Episode #9: Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

ABOUT CABRERA LAB:
With a mission to spread UpThinking to 8 billion people, our movement is reshaping minds and organizations globally, one thought at a time. Our founder, Derek Cabrera, epitomizes the transformative power of our mission. From a high school dropout to a mountain guide battling undiagnosed ADHD and autism, his struggles led to the discovery of DSRP theory-the "DNA of thinking." After earning his Ph.D. and becoming faculty at Cornell University, he met Laura, his future wife and research partner. An honors fellow and top student and then faculty at Cornell, Laura found school a refuge from a challenging childhood. Yet, DSRP theory revolutionized her thinking and communication, just as it had saved Derek from a lifetime of misfitism. We’re dedicated to transforming lives through better thinking. Join Us!
FOLLOW US:
Twitter: / cabreraresearch
Instagram: cabrerarese...
Linkedin: / admin
Facebook: / cabreraresearch

[@mills8102]

Great presentation overall. I do like the layers you develop in your analysis. One critique I would offer is that it would seem as though a false dichotomy between ST and CT is being presented, at least implicitly. I do think that an excess of criticism can have a stifling effect which would then need to be countered by perspectives with a strong countervailing... dare I say, bias. However, I do think it's important to follow this up with discussion about the proper and necessary role of critical thinking. Too often, we are inclined to take models and attempt a perfect instantiation of them only to find these efforts frustrated by the complexity of the world. Here, it seems paramount to use our critical thinking to do reality testing and decide if we should either redouble our efforts or reallocate them elsewhere.

[@LindaHaasManley]

Thanks so much for your insights on the term "critical thinking" and how to frame this term so that we reduce bias and consider or seek multiple perspectives in our analysis and synthesis of problems we hope to examine.

[@romerbenitez9205]

Thank you! This is profound and very helpful on understanding how to think about thinking :)

[@jaybitsack6598]

Hi Derek and Laura, THINKING is a natural human process that can - and does - span a wide spectrum of what can be referred to as "VALUE-ADDING" or "NOT" forms of thinking output/outcomes/results. And from a definitional perspective anything that is VALUE-ADDING serves to better/elevate the overall state-well-being of BOTH the individual and humanity as a whole, while at the same time elevating the potential for sustainability on all levels. In contrast, "NOT" VALUE-ADDING thinking and behaving tends to create imbalances in the overall socio-economic-environmental SYSTEM that is required to both attain and sustain a higher-order of well-being for all of humanity. So, when it comes to "BIASED" thinking and behaving, it would seem much more preferable/advantageous to have a bias toward higher-order or "VALUE-ADDING" thinking and behaving as opposed to "NOT." And in this regard, the ability to think in terms of (aka envision) a higher-order state-of-well-being that does not yet exist would be or should be a highly-valued or prized or cherished way of thinking; ideally one that could/should be taught endlessly in any meaningful educational system.

[@PeterIntrovert]

As Critical Thinker I am on the same page with you about: - avoiding black&white thinking - approaching reality from multiple-perspectives - and using multivalence thinking as extension to bivalence thinking to address complex real world situations with more flexibility. All of this, in my opinion (IMHO), is essential to critical thinking. I don't know of any formulation of critical thinking that goes against it or doesn't try to embrace these concepts. I think that when someone is learning critical thinking, they should always choose examples of good critical thinking to learn from, not anecdotes like Derek's, which I would say go against the principles of critical thinking. I really never met problems with bivalent thinking in CT therefore it could be interesting if you show real life examples of this when someone teaching or representing CT while expressing these flaws. My approach to models is a little different though - the same as in this clip: kzbin.infoUgkxbugJ7pShDyXLy4oFnVuH0J8Uevur6yiA?si=4KMjJ4dNRHNXzFg6 Transcript: "I have to start with a little disclaimer like Stafford Beer, the creator of the model, always did in his lectures. He always pointed out that the model is, of course, not the reality. It's not the truth; it's just a tool, and tools are more or less useful. Therefore, please do not mistake the model as something that could explain everything. If we would deal with a model that could explain everything, well, then there's a high likelihood that we deal with an ideology, and at least from my point of view, that's something I don't want to deal with." - Mark Lambertz Another thing is that I can't make sense of basketball analogy. Because for me for me thinking is more like moving itself and not a particular game. I can't learn one method of moving and have all martial arts, dances, moving skills for free. Lately I learn something about kung-fu that I think is a good analogy here or maybe more than one thing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJPPiGtjobqSqLcsi=yTQYnpaa6pwKS6oh&t=507 When master explains what kung-fu stances means he bring attention to concept of rooting. All stances are designed to root person to the ground. But it's not that simple as it seems. There is no big difference when we look from outside between rooted and that which isn't rooted position, the difference lie in small internal changes to the structure. The changes are small but the results are huge. I see CT in the same way as complementary to Systems Thinking and providing that essential element of being rooted to the ground.I think we can find a person who learned your method, all the "moves" from it, but lacks that insight about the internal structure, which makes it prone to being biased. But I would not say it's a problem of your method, we just need to be aware that your method not guarantee being unbiased (and I doubt that there is one method which do that). ST is great but without CT I find it incomplete and prone to failure. There is also one more thing, when master explains difference between kung-fu and karate both are teaching about movements but the philosophies of moves are hugely different and distinction between them is still valid. I think the same about different kinds of thinking. Distinctions aren't always necessary because there might be convergence but are valid and we might want to emphasis one aspect over another without being biased (rather vice versa - we choose what is relevant to a situation and our needs). It seems as though you are claiming that your method is free from bias. I would argue that bias is inherent to taking any perspective. My hopes of hearing your response to this point were previously disappointed. I would say you missed tactical level of CT because it's in small structural changes in thinking and isn't that obvious and easy to apply without guidance. And vice-versa there is as much generality in operational level and vagueness of strategical level to the System Thinking, overall literature about complexity science is rich and full of different approaches that take different angles on the topic of sense-making. I take it as a nature of these levels and theory overall and don't see it as good arguments against CT. Thank you for taking time to make an episode. Our perspectives may vary but that's ok. I appreciate your input. edit (I have problem with posting next post therefore I add edition): I found this description on your webpage: "Cabrera Lab ensures you'll take the fastest, surest path to excellence in critical thinking. Master the most important thinking skills better and faster than you ever thought possible (at your own pace). Our ground-breaking science (we pioneered the research) and step-by-step practice (we know what to practice) guides you from where you are (Good) to where you want to be (GOAT). Train yourself and your team in the skills that can't be replaced by AI." I wonder why don't you stick with it but now you named it as useless modificator that produce bias. 🤔

