作者: Vincent Ruggiero
出版社: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
副标题: A Guide to Critical Thinking
出版年: 2003-08-10
页数: 240
定价: GBP 38.99
装帧: Paperback
ISBN: 9780072828962
- CHAPTER ONE Who Are You?
- CHAPTER TWO What is critical thinking?
- CHAPTER THREE What Is Truth?
- CHAPTER FOUR What Does It Mean To Know?
- CHAPTER FIVE How Good Are Your Opinions?
- CHAPTER SIX The Basic Problem:”mine is better"
- CHAPTER SEVEN Resistance To Change
- CHAPTER EIGHT Conformity
- CHAPTER NINE Face-Saving
- CHAPTER TEN Stereotyping
- CHAPTER ELEVEN Oversimplification
- CHAPTER TWELVE Hasty Conclusions
- CHAPTER THIRTEEN Unwarranted Assumptions
- CHAPTER FOURTEEN Logical Fallacies
- CHAPTER FIFTEEN The Problems In Combination
- CHAPTER SIXTEEN Knowing Yourself
- CHAPTER SEVENTEEN Being Observant
- CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Clarifing Issuse
- CHAPTER NINETEEN Conducting Inquiry
- CHAPTER TWENTY Interpreting Evidence
- CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE Analyzing Viewpoints
- CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO Forming Judgments
The world's state of progress differs, and likewise its knowledge and beliefs and values. The opportunities for learning and working and relaxing are not the same. So people's daily thoughts and actions vary.
Variations in place and circumstance also can make a difference.
In centuries past, the influence of family and teachers was the dominant, and sometimes the only, influence on children. Today, however, the influence exerted by mass culture (but broadcast media, newspapers, magazines and popular music) is often greater.
Modern advertising typically bombards the public with slogans and testimonials by celebrities. This approach is designed to appeal to emotions and create artificial needs for products and services. As a result, many people develop the habit of responding emotionally, impulsively, and gullibly to such appeals.
Television programmers use frequent scene shifts and sensory appeals such as car crashes, violence, and sexual encounters to keep audience interest from diminishing. Then they add frequent commercial interruptions. As a result, many people find it difficult to concentrate in school or at work. They may think the teacher or the job is boring when, in fact, mass culture has made them impatient with the normal rhythms of life.
Finally, mass culture promotes values that oppose those held by most parents. Play is presented as more fulfilling than work, self-gratification more desirable than self-control, and materialism more meaningful than idealism. People who adopt these values without questioning them may end up sacrificing worthy goals to their pursuit of "a good time" and lots of money.
The circumstances of our lives are so influential that they affect not only our view of the world but also our view of ourselves.
Dr. Maxwell Maltz explains the amazing results one educator had in improving the grades of school children by changing their self-images. He had observed that when they saw themselves as stupid in a particular subject (or stupid in general), they unconsciously acted to confirm their self-images. They believed they were stupid, so they acted that way. Reasoning that it was their defeatist attitude rather than any lack of ability that was defeating them, the educator set out to change their self-images. He found that when he accomplished that, they no longer behaved stupidly!
Maltz concludes from these and other examples that our experiences can work a kind of self-hypnotism on us, suggesting a conclusion about ourselves and then urging us to make it come true.
The impact of children's early experiences can be profound, affecting their basic outlook toward themselves and other. Dr. Thomas A. Harris suggests that there are four such outlooks, and not all of them are healthy:
- I'm not OK – You're OK.
- I'm not OK – you're not OK.
- I'm OK – You're not OK.
- I'm OK – You're OK.
What does individuality mean and to what extent can a person be an individual? In the current popular imagination, individuality means "doing your own thing," responding to life's situations in whatever way seems most natural. The problem with that notion is that it ignores all the shaping forces we have been discussing. It denies the fact that each of us has been channeled and conditioned to a great degree. It pretends there is some inner self untouched by all that we have experienced, all that has happened to us.
The fact is that if you define individuality in the popular way and act on that definition, you'll be acting like Pavlov's famous dog.
Obviously, individuality must be something more than that. It must be the habit of developing your own personal responses to people, issues, and situations, rather than mindlessly endorsing the responses you have been conditioned to make. These guidelines will help you achieve individuality:
- Tree your first reaction to any person,issue,or situation as tentative.No matter how appealing it may be, refuse to embrace it until after you have examined it.
- Decide why you reacted as you did.Consider whether you borrowed the reaction from someone else – a parent or friend, perhaps, or a celebrity or fictional character on television. If possible, determine what specific experiences conditioned you to react this way.
- Think of other reactions your might have had to the person,issue,or situation.
- Ask yourself whether one of the other reactions is more appropriate than your first reaction. And when you answer, resist the influence of your conditioning.
The left half deals mainly in words and is associated with analysis and logical thinking. The right half deals mainly in sensory images and is associated with intuition and creative thinking.
The word critical often carries negative connotation, implying excessive faultfinding. That connotation does not apply to the term critical thinking, which refers to the process of evaluating ideas. When we think critically, we judge the accuracy of statements and the soundness of the reasoning that leads to conclusions. Critical thinking helps us interpret complex ideas, appraise the evidence offered in support of arguments, and distinguish between reasonableness and unreasonableness. Both problem solving and decision making depend on critical thinking, as does the meaningful discussion of controversial issues.
One of the keys to proficiency in critical thinking is skill in asking relevant questions.
| Thought | Question |
|---|---|
| Professor Vile cheated me in my composition grade. He weighted some themes more heavily than others. | Did he grade everyone on the same standard? Were the different weightings justified? |
| Before women entered the work force, there were fewer divorces. That show that a woman's place is in the home. | How do you know that this factor, and not some other one(s), is responsible for the increase in divorces? |
| A college education isn't worth what you pay for it. Some people never reach a salary level appreciably higher than the level they would have reached without the degree. | Is money the only measure of the worth of an education? What about increased understanding of self and life and increased ability to cope with challenges? |
Here are some of the questions a critical thinker would ask:
- What is the relationship between values and beliefs? Between values and convictions?
- Are all values valuable?
- How aware is the average person of his or her values? Is it possible that many people deceive themselves about their real values?
- Where do one's values originate? Within the individual or outside? In thought or in feeling?
- Does education change a person's values? If so, is this change always for the better?
- Should parents and teachers attempt to shape children's values?
- The test of critical thinking is whether the reasons are good and sufficient.
- Critical thinking means making wise decisions, regardless of how common those decisions are.
- Critical thinking is the process of finding answers when they are not so readily available.
