1. Consider the following cases. What do you think about each? What are the indicators that each person does
not believe what he has reasoned out?
What are the barriers to thinking critically in each case?
¡ Michael
reasons out the issue of capital punishment as a deterrent. He gathers information and concludes that it
does not significantly deter murder or other violent crimes. But after his investigation, he feels angry. He says, “Maybe that’s true, but I’m still in
favor of capital punishment because you have to do something to stop
criminals.”
Michael
seems to have commendable research skills. He has managed to avoid confirmation bias by concluding from his research an opposing view to his own
opinion. He falls victim to doublethink when,
despite his research providing evidence to the contrary, he continues to favor
capital punishment. Although he shows
curiosity through researching this topic, he seems to lack the openness
inherent to a “beginner’s mind” which is crucial in order to think critically.
¡ Maria,
taking a course in gender studies, reasons her way through the argument that
there is no nonsexist reason why a woman should adopt her husband’s name at
marriage. Like Michael, Maria discovers
that the more she follows the argument the angrier she gets.
Maria is
stuck in stage one of Dr. Perry’s cognitive development: Dualism. She is so firmly stuck in her belief that she sees all
other alternatives as wrong. Maria lacks
open-minded skepticism, as she seems
to be struggling with overcoming personal prejudices and biases. In my
experience, it is possible for a woman to want to take her husband’s name
simply because it is shorter. Maria seems to be encountering people with
opposing opinions and rather than using critical thinking skills in response, she
is getting angry (a form of resistance).
¡ Pete
believes that all cultures and all cultural practices are equally valid. He believes people do not have a right to say
that a particular culture’s practices are wrong. But he also believes that it’s part of our
Western culture to impose our ideas on others, and that it’s wrong for us to do
that. (Most of us believe that everyone
should be treated equally, but that does not prevent us from thinking we
deserve special breaks.)
Pete is
engaging in doublethink. Whilst he
believes we should not critique a particular culture and its practices, he is
happy to say that western culture is wrong in imposing ideas on others. What
Pete might be trying to get at is that the west is engaging in ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s own
culture is superior to others (and thus needs imposing on others), and
suspicion of other cultures.
¡ Some
people think that eating dogs, cats, or seagulls is revolting, but that eating
cows or chickens is quite reasonable. They believe this despite the fact that
all their reasoning shows the cases are identical. They find themselves trying to make up
reasons that they know don’t work (such as “Dogs and cats are pets! That’s why it is wrong to eat them.”)
In other
cultures, it is reasonable to eat cats, dogs (or even humans). As a culture, we
tend to personify our pets and we keep dogs and cats as pets. Thus, one of our
culture’s rationalizations against eating cats and dogs could be that they are
a little too close to us, analogous to us finding the idea of cannibalism
revolting. I don’t think it is unreasonable for us to be revolted by the idea
of eating cats and dogs ourselves. What could be seen as unreasonable is the
belief that another culture is “wrong” for eating cats and dogs. As for seagulls,
I’ve never met anyone who finds the idea of eating seagulls revolting. I think
that they just probably don’t taste very nice.
My wife
just pointed out that before coming to England she would never have considered
eating pigeon. Thus, as a Brit, I think I’m missing the point about
seagulls.
2. Consider the
following situation. Explain why the
last step is difficult?
The teacher lowered my course grade
because I missed too many classes. I
feel unfairly treated. So I raise the
question: “Was my teacher being fair in
giving me this grade?”
- Collect
information:
- Check
the syllabus about missed classes
- Ask the
teacher
- Consider
the teacher's point of view on the issue and purpose in lowering grades
due to absences
- Conclusion: the teacher was fair
- Therefore,
I believe the results of my reasoning that my teacher’s actions in
lowering my grade were fair.
- Why is
this last step difficult?
The last step is difficult because it goes against one’s own
personal belief (interpretation of the experience); accepting this belief is
contrary to this person’s initial feelings. In accepting this belief, this
person must change his/her feelings. He/she must overcome resistance in order
to accept this new analysis of the experience
No comments:
Post a Comment