcome.”

Albert Einstein

Page 17: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 17

the objective distance between any of themand our dominant option may not be verygreat at all. But we become invested in ourdominant option to the extent that we are ableto put the other possibilities aside and act onthe basis of our choice. In fact, it comes todominate the other options in our minds somuch that we are able to sustain our decisionto act over a period of time, rather than goingback to re-evaluate or reconsider constantly.Understanding the natural phenomenon ofdominance structuring can help us appreciatewhy it can be so difficult for us to get others tochange their minds, or why it seems that ourreasons for our decisions are so much betterthan any of the objections which others mightmake to our decisions. This is not to say thatwe are right or wrong. Rather, this is only toobserve that human beings are capable ofunconsciously building up defenses aroundtheir choices which can result in thewarranted or unwarranted confidence to acton the basis of those choices.

Realizing the power of dominancestructuring, one can only be more committedto the importance of education and criticalthinking. We should do all that we can toinform ourselves fully and to reflect carefullyon our choices before we make them,because we are, after all, human and we areas likely as the next person to believe that weare right and they are wrong once thedominance structure begins to be erected.Braking through that to fix bad decisions,

which is possible, can be much harder thangetting things right in the first place.

There are more heuristics than onlythose mentioned above. There is more tolearn about dominance structuring as itoccurs in groups as well as in individuals, andhow to mitigate the problems which may ariseby prematurely settling on a “good enough”option, or about how to craft educationalprograms or interventions which help peoplebe more effective in their System 1 andSystem 2 thinking. There is much to learnabout human thinking and how to optimize itin individuals of different ages; how tooptimize the thinking of groups of peers andgroups where organizational hierarchiesinfluence interpersonal dynamics. And,happily, there is a lot we know today abouthuman thinking and decision-making that wedid not know a few years ago.

Which brings us to the finalquestion, “Why is critical thinking ofparticular value?”

Let*s start with you first. Why would itbe of value to you to have the cognitive skillsof interpretation, analysis, evaluation,inference, explanation, and self-regulation?

Why would it be of value to you tolearn to approach life and to approachspecific concerns with the critical thinkingdispositions listed above? Would you havegreater success in your work? Would you getbetter grades?

Actually the answer to the gradesquestion, scientifically speaking, is verypossibly, Yes! A study of over 1100 collegestudents shows that scores on a college levelcritical thinking skills test significantly

“Critical thinking is the process of purposeful,self-regulatory judgment. This processreasoned consideration to evidence, context,conceptualizations, methods, and criteria.”

The APA Delphi Report,Critical Thinking: A Statement of ExpertConsensus for Purposes of Educational

Assessment and Instruction1990 ERIC Doc. NO.: ED 315 423

Page 18: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 18

correlated with college GPA.5 It has also beenshown that critical thinking skills can belearned, which suggests that as one learnsthem one*s GPA might well improve. Infurther support of this hypothesis is thesignificant correlation between critical thinkingand reading comprehension. Improvementsin the one are paralleled by improvements inthe other. Now if you can read better andthink better, might you not do better in yourclasses, learn more, and get better grades. Itis, to say the least, very plausible.

But what a limited benefit — bettergrades. Who really cares in the long run?Two years after college, five years out, whatdoes GPA really mean? Right now collegelevel technical and professional programshave a half-life of about four years, whichmeans that the technical content is expandingso fast and changing so much that in aboutfour years after graduation your professionaltraining will be in serious need of renewal.So, if the only thing a college is good for is to

get the entry level training and the credentialneeded for some job, then college would be atime-limited value.

Is that the whole story? A job is agood thing, but is that what a collegeeducation is all about, getting started in agood job? Maybe some cannot see its furthervalue, but many do. A main purpose, if notthe main purpose, of the collegiateexperience, at either the two-year or thefour-year level, is to achieve what peoplehave called a “liberal education.” Not liberalin the sense of a smattering of this and thatfor no particular purpose except to fulfill theunit requirement. But liberal in the sense of“liberating.” And who is being liberated?You! Liberated from a kind of slavery. Butfrom whom?

From professors. Actually fromdependence on professors so that they nolonger stand as infallible authorities deliveringopinions beyond our capacity to challenge,question, and dissent. In fact, this is exactlywhat the professors want. They want theirstudents to excel on their own, to go beyondwhat is currently known, to make their owncontributions to knowledge and to society.[Being a professor is a curious job — thebetter you are, the less your students come toneed you.]

Liberal education is about learning tolearn, to think for yourself, on your own and incollaboration with others. Liberal educationleads us away from naive acceptance ofauthority, above self-defeating relativism, andbeyond ambiguous contextualism. Itculminates in principled reflective judgment.Learning critical thinking, cultivating thecritical spirit, is not just a means to this end, itis part of the goal itself. People who are poorcritical thinkers, who lack the dispositions andskills described, cannot be said to be liberallyeducated, regardless of the academicdegrees they may hold.