- The most careless, sloppy thinker can become a critical thinker by developing the characteristics of a critical thinker. We have already noted one characteristic of critical thinkers – skill in asking appropriate questions. Another is control of their mental activities.
| Critical Thinkers | Uncritical Thinkers |
|---|---|
| Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own errors. | Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free. |
| Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges. | Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego. |
| Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity and ready to invest time to overcome confusion. | Are impatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to understand. |
| Set aside personal preferences and base judgments on evidence, deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveal error. | Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or quality of evidence and cling to earlier views steadfastly. |
| Are interested in other people's ideas, so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person. | Are preoccupied with self and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay attention to other's views. At the first sign of disagreement they tend to think, "How can I refute this?" |
| Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid them, practice fair- mindedness, and seek a balanced view. | Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views. |
| Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before acting. | Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively. |
As the desirable qualities suggested, critical thinking depends on mental discipline. Effective thinkers exert control over their mental life, direct their thoughts rather than being directed by them, and withhold their endorsement of any idea – even their own – until they have tested and proved it.
And two facts are common to all these experiences, great and small alike. The first is that intuition cannot be controlled; the second is that intuition is not completely trustworthy. Even the strongest intuition can prove wrong. For both reasons, though intuition is always a welcome companion to critical thinking, it is never a substitute for it. This, of course, is no cause for concern because many other skills of thinking can be controlled and developed.
Writing may be used for either of two broad purposes – to discover ideas or to communicate ideas.
For some reason, the very act of writing down one idea has a way of producing additional ideas.Whenever you write to discover ideas, focus on the issue you are examining and record all your thoughts, questions as well as assertions. Don't worry about organization or correctness. If ideas come slowly, be patient. If they suddenly come in a rush, don't try to slow the process down and develop any one of them, but jot them all down. (There will be time for elaboration, and for correction, later.) Direct your mind's effort, but be sensitive to ideas on the fringes of consciousness. Often they, too, will prove valuable.
First, we can be mistaken in what we perceive.
Second, our information can be inaccurate or incomplete.
What of group judgment the carefully analyzed observations of the best thinkers, the wisest men and women of the time? All too often, what is taken as truth today by the most respected minds is proved erroneous tomorrow.
The truth about something is what is so about it, the facts about it in their exact arrangement and proportions. Much of the confusion about truth arises from complex situations in which the truth is difficult to ascertain or express.
Nancy was in a better position than Marie because she answered correctly. Yet she didn't know either, for knowing involves more than having the right answer. It also involves the realization that you have it.
The answer, of course, may not always be as simple as the spelling of a word. It may require understanding of numerous details or complex principles or steps in a process. (it may also involve a skill – knowing how to do something. But that is a slightly different use of the word than concerns us here.)
Knowing usually implies something else, too – the ability to express what is known and how we came to know it. This, however, is not always so. We may not be able to express our knowledge in words. The best we may be able to say is "I just know, that's all" or "I know because I know." Yet these replies are feeble and hardly satisfy those who wish to verify our knowledge or share it.
Three mental processes that are sometimes confused with knowing are assuming, guessing, and speculating. Yet they are quite different. Assuming is taking something for granted – that is, unconsciously holding an idea about something without ever trying to verify it, sometimes being unaware we have the idea.
Guessing is offering a judgment on a hunch or taking a chance on an answer without any confidence that it is correct. It's a common, everyday activity. For students who don't do their studying for exams, it's a last-ditch survival technique.
Speculating is making an "educated" guess, selecting an answer without any confidence that it is correct but with some evidence for believing it is probably correct. It is commonly used in matters that resist close observation. Science offers numerous examples.
We can achieve knowledge either actively or passively. We achieve it actively by direct experience, by testing and proving an idea (as in a scientific experiment), or by reasoning. When we do it by reasoning, we analyze a problem, consider all the facts and possible interpretations, and draw the logical conclusion.
We achieve knowledge passively by being told by someone else. Much of our learning comes passively. Most of the learning that happens in the classroom and the kind that happens when we watch TV news reports or read newspapers or magazines is passive. Conditioned as we are to passive learning, it's not surprising that we depend on it in our everyday communication with friends and co-workers.
Unfortunately, passive learning has a serious defect. It makes us tend to accept uncritically what we are told. Of course, much that we are told is little more than hearsay and rumor.
Even the most vigorous active learning and the most critical approach to passive learning, of course, will not bring us complete and perfect knowledge. One reason is that old unanswered questions continue to resist solution. Another reason is that everyday situations arise for which there are no precedents. Still another reason why perfect knowledge is beyond our grasp is that as generation passes to generation, knowledge is often forgotten or unwisely rejected.
To summarize, we can feel confident we know and yet not know. We may be assuming or guessing or speculating instead. We may be confusing erroneous hearsay and rumor with fact. Even when your evidence is solid, it may be incomplete. For these reasons, we should be cautious in asserting that we know something. Only when we have examined the idea critically, verified our evidence, and thoughtfully considered other possible interpretations are we entitled to say, "I know." There is no shame in admitting we do not know something – in saying "I think" or "It seems to me." To make that admission when it is appropriate shows good sense, restraint, and intellectual honesty. These are not intellectual weaknesses, but strengths.
Opinion is a word that is often used carelessly today. It is used to refer to matters of taste, belief, and judgment. This casual use would probably cause little confusion if people didn't attach too much importance to opinion. Unfortunately, most do attach great importance to it.
Is that label accurate? Is it intolerant to challenge another's opinion? It depends on what definition of opinion you have in mind. For example, you may ask a friend, "What do you think of the new Buicks?" And he may reply, "In my opinion, they're ugly." In this case, it would not only be intolerant to challenge his statement but foolish, for it's obvious that by opinion he means his personal preference, a matter of taste. And as the old saying goes, "It's pointless to argue about matters of taste."
However, consider this very different use of the term. A newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously the justices did not state their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.
Most of what is referred to as opinion falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is not an expression of taste. Nor is it careful judgment. Yet it may contain elements of both. It is a view or belief more or less casually arrived at, with or without examination of the evidence.
Is everyone entitled to his or her opinion? In a few country this is not only permitted but guaranteed. We are free to act on our opinions only so long as, in doing so, we do not harm others.
Evidence that opinions can be mistaken is all around us. Research shows that people can be mistaken even when they are making a special effort to judge objectively. Sometimes their errors are caused by considerations to subtle they are unaware of them. For example, before Taster's Choice coffee was introduced, it was tested and sampled with three different labels – brown, yellow, and red. People who sampled the coffee in the container with the brown label reported that it was too strong and kept them awake at night. People who sampled the yellow-labeled coffee found it weak and watery. Those who sampled the red-labeled coffee judged it just the right strength and delicious. All this even though the coffee in all the jars was exactly the same. The people had been subconsciously influenced by the color of the label!
History records numerous occasions when the expert opinion has been the wrong opinion.
There are four general kinds of error that can corrupt anyone's opinions. Francis Bacon classified them as follows: (1) errors or tendencies to error common among all people by virtue of their being human, (2) errors that come from human communication and the limitations of language, (3) errors in the general fashion or attitude of an age, (4) errors posed to an individual by a particular situation.
Some people, of course, are more prone to errors than others. John Locke observed that these people fall into three groups. He described them as follows:
- Those who seldom reason at all, but think and act as those around them do – parents, neighbors, the clergy, or anyone else they admire and respect. Such people want to avoid the difficulty that accompanies thinking of themselves.
- Those who are determined to let passion rather than reason govern their lives. Those people are influenced only by reasoning that supports their prejudices.
- Those who sincerely follow reason, but lack sound, overall good sense, and so do not look at all sides of an issue. They tend to talk with one type of person, read one type of book, and so are exposed to only one viewpoint.
To Locke's list we should add one more type – people who never bother to reexamine an opinion once it has been formed. These people are often the most error-prone of all, for they forfeit all opportunity to correct mistaken opinions when new evidence arises.
By examining the opinions of informed people before making up our minds, we broaden our perspective, see details we might not see by ourselves, and consider facts we would otherwise be unaware of. No one can know everything about everything; there is simply not enough time to learn. Consulting those who have given their special attention to the field of knowledge in question is therefore not a mark of dependence or irresponsibility but of efficiency and good sense.
It's natural for us to form opinions. We are constantly receiving sensory impressions and responding to them, first on the level of feelings, then on the level of thought. Even if we wanted to escape having opinions, we couldn't. nor should we want to. One of the things that makes human beings vastly more complex and interesting than trees or cows is their ability to form opinions.
This ability has two sides, however, it can either lift us to wisdom or topple us to absurdity. Here are three helpful tips to ensure that your opinions will be sound:
- Base your opinions on careful observation rather than on habit or impulse. In particular, use your critical thinking skills in forming them.
- From time to time, reexamine old opinions in the light of new knowledge. If you find that an opinion is no longer reasonable, modify it accordingly.
- Do not mistake familiarity for soundness. Once you've formed an opinion, it's bound to seem solid to you – the very act of forming it shapes it to your outlook. The test to apply is not how comfortable you feel having the opinion but how well it fits the reality it is supposed to represent.
For many people, most of the time, the "mine is better" tendency is balanced by the awareness that other people feel the same way about their things, that it's an unavoidable part of being a person to do so. In other words, many people realize that we all see ourselves in a special way, different from everything that is not ourselves, and that whatever we associate with ourselves becomes part of us in our minds. People who have this understanding and are reasonably secure and self-confident can control the tendency.
The problem is that some people do not understand that each person has a special viewpoint. For them "mine is better" is not an attitude that everyone tends to have about his or her things. It is a special, higher truth about their particular situation. Psychologists have a name for them – "ethnocentric" people, people who believe strongly that their race, their religion, their culture, or their value system is superior to all others. This belief they consider above the normal processes of examination and questioning. Faced with a challenge to it or even a situation in which they are called on to explain it, they will resist. In their minds there is no point in examining or questioning it. The matter is settled.
There are two helpful ways to control "mine is better" thinking. The first is to remember that, like everyone else, we are prone to it and that its influence will be strongest when the subject is one that we really care about. As G. K. Chesterton observed,
We are exact and scientific on the subjects we do not care about. We all immediately detect exaggeration in an exposition of Mormonism or a patriotic speech from Paraguay. We all require sobriety on the subject of the sea serpent. But the moment we begin to believe in a thing ourselves, that moment we begin easily to overstate it; and that moment our souls become serious, our words become a little wild.
The second way to control "mine is better" thinking is to be alert for signals of its presence. Those signals can be found both in our feelings and in our thoughts:
In feelings: Very pleasant, favorable sensations, the desire to embrace a statement or a argument immediately, without appraising it further. Or very unpleasant, negative sensations, the desire to attack and denounce a statement or argument without delay.
In thoughts: Ideas such as "I'm glad that experts are taking such a position – I've thought it all along" and "No use wasting time analyzing this evidence – it must be conclusive." Or ideas such as "This view is outrageous because it challenges what I have always thought – I refuse to consider it."
Whenever you find yourself reacting this way, you can be reasonably sure you are being victimized by "mine is better" thinking. The appropriate response is to resist the reaction and force yourself to consider the matter fair-mindedly.
Why do we resist change? Mainly because the new and unfamiliar challenge our "mine is better" thinking and threaten our sense of security. In many of us that sense is very fragile. Insecurity is the reason some people will go to elaborate lengths to explain away new ideas they cannot cope with.
Another reason people resist change is that they're afraid of the unknown. In some ways this fear may be caused by insecurity; in others it may itself cause insecurity.
It is probably because of the interaction between insecurity and fear that people hold tradition in such high regard. Many traditions, of course, are worthwhile. They help keep intact the valuable lessons of the past. In many cases, they assist us in defining our loyalties and indeed, our own identities. However, like most good thing, respect for tradition can be shortsighted and unwise. This is the case whenever clinging to tradition represents not careful judgment that something deserves preservation but rather some internal panic. "Anything is worth clinging to, so long as we cling" is not a reasonable attitude.
It is important to overcome resistance to change for two reasons. The first is that all creative ideas are by definition new and unexpected departures from the usual and the accepted. Resisting change therefore means opposing creativity and the progress it brings about. The second reason is that resistance to change blocks the impartial judgment essential for critical thinking. Here are three tips for overcoming your resistance to change:
- Expect yourself to react negatively to new ideas. In addition, expect your reaction to be especially strong when the new idea challenges a belief or approach you have become attached to.
- Refuse to let your initial negative(or,for that matter,positive) reaction to be the measure of the new idea. Force yourself to set aside that reaction long enough to appraise the idea fairly.
- Judge the idea on the basis of your critical appraisal and not your initial reaction. If there are good and sufficient reasons for rejecting the idea, by all means do so. However, be honest with yourself. If your "reasons" are only excuses in disguise, acknowledge (at least to yourself) that you are too prejudiced to judge the idea fairly.
We still yearn for the recognition, acceptance, and approval of others.