5Findings regarding the effectiveness of criticalthinking instruction, and correlations with GPA and reading abilityare reported in “Technical Report #1, Experimental Validation andContent Validity” (ERIC ED 327 549), “Technical Report #2,Factors Predictive of CT Skills” (ERIC ED 327 550), and “Gender,Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the California CriticalThinking Skills Test” (ERIC ED 326 584). All by Peter A. Facioneand published by the California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA,1990. These reports are available as PDF files downloadable fromwww.insightassessment.com/articles3.html or from the author viae-mail attachments.

Learning, Critical Thinking, and OurNation’s Future

“The future now belongs to societies thatorganize themselves for learning... nationsthat want high incomes and full employmentmust develop policies that emphasize theacquisition of knowledge and skills byeveryone, not just a select few.”

Ray Marshall & Marc Tucker, Thinking For A Living:Education And The Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. NewYork. 1992.

Page 19: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 19

Yes, there is much more to a liberaleducation, than critical thinking. There is anunderstanding of the methods, principles,theories and ways of achieving knowledgewhich are proper to the different intellectualrealms. There is an encounter with thecultural, artistic and spiritual dimensions oflife. There is the evolution of one*s decisionmaking to the level of principled integrity andconcern for the common good and socialjustice. There is the realization of the waysall our lives are shaped by global as well aslocal political, social, psychological,economic, environmental, and physicalforces. There is the growth that comes fromthe interaction with cultures, languages,ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, andsocial classes other than one*s own. Thereis the refinement of one*s humanesensibilities through reflection on therecurring questions of human existence,meaning, love, life and death. There is thesensitivity, appreciation and critical appraisalof all that is good and all that is bad in thehuman condition. As the mind awakens andmatures, and the proper nurturing andeducational nourishment is provided, theseothers central parts of a liberal educationdevelop as well. Critical thinking plays anessential role in achieving these purposes.

Any thing else? What about goingbeyond the individual to the community?

The experts say critical thinking isfundamental to, if not essential for, “a rationaland democratic society.” What might theexperts mean by this?

Well, how wise would democracy be ifpeople abandoned critical thinking? Imaginean electorate that cared not for the facts, thatdid not wish to consider the pros and cons ofthe issues, or if they did, had not the brainpower to do so. Imagine your life and thelives of your friends and family placed in thehands of juries and judges who let theirbiases and stereotypes govern theirdecisions, who do not attend to the evidence,

who are not interested in reasoned inquiry,who do not know how to draw an inference orevaluate one. Without critical thinking peoplewould be more easily exploited not onlypolitically but economically. The impact ofabandoning critical thinking would not beconfined to the micro-economics of thehousehold checking account. Suppose thepeople involved in international commercewere lacking in critical thinking skills, theywould be unable to analyze and interpret themarket trends, evaluate the implications ofinterest fluctuations, or explain the potentialimpact of those factors which influence largescale production and distribution of goodsand materials. Suppose these people wereunable to draw the proper inferences from theeconomic facts, or unable to properlyevaluate the claims made by theunscrupulous and misinformed. In such asituation serious economic mistakes would bemade. Whole sectors of the economy wouldbecome unpredictable, and large scaleeconomic disaster would become extremelylikely. So, given a society that does not valueand cultivate critical thinking, we mightreasonably expect that in time the judicialsystem and the economic system wouldcollapse. And, in such a society, one thatdoes not liberate its citizens by teaching themto think critically for themselves, it would bemadness to advocate democratic forms ofgovernment.

Is it any wonder that business andcivic leaders are maybe even more interestedin critical thinking than educators? Criticalthinking employed by an informed citizenry isa necessary condition for the success ofdemocratic institutions and for competitivefree-market economic enterprise. Thesevalues are so important that it is in thenational interest that we should try to educateall citizens so that they can learn to thinkcritically. Not just for their own personalgood, but for the good of the rest of us too.

Generalizing, imagine a society, say,for example, the millions of people living in

Page 20: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 20

the Los Angeles basin, or in New York andalong the east coast, or in Chicago, or MexicoCity, Cairo, Rome, Tokyo, Baghdad, Moscow,Beijing, or Hong Kong. They are, de facto,entirely dependent upon one another, and onhundreds of thousands of other people aswell for their external supplies of food andwater, for their survival. Now imagine thatthese millions permitted their schools andcolleges to stop teaching people how to thinkcritically and effectively. Imagine that becauseof war, or AIDS, or famine, or religiousconviction, parents could not or would notteach their children how to think critically.Imagine the social and political strife, thefalling apart of fundamental systems of publicsafety and public health, the loss of anyscientific understanding of disease control oragricultural productivity, the emergence ofpara-military gangs, strong men, and pettywarlords seeking to protect themselves andtheir own by acquiring control over what foodand resources they can and destroying thosewho stand in their path.