In addition to the urge to conform that we generate ourselves, there is the external pressure of the various formal and informal groups we belong to, the pressure to endorse their ideas and attitudes and to imitate their actions. Thus our urge to conform receives continuing, even daily reinforcement. To be sure, the intensity off the reinforcement, like the strength of the urge and the ability and inclination to withstand it, differs widely among individuals. Yet some pressure is present for everyone. Yet some pressure is present for everyone. And in one way or another, to some extent, everyone yields to it.
The urge to conform on occasion clashes with the tendency to resist change. If the group we are in advocates an idea or action that is new and strange to us, we can be torn between seeking the group's acceptance and maintaining the security of familiar ideas and behavior. In such cases, the way we turn will depend on which tendency is stronger in us or which value we are more committed to. More often, however, the two tendencies do not conflict but reinforce each other, for we tend to associate with those whose attitudes and actions are similar to our own.
In each case Janis found that the people who made the decision exhibited a strong desire to concur in the group decision. Janis named this conformist tendency "groupthink."
When they discovered that their initial decision had certain drawbacks, they failed to reconsider those decisions. They almost never tested their won thinking for weaknesses. They never tried to obtain the judgments of experts. They expressed interest only in those views that reinforced the positions they preferred, and they spent little time considering the obstacles that would hinder the success of their plans. In each of the cases Janis studied, these defects in thinking cost untold human suffering.
Some people believe the way to avoid conformity is simply to oppose the majority view. It is not. Opposing a particular view because the majority endorse it is no different form endorsing the view because the majority endorse it. In both cases our judgment is determined by what others think. And that makes us conformists.
Other people believe the way to avoid conformity is to ignore what everyone else thinks and decide on the basis of our own ideas alone. This, too, is a mistake. It protects us from other people's foolishness, but it leaves us prey to our own. Consulting informed people, either in person or through their public statements in interviews, articles, and books, is an important part of the process of examining an issue. Other people's vies are thus part of the evidence we must consider in forming a judgment.
The secret of avoiding mindless conformity is neither to prefer the majority or the minority view nor to be selective in the evidence we consider. It is to apply our critical thinking to all the evidence and endorse the most reasonable view regardless of who or how many endorse that view.
All of us have moments when we strive unreasonably, and often unconsciously, to protect our image. For some of us, those moments occur when a particular aspect of our image is involved. Individuals who pride when a particular aspect of our image is involved. Individuals who pride themselves on being good judges of people may be mature and balanced about many things, but when the candidate they voted for is found guilty of misusing his or her office, they may persist in denying the evidence, scream about the hypocrisy of the opposing party, and predict that in years to come the judgment will be reversed. They may do all of this merely to preserve the image of their perceptiveness in judging people.
There are different theories as to why people feel the need to save face. One plausible theory, proposed by psychologist Alfred Adler, is that to some extent everyone suffers from feelings of inferiority. Building on this theory, Tomas A. Harris suggests that the early childhood experience, with the feeling of being dominated by adults, leaves everyone feeling somewhat insecure and unconfident in later life. This theory helps explain how some people feel such a need to maintain a favorable image that they become defensive about various situations, including not only those in which they do look bad but also those in which they might possibly look bad and even those in which their suspicion of their own inferiority makes them imagine they might.
The harm face-saving does to critical thinking is significant. By prompting us to misinterpret our perceptions and substitute wishful thinking for reality, it leads us to rationalize. Rationalizing is the very opposite of reasoning; whereas reasoning works from evidence to conclusion, rationalizing works from conclusion to evidence. That is, rationalizing starts with what we want to be so and then selectively compiles "evidence" to prove that it is so. Thus face-saving undermines the very process by which we think critically.
Unfortunately, there is probably nothing we can do to eliminate our face-saving tendency. It is too much a part of being human to be disposed of entirely. Nevertheless, we can learn to control it and thereby greatly reduce its effect on our critical thinking. To control your face-saving tendency, begin by admitting that you have it. In addition, persuade yourself that there is no shame in having it because it is a natural tendency; there is only shame in being dishonest with yourself and denying its existence. Then become more aware of your reaction to unpleasant ideas that you hear or read. Try to anticipate occasions of face-saving. Finally, whenever you catch yourself saving face, stop and say, "OK, that's what I want to be so, but what really is so? Where does the truth lie?" By refusing to cooperate with the irrationality within you and demanding that your thinking be uncompromisingly honest rather than merely self-congratulatory, you will soon have your face-saving under control.
But stereotypes are more serious than mere faulty generalizations. They are fixed, unbending generalizations about people, places, or things. When a stereotype is challenged, the person who holds it is unlikely to modify or discard it, because it is based on a distortion of perception.
It is pleasant to assume that when the facts are known, stereotypes disappear. However, that is seldom the case. People who think in terms of stereotypes tend to be selective in their perceptions. They reject conditions that challenge their preformed judgment and retain those that reinforce it.
Robert K. Merton has noted that the same set of characteristics can be used to support opposite stereotypes.
Among the most significant causes of stereotyping is "mine is better" thinking, especially in its extreme form, ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism – the belief that one's nationality, race, or religion is superior to other people's – can be present in out-groups as well as in the majority, and in newcomers to a country as well as in "established" groups.
Another cause of stereotyping is what Gordon Allport calls "the principle of least effort." Most of us learn to be critical and balanced in our thinking in some areas, he notes, but we remain vulnerable to stereotyped thinking in others.
Stereotyping does a great injustice to those who are stereotyped. It denies them their dignity and individuality and treats them as nameless, faceless statistical units of a group. The effects of stereotyping on all who encounter it are similarly disturbing. It triggers their frustrations and anxieties, feeds their fears of conspiracies, and creates a network of suspicion and scapegoating.
It is not easy to set aside stereotypes that have been in your mind since childhood, particularly if they have been reinforced by ethnocentrism. Yet if you do not set them aside, you will never realize your capacity for critical thinking. Stereotypes will corrupt your observation, listening, and reading and therefore block your understanding.
Here are two tips for freeing yourself from stereotyping. First, remind yourself often that people and institutions and processes seldom fit into neat categories and that critical thinking demands that you evaluate each on what it is at the particular time and place and circumstance, not one preconceived notions. Second, whenever you begin observing, listening, or reading, be alert for the feeling that you needn't continue because you know what the correct judgment must be. If that feeling occurs early in the information-gathering process, you can be reasonably sure it is a sign of stereotyping and should be ignored.
Although there is nothing wrong with simplification, oversimplification (excessive simplification) is an obstacle to critical thinking. Oversimplification does not merely scale down a complex idea to more manageable proportions. It twists and distorts the idea so that it states, not truth, but error. Rather than informing others, oversimplification misleads them.
The most obvious causes of oversimplification are simple (unhabitual) error and unwillingness to invest the time necessary to probe the complexity of issues. But there are other, deeper, causes as well. One is "mine is better" thinking, which can lead us to see issues in a biased way and thus ignore facts that don't support our view.
Another cause is insecurity. If we are intimidated by complexity, we may prefer superficial answers to questions because they make us feel comfortable. Some people need simple answers. Complex situations and those in which judgment can only be tentative and speculative leave such people disoriented.
Still another cause of oversimplification is the habit of seeing only what affects us.
Avoiding oversimplification simply means refusing to overstate the case for an idea. Before you express any idea to others, first check it for accuracy. If it is not completely accurate, rephrase it.
A hasty conclusion is a premature judgment – that is, one drawn before sufficient evidence is obtained. Exactly what constitutes sufficient evidence varies from case to case. In general, we may say the evidence is clearly insufficient when there are two or more possible conclusions and the evidence does not clearly favor any one of them.
Some people's major concern in thinking is convenience. They are afraid of arduous analysis and rattled by complexity. As a result they will leap at the first conclusion that occurs to them. They may hear someone saying energy shortages are artificial, manufactured by the oil companies and corrupt government officials. And so they will accept that conclusion uncritically. After repeating it a few times, they harden it into an article of faith.
Compounding this tendency is the desire to sound authoritative. Feeling some insecurity and wanting to compensate for it, or wanting to make their conversation livelier, many people have the habit of escalating every statement to a higher level of generalization. "A teenager was behaving very boisterously in the supermarket yesterday" becomes "Today's teenagers are very boisterous." "Mr. Easel, the art teacher at the local high school, gave my son an unfairly low grade" becomes "Teachers aren't fair in their grading." In a thousand different ways, "one" becomes "many" or "all," and "once" becomes "often" or "always."
Even people who have managed to get beyond convenience-thinking to greater intellectual maturity cannot escape another normal tendency – the tendency to prefer, in certain matters, one idea over all others. People may be fully conscious of this tendency, even as it is exerting its pull on their thinking. Or they may be completely unaware of it. In the latter case, of course, they are more likely to be affected by it. But either way its attraction is powerful.
The other major cause of hasty conclusions – the peculiarities of certain situations – is largely unpredictable. Therefore, it can trap even the most careful thinker.
It is important not to rush to conclusions because once we forma nay conclusion, our curiosity in the matter is diminished. In other words, we make up our mind, and before we can even entertain a different conclusion, we must first unmake our mind. Doing that is difficult. "Mine is better" thinking, resistance to change, and face-saving weigh heavily against us.
Here are three suggestions that can help you avoid hasty conclusions in your thinking:
Before you draw any conclusion, be sure you have identified an answered all important questions pertaining to the issue.
Where you cannot obtain sufficient evidence, either withhold judgment or (if circumstances require an immediate judgment) use the "If... then" approach for example, if the issue concerned what punishment would be most appropriate for a murderer and you lacked some important details about the case, you might say, "If the murderer acted in the heat of anger, without any premeditation, then I believe he deserves leniency. However, if he visited victim with the clear intention of harming her, then I believe his punishment should be severe."
Where the evidence will support probability but not certainty, make your conclusion reflect that fact. That is, admit that it is impossible to say for sure what the right conclusion is, and explain why that is so. Then say what the right conclusion probably is.
All the assumptions discussed so far have concerned relatively routine matters. Yet the network of assumptions people make goes far beyond the routine. It is intimately bound up with their outlook on a large and diverse number of subjects.
Which of those assumptions are warranted? Those for which the person ahs sufficient experience that supports that assumption better than any other one. What is "sufficient" depends on the situation; the more general and sweeping the assumption, the more experience would be needed. Unfortunately, it is very easy to take too much for granted, to assume something with little or no experience or for which the experience leads equally well to an entirely different view.
It is not too difficult to evaluate an assumption and decide whether or not it is warranted. The real difficulty is in identifying it in the first place. The reason for this is that, unlike the other problems in thinking we have discussed, assumptions are usually unexpressed. To recognize the assumptions in your thinking and the thinking of others, develop the habit of reading (and listening) between the lines. In other words, become sensitive to those ideas that are not stated but are nevertheless clearly implied.
This fallacy consists of believing that the only views one can take of an issue are extreme views. According to this belief, for example, we must be either for abortion on demand or against abortion in all cases; in favor of retaining the welfare system in its present form or abolishing it altogether. Yet it is perfectly possible to endorse abortion in some cases but not in others and to oppose welfare abuses without denying the need for welfare. To deny ourselves the opportunity even to consider moderate views on issues is to condemn ourselves to unreasonableness on most issues. Extreme views are seldom reasonable views.
This does not mean that we should be wishy-washy or compromise matters of principle. If the most sensible view of an issue is total affirmation or rejection, then that is the view we should take. But we should not allow the either-or fallacy to force us to that view.
There are times when the character of a person is the issue under discussion; for example, in cases where a member of Congress is being investigated for alleged lawbreaking or ethical violations. In such cases, it is appropriate to focus our argument on the person. However, in cases where the issue is an idea, it is inappropriate to focus on the person.
Consider the issue of whether nuclear power plants are a danger to human beings and the environment. Among the supporters of those plants (as among the opponents) there are, presumably, informed people and uninformed, honest and dishonest, emotionally balanced and emotionally unbalanced. If we find a supporter who is uninformed, dishonest and emotionally unbalanced, what does that tell us about his side of the issue? Nothing at all. It might still be the most reasonable view. The only way to make a decision about an issue is to analyze the issue itself.
Also known as argument from ignorance, this fallacy consists of demanding that others disprove our assertions. Whenever we make an assertion, it is our responsibility to support it, not other people's to refute it. (They may, of course, choose to refute it if they wish.) And the more our assertion departs from what knowledgeable people believe, the greater is our responsibility to support it.
It is perfectly natural to wonder "Why did this happen?" in fact, one mark of a critical thinker is that she asks this question more frequently than others do. However, she realizes that mere closeness in time does not prove a cause and effect relationship. In other words, one event can follow another by coincidence and thus be entirely unrelated to it.