Look at what has happened aroundthe world in places devastated by economicembargoes, one-sided warfare, or the AIDSepidemic. The evidence is there for us to seewhat happens when schools close and whenchildren are no longer being taught truth-seeking, the skills of good reasoning, or thelessons of human history and basic science:

Cultures disintegrate; communities collapse;the machinery of civilization fails; massivenumbers of people die; social and politicalchaos ensues.

Or, imagine a media or a religious orpolitical hegemony which cultivated, insteadof critical thinking, all the oppositedispositions, or simply reinforced uncritical,impulsive decision making and the “ready-shoot-aim”approach to executive action.Imagine governmental structures,administrators, and community leaders who,instead of encouraging critical thinking, werecontent to make knowingly irrational, illogical,prejudicial, unreflective, short-sighted, andunreasonable decisions.

How long might it take for the peoplein this society which does not value criticalthinking to be at serious risk of foolishlyharming themselves and each other?

How long would it be before such asociety destroyed itself?

Does this mean that society shouldplace a very high value on critical thinking?

Absolutely.

Does this mean society has the rightto force someone to learn to think critically?

Maybe.

But, really, should we have to?

Being a free, responsible personmeans being able to make rational,unconstrained choices. A person whocannot think critically, cannot makerational choices. And, perhaps thosewithout the ability to make rationalchoices should not be allowed to run freeto do as they please, for beingirresponsible, they could easily becomea danger to themselves and to the rest ofus as well.

Page 21: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 21

READINGS

American Philosophical Association, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. "The DelphiReport," Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423). 1990

Brookfield, Stephen D.:Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. Josey-Bass Publishers. San-Francisco, CA. 1987.

Browne, M. Neil, and Keeley, Stuart M.: Asking the Right Questions. Prentice-Hall Publishers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2003.

Costa, Arthur L., & Lowery,l Lawrence F.: Techniques for Teaching Thinking. Critical Thinking Press and Software. Pacific Grove, CA. 1989.

Facione, Noreen C. and Facione, P. A. : Critical Thinking Assessment and Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data Analysis. The California AcademicPress. Millbrae, CA 1997.

Facione, N. C., and Facione, P. A., Analyzing Explanations for Seemingly Irrational Choices, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 15 No. 2 (2001) 267-86.

Facione, P.A., Facione N. C., and Giancarlo, C: The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical ThinkingSkills, Journal of Informal Logic, Vol. 20 No. 1 (2000) 61-84.

Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; and Kahneman, Daniel: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press. 2002.

EXPERT CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDING CRITICALTHINKING AND THE IDEAL CRITICAL THINKER

“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatoryjudgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, andinference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations uponwhich that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry.As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerfulresource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymouswith good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying humanphenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive,well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent inmaking judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues,orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevantinformation, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused ininquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise asthe subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus,educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositionswhich consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis

Page 22: Critical Thinking Facione

Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts 2006 update Page 22

Goldstein, William, and Hogarth, Robin M. (Eds.): Research on Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Esterle, John, and Clurman, Dan: Conversations with Critical Thinkers. The Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993.

Janis, I.L. and Mann, L: Decision-Making. The Free Press, New York. 1977.

Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; and Tversky, Amos: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press. 1982.

Kahneman Daniel: Knetsch, J.L.; and Thaler, R.H.: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1991, 5;193-206.

King, Patricia M. & Kitchener, Karen Strohm: Developing Reflective Judgment. Josey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA. 1994

Kurfiss, Joanne G., Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice and Possibilities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report # 2, Washington DC, 1988.

Marshall, Ray, and Tucker, Marc, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. New York, NY. 1992.

Resnick, L. W., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, 1987.

Rubenfeld, M. Gaie, & Scheffer, Barbara K., Critical Thinking in Nursing: An Interactive Approach. J. B. Lippincott Company. Philadelphia PA, 1995.

Siegel, Harvey: Educating Reason: Rationality, CT and Education. Routledge Publishing. New York. 1989.

Sternberg, Robert J.: Critical Thinking: Its Nature, Measurement, and Improvement. National Institute of Education, Washington DC, 1986.

Toulmin, Stephen: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Wade, Carole, and Tavris, Carol: Critical & Creative Thinking: The Case of Love and War. Harper Collins College Publisher. New York. NY 1993.

GOVERNMENT REPORTS

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) DocumentsNational Assessment of College Student Learning: Getting Started, A Summary of Beginning Activities. NCES 93-116.

National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identification of the Skills to Be Taught, Learned, and Assessed, A Report on the Proceedings ofthe Second Design Workshop, November 1992. NCES 94-286.

National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates' Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and Listening, and CriticalThinking. NCES 95-001.

Six Steps to Effective Thinking and Problem-Solving

“IDEALS”

Identify the problem. — “What’s the real question we’re facing here?”Define the context. — “What are the facts and circumstances that frame this problem?”Enumerate choices. — “What are our most plausible three or four options?”Analyze options. — “What is our best course of action, all things considered?”List reasons explicitly. — “Let’s be clear: Why we are making this particular choice?”Self-correct. — “Okay, let’s look at it again. What did we miss?”