The fallacy of false cause occurs when coincidence is ignored. It consists of thinking, "If B occurred after A, A must have caused B." This error is undoubtedly the basis of most superstitions. Misfortune befalls someone shortly after he walks under a ladder, or breaks a mirror, or has a black cat cross his path, and he judges that even to be responsible for the misfortune.
Sam is in the habit of arriving late to English class. Yesterday the professor told him that the next time he was tardy, he would be refused admission. Today Sam got a composition back with a grade of D. He reasons the professor gave him a low grade out of anger over Sam's lateness. Sam has committed the fallacy of false cause. Maybe the professor did lower the grade for that reason, maybe not. Without additional evidence, Sam should withhold judgment.
As the term implies, straw man is an argument without substance. This fallacy consists of pretending one's adversary has said something false and then proceeding to demonstrate that it is false. Suppose you are debating whether legislation should be enacted restricting the sale of assault weapons. You state that you support such legislation because assault weapons are designed, not for hunting or even for self-defense but for killing people, often indiscriminately. Your opponent responds, "So you believe you should decide what weapons are acceptable and what weapons aren't. It's exactly this kind of arrogance by self- appointed social reformers that everyone who lives the constitutions should fear."
Your opponent has committed the straw man fallacy. Perhaps she did so consciously to put you on the defensive. (The best response is to point out what she has done: "First you put irresponsible words in my mouth and then you say I'm irresponsible. I'd prefer to hear your reaction to what I really said."
Irrational appeals urge us to accept ideas at face value or on some other basis than reasonableness. They are considered logical fallacies because they say, in effect, "You don't have to think about this matter – there is no danger of error here." And that is, itself, a serious error. The danger of error always exists, and thinking critically is the best way to minimize that danger.
Irrational appeals usually take one of the following forms:
- Appeal to emotion. this appeal urges the uncritical acceptance of strong feelings; for example, love of family or country, fear, resentment, guilt.
- Appeal to Tradition or Faith. This appeal urges maintaining past customs or beliefs not because they are applicable to the present situation, but merely because they have always been maintained.
- Appeal to Moderation. An appeal to moderation urges a moderate view not because it is the most reasonable view, but merely because it is inoffensive to anyone.
- Appeal to Authority. This appeal urges the unquestioning acceptance of an authority's view. The authority may be a person, a book or document, or an agency (such as the Supreme Court).
- Appeal to Common Sense. This appeal is often accompanied by such phrases as "everyone knows that," "no reasonable person would deny that," and "it's common sense." (Many ideas that were at one time accepted as common sense – such as sacrificing young virgins to ensure a good harvest and abandoning deformed babies to die – are now recognized as uncommon nonsense or worse.)
Appeals to emotion, tradition, faith, moderation, authority, or common sense are not necessarily irrational. In many cases they are rational – that is, they invite, rather than discourage, critical thinking. Be sure to distinguish between rational and irrational appeals whenever you evaluate issues.
The first and most important step in solving these problems in combination, like the first step in solving them individually, is to recognize that you are prone to them. The are not the "other person's" problems. Nor do they afflict only the uneducated or less intelligent. They can be found in varying degrees in all people
Another helpful step is to remind yourself from time to time what each problem consists of and how you can most effectively deal with it. To help you do this, here is a brief summary of all the problems discussed in Chapters 6 through 14.
| The problems | How to recognize and deal with them |
|---|---|
| "Mine is better" | Preferring your own ideas for no other reason than that they are yours. Remind yourself that all people tend to regard their ideas that way, but critical thinking demands that you examine your ideas as you would other people's. |
| Resistance to change | Proffering familiar to unfamiliar ideas. Expect your first reaction to new ideas to be negative. Set that reaction aside and judge the idea on the basis of your critical appraisal. |
| Conformity | Thinking the way others do because of the group or your desire to belong. (Or, conversely, thinking the way others do not, simply because they do not.) base your thinking on the evidence and not on how others do or don't think. |
| Face-saving | Attempting to preserve your self-image or the image you project to others when some unpleasant reality threatens it. Distinguish between what you wish were so and what is so. Be honest with yourself. |
| Stereotyping | Making fixed, unbending generalizations about people, places, or things. Remind yourself that most things do not fit into neat categories. In addition, resist the feeling that you know what the correct judgment is when that feeling arises early in the information-gathering process. |
| Oversimplification | Simplifying that does not merely scale down complex matters to more manageable proportion but twists and distorts them. Be sure your views are an accurate representation of reality. |
| Hasty conclusions | Judgments made before sufficient evidence is obtained. Withhold judgment until you have answered all important questions pertaining to the issue. If you must answer without sufficient evidence, use the "If... then" approach. If the evidence will support probability but not certainty, limit your conclusion to one that is merely probable. |
| Unwarranted assumptions | Ideas that you have in mind and that influence your reasoning without your being conscious of it; ideas you take for granted. Develop the habit of reading (and listening) between the lines for ideas that are unexpressed but nevertheless clearly implied. |
| Logical fallacies | Specific errors that occur in your reasoning about issues. Monitor your thinking for signs of these errors. Especially when you are planning an oral or written presentation of your views. |
To assist you in taking inventory of the habits and attitudes that affect your critical thinking, ask yourself these questions:
- Exactly what influences have shaped my identity? How have they done so? How has my self-image been affected? In what situations am I less an individual because of these influences?
- In what ways am I like the good thinker(as outlined in Chapter2)? In what ways like the poor thinker? What kinds of situations seem to bring out my best and worst qualities?
- To what extent has my perspective on truth tended to be reasonable? (See Chapter 3 again, if necessary.)
- How careful am I about separating hear say and rumor from fact? About distinguishing knowing from assuming, guessing, or speculating?
- How often do I take the trouble to make my opinions informed?
- To what extend do I think that "mine is better"? (Not only the personal "mine," but the ethnocentric "mine," as well.) In what ways has this kind of thinking affected my view of personal problems and public issues?
- In what matters am I most resistant to change? Is the cause of my resistance insecurity? Is it fear of something? If so, of what?
- To what or whom do I feel the strongest urge to conform? In what situations ahs this conformist tendency interfered with my judgment?
- How strong is my need to save face? What aspect of my image is most precious to me? Which of my roles am I most sensitive about? Which people am I most anxious to have think well of me? In what situations have my face-saving maneuvers corrupted my thinking?
- Do I tend to make hard generalizations (stereotypes) about members of my own race or other races? Religions? Political or social organizations? Any of the other people, places, or ideas mentioned in Chapter 10? What caused me to first form those stereotyped views? In what ways have those views interfered with my evaluation of particular people, places, or ideas?
- To what extend do I tend to oversimplify complex maters? Am I just unwilling to take the trouble to learn the truth in its complexity? Or do I feel threatened by answers that are not neat and tidy? What has made me this way?
- To what extend do I tend to jump to conclusions? Do I tend to do so in some areas but not in others? If so, which areas? And why the difference? Do I draw my conclusions prematurely out of convenience? If so, is my purpose to sound authoritative and impress people? In what recent situations have I formed hasty conclusions?
- Am I aware of the degree to which I assume certain things to be so? In what matters am I most inclined to assume too much, to take too much for granted?
- Which of my beliefs have been influenced by logical fallacies: specifically, by illogical conclusions, either-or thinking, attacking the person, shifting the burden of proof, false cause, straw man, or irrational appeals?
- To what extent have the problems listed above combined to undermine my thinking about important personal and public issues?
- Which of the problems in questions 1 through 15 interfere with my thinking most frequently and significantly?
As important as the foregoing questions are, these is one question that is considerably more important – how can you most effectively use your personal inventory to improve your critical thinking performance? The answer is by following these steps:
- First, answer all the questions in the critical thinking inventory honestly and thoroughly, acknowledging not only the pleasant facts about yourself, but also the unpleasant ones. (If you ignore the latter, they will influence you no less; in fact, your refusal to face them may intensify the harm they do.)
- Next reflect on your answers, noting the areas in which you are especially vulnerable. Don't expect to be equally vulnerable in all circumstances; it is common for some to be more troublesome than others. Your goal here is to know your intellectual habits so we that you can predict exactly which thinking problem will arise for you in any particular situation.
- Finally, whenever you are addressing an issue, anticipate what problems are likely to undermine your thinking, and make a conscious effort to resist their influence.
What people say and the way they say it (and sometimes what they omit saying) can be valuable clues to their unspoken views and attitudes. Noticing these things can help us decide which areas are sensitive to people, which their understanding seems weak in, and what approaches would be most fruitful in communicating with them.
These are certain signals people give when they are listening to indicate approval or disapproval of what is being said. An occasional nodding of the head, an encouraging smile, even a low "uh-huh" of assent all signal "I'm in agreement with you." On the other hand, a slight shaking of the head, a raising of an eyebrow, a pursing of the lips as the eyes roll upward, a frown, all suggest at least partial disagreement. Similarly, people who are bored with a discussion will usually betray this feeling even if they are trying not to. The way they glance at their watches, sigh resignedly, turn their attention to someone or something outside the expected focus, nervously fidget with an article of their clothing, or shift position frequently communicates their wish to change the subject or their companions.
A great deal can be told even from the simple exchange of greetings by two people passing each other. Merely the tone in which the greeting is expressed can suggest whether the people like and respect each other and whether they consider each other equals. None of these reactions, however subtle, are missed by observant people. And, as may be obvious, aside from the benefits to their thinking, careful attention is a great aid in making people more sensitive to and thoughtful of others.
To get the most out of our thinking we must, like the skilled analysts, limit our topics appropriately. That is, we must determine at the outset what aspect or aspects of the broad general issue we are concerned with. We should select the particular aspect we wish to focus on, and in doing so settle not for a rough, vague notion but only a precise one. The following steps provide a quick yet effective way to select and clarify an issue.
- List as many specific subheadings as you can that are included under the broad, general issue you have chosen. In the case of an important controversial issue, your list may include more than a dozen subheadings, each of which is a minor issue in itself and therefore a challenge to your critical thinking.
- Decide exactly which specific issue(subheading) you are concerned with. Seldom will you be able to treat all specific issues adequately. The one or ones you choose should not only meet your interest but also fit the occasion and purpose of your analysis and the amount of time and space you have available.
- Express the specific issue(subheading) you are concerned with in one or more clear, carefully focused questions. Doing this helps keep the subsequent inquiry focused and prevents your drifting from the issue. If the questions are written out, when your thoughts move in a certain direction, you can quickly glance at the questions and decide whether that direction is likely to be productive.
There are two basic kinds of inquiry – inquiry into facts and inquiry into opinions. Opinions, remember, can be informed or uninformed. Except in cases where the purpose of our inquiry demands that both varieties of opinion be gathered, we should be more interested in informed opinion.
Because the state of human knowledge is imperfect, not every question is answerable when it is asked. Some issues remain unsolved for years, even centuries.
However resistant to solution a question may be, though, inquiry is still useful. Even if it yields no more than the untestable opinions of experts, those opinions are more valuable than the casual speculations of the uninformed. So we shouldn't be intimidated by difficult issues. We should merely be realistic about how complete and final our answers are likely to be.
Of course, our own experience and observation will seldom be adequate by itself, especially on complex and controversial matters. We will need to consult other sources. What follows is a brief guide to what to look for and where to find it.
Background on the Issue. Think of several general headings under which the issue might be classified. For example, if the issue concerned criminal investigation, the headings might be "crime," "criminology," "police," and one or more specific kinds of crime, such as "burglary." Then look up those headings in the index volume of a good general encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Americana or Encyclopedia Britannica. The articles you will find there are written by authorities in the various fields. At the end of each article is a list of books and other articles you can consult for a fuller or more specialized treatment of the issue.
In addition to the general encyclopedias, there are numerous special ones: encyclopedias of art, business, history, literature, philosophy, music, science, education, social science, and many more. Most of these contain not only discussions of the history of the field but also titles of other books and articles you may find helpful. (Remember that background reading, though a helpful start toward analyzing an issue, is never an acceptable substitute for analysis. You instructor will expect more from you than background information.)
Facts and statistics. Almanacs are treasuries of information, published yearly, on a myriad of subjects. There are a number of good ones. World Almanac is available from 1868. Information Please Almanac, The New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, and Reader's Digest Almanac are more recent publications. Because any almanac is arranged very compactly for efficient use, it is important to study the index before using it.
Information about people. A number of biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias are available. Two of the most helpful ones are Current Biography: Who's News and Why and Webster's Biographical Dictionary.
Articles in newspapers, magazines, and journals. The most basic index to articles is the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. It lists articles form over one hundred magazines by subject and by author. As with an encyclopedia, you should begin by thinking of the various headings under which the issue might be classified. Then select the volumes for the appropriate years (more current years are listed in unbound pamphlet form), and look up those headings. The entries will list the title and author of the article and the name and issue of the magazine it appeared in.
Books. In addition to the list of books provided in encyclopedias and those you find mentioned in the articles you read, you can consult your library's card or computer catalog, the key to the books available on its shelves. (One valuable source of information is college textbooks in fields related to the issue you are investigating.) Occasionally, if your library is small or if the issue you are investigating is obscure, the library holdings may be limited. In such cases, as in any situation where you are having difficulty finding information or using the reference books, ask your librarian for help. (Remember that librarians are professionals trained to solve the kinds of research problems you may experience.)
The focus of our interpretation depends on the kind of evidence we are interpreting. Evidence from our own direct experience or observation poses different questions than evidence given us by others and evidence obtained through research. The following questions are arranged by category.
If the evidence is from your own experience or direct observation, ask:
- How accurately did I observe? What kinds of inaccuracies in perceiving could have been caused by the circumstances of the event or issue? (Did it occur quickly? Were there any physical impediments such as my distance form what happened, the time of day, or weather conditions?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my state of mind? (Was I tired? Afraid? Distraught? Angry?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my mood or my attitude toward the issue, the people, or the place? Was I predisposed to view the matter one way?
- Is what I experienced or observed typical of all such cases? Is it possible that it is more the exception than the rule? Were the circumstances unusually enough that it was different than it would usually be?
If the evidence is from the experience and observation of other people, ask (in addition to the questions you'd ask of your own experience and observation):
- Did the person who reported the matter to me experience or observe the matter herself? Or was she reporting someone else's experiences?
- Does the reporter's reputation warrant my accepting he report at face value? (Is she regarded as a careful observer? Are her statements generally accurate the precise?)
- If more than one person experienced or observed the matter, do their reports agree?
If the evidence is from your research (that is, from an article or book or television program), ask:
- How consistent is this particular piece of evidence with other evidence? (All available evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, of course. For years all available evidence suggested that man's immediate ancestor, Homo erectus, "upright man," first appeared about a million years ago. Then bones were discovered in eastern Africa that showed humans lived more than 21/2 million years ago.2 Later discoveries extended that to 31/3 million years ago.)3
- If the evidence is found in a magazine article, how reputable is the magazine? Is it given to the sensational? Is it considered a responsible publication?
- How careful does the writer seem to be about avoiding unsupported assertions, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations? How impartial is the writer? (It's only reasonable to be a bit skeptical about a writer with an obvious bias, such as the chairwoman of a political party explaining the virtues of her candidate. She may be being impartial, but she will tend to be more prone to unconscious one-sidedness.)
- If the article, book, or TV program refers to the results of research, does it provide important details? For example, if the research involved interviews, how many people were involved? What was the range of geographical areas, occupations, and ages? What questions were asked? (Not every research project is sufficiently comprehensive to answer the questions it proposes to answer. In the nineteenth century Cesare Lombroso, Chairman of the Criminal Anthropology Department at the University of Turin, Italy, theorized that all criminals had certain peculiarities in common. One special distinguishing characteristic he believed all criminal possessed was a skull deformity. The criminal skull shape, he believed, resembled that of primitive man. His research in prisons seemed to verify the theory and for a time it was very influential until a British researcher, C. Goring, found as many college students and professors with that head shape as convicts!)
Still another important consideration in interpreting evidence is making careful distinctions. The exact distinction needed will, of course, depend on the situation. However, here are three kinds that are frequently necessary in avoiding faulty interpretations:
- Between the person and the idea. It's easy to confuse the person with the idea. Just as we tend to overlook the faults of our friends and exaggerate those of our enemies, so we tend to look favorably on the ideas of people we like or admire and unfavorably on those we dislike or do not admire. But the most admirable person can have a shallow mistaken view, and the least admirable can have profound one. Therefore, we should make a conscious effort to keep our analysis of ideas separate from our feeling for the people who hold them.
- Between what is said and the way it is said. Style and substance are quite different matters. Unfortunately, the person with the clearest and most graceful expression does not always have the soundest idea. So though it is natural for us to be impressed by effective writers or speakers, it's unwise to assume that their ideas are necessarily sound. As Augustine once said, "Our concern with a man is not with what eloquence he teaches, but with what evidence."
- Between why people think as they do and whether what they think is correct. It's common to judge people's motives for thinking and acting as they do. Though such judging is sometimes rash, it can be a very helpful kind of interpretation. Ding out that a senator has connections with the handgun manufacturing industry, for example, raises interesting questions about the senator's opposition to gun control laws. But it is important for us to remember that unworthy motivations do not necessarily contaminate the position. The soundness of an idea doesn't depend on the motivations of those who support it. It depends on how well it fits the realities of the situation.
The following approach is designed to help you deal effectively with longer and more complex material:
- After reading the article or chapter, go back and identify all the assertions. In later steps you will be focusing on these rather than on the various descriptions, examples, and details that support the assertions. (Note: Though there is no absolute rule that every paragraph must contain an important assertion, most paragraphs do contain one. So a good way to start looking for assertions is to examine each paragraph for such a main or topic sentence.)
- Notice all qualifying words. Is the writer speaking of all people, places, or things? Or is she speaking of most, many, some, several, a few, or certain specified ones? Is she saying always, usually, sometimes, occasionally, seldom, never, or at certain specified times?
- Notice the connections among the ideas. When a writer is simply adding something to what she has said, she will use words like and, in addition, also, another, similarly, second, third. When she is intensifying – that is, adding something she regards as even more significant – she will use moreover, indeed, more (most) important, more (most) significant. When she is contrasting – that is, taking up the other side of a question or presenting a conflicting idea – she will use but, however, nevertheless, on the other hand, still, or yet. Finally, when she is drawing a conclusion, she will use expressions like for these reasons, thus, consequently, so, and therefore.
- Notice the conditions she includes. Saying, for example, "Drug pushers should be given long jail terms if they are not themselves drug users and have been previously convicted of drug pushing" is very different from saying, "Drug pushers should be given long jail terms." The "if" clause adds a special set of conditions. Similarly, "The United States should never fire a nuclear missile at another country unless first the victim of nuclear attack by that country" is quite different from saying, "The United States should never fire a nuclear missile at another country." Expressions like if, unless, as long as, until, and before can significantly alter the meaning of an assertion.
- Decide which assertions are the main ones. Subheadings usually point to the more important assertions. Capitalized, underline, or italicized sentences are usually among the most important, as are assertions that are repeated, exactly or in different words. All these attention-getting devices are an author's way of stressing and reinforcing her message.
These guidelines will help you express your judgments effectively:
- Strive for a Balanced View
- Deal with Probability
- Make Your Subject Appropriately Specific
- Make Your Predicate Exact
- Include All Appropriate Qualifications
- Avoid Exaggeration