[@PeterIntrovert]

I found this description on your webpage: "Cabrera Lab ensures you'll take the fastest, surest path to excellence in critical thinking. Master the most important thinking skills better and faster than you ever thought possible (at your own pace). Our ground-breaking science (we pioneered the research) and step-by-step practice (we know what to practice) guides you from where you are (Good) to where you want to be (GOAT). Train yourself and your team in the skills that can't be replaced by AI." I wonder why don't you stick with it but now you named it as useless modificator that produce bias. 🤔

[@DaringDanielletravels]

Great discussion on how the modifiers we use to try to describe how we think or approach an issue or a problem can get in the way of our actual thinking and potentially create bias in and of itself. My question to you is, how can the practice of “think first” be applied to a legal framework that relies on varying levels of scrutiny, balancing tests, etc… as an attempt to remove/reduce bias in our bivalent guilty/ not guilty justice system? From a tactical level, how can we address the overall thinking of the individuals applying these tests and ultimately rendering the verdicts? Thank you so much 😊

[@PeterIntrovert]

Thinking about thinking is called metacognition. And It's good thing to have and use in many dimensions. :) In modern approaches to cognition bias is not a bias - it's a way human cognition works. Therefore it's not always the point to reduce bias but take it into account when designing social activity. I think it's good to be aware of a thing that tactical level isn't entirely about procedures and methods. Intelligent behaviors don't work that way. We need to make account for agencial qualities that can't be reduced to algorithm. Argument against CT about not being specific I think miss that insight. You can't formalize abductive thinking and reduce it to making models. It's about individual's acculumated experience and intuitions, unconscious element of our psyche that provide creative and adaptive abilities.

[@jaybitsack6598]

Hi Derek and Laura, When it comes developing/using models (mental or otherwise) being a way of representing reality, that form of epistemology is useful only to the extent that "the model" contains a high degree of fidelity when it comes to making predictions about how "reality" (i.e., any observable/detectable/manifest system) will behave under any particular set of conditions. Ergo, given the limitations of the human brain - and as a result any human being's thinking ability - the ability to create models that are fully capable of representing reality to the highest degree of fidelity necessary to act/behave in an efficient and effective (aka sustainable) manner is quite limited. In this context, any epistemology that is directed toward achieving a better (i.e., more accurate) understanding/comprehension of reality needs to be approached with the limitations of human capabilities in mind. One of the biggest limitations that need to be kept at the forefront of human thinking/cognition is that "PERCEPTION" or "PERCEPTIVE ABILITY" is all too often substituted - either rightly or wrongly - for reality. Therefore, any epistemological endeavor needs to be undertaken with full awareness of the fact that is will never be complete and that - at best - it can only serve as a stepping-stone toward a higher-order level of "PERCEPTIVE ABILITY."

[@PeterIntrovert]

Great comment, thank you. 🙏 Many thinkers like Dave Snowden go away from mental models as this seems to be not the best picture of how our cognition actually works (therefore a claim that thinking is about making models can and is questioned by science). I still find the term useful for myself and use it as a tool that support my thinking and I try to be open to new formulations of our cognition. I agree with limitness of our mind and that the models don't represent reality. That's why preferable way of using models I see when this is part of orientation element in OODA loops model. It's heuristic that helps us navigating complex and dynamic world. Have a nice day ✌️

[@LindaHaasManley]

Laura mentions an important point in that the term "critical thinking" may not be clearly defined. As a faculty member, I have encouraged students to consider issues from multiple perspectives and to avoid black/white or correct/incorrect approaches and conclusions. In arguments, more than two points of view exist even though many people don't recognize or consider multiple possibilities.

[@PeterIntrovert]

I also think that multiple approaches that were generated over time to critical thinking is strength of the field and not the weakness. Diversity of opinions and manuvering between them is key to intelligent behavior IMO. If someone want one solution to all problems then need to go find some religion and turn off the thinking ability.

[@Abrpatel]

Everything is a spectrum :) I find it lets me see more but it does take much longer to process and make sense of.

[@missyd.2964]

Whats the grad school book on problem definition that Laura mentions at 18:02 ? Thanks for this!

[@xavfaz]

Awesome discussion. Glad you helped me with some thoughts on how to approach this topic with colleagues and practitioners. Critical thinking is one of those amorphous terms more recently couched in the cognitive, learning sciences. I call these types of 'terms' (i.e., critical thinking) an empty signifier. While my preference is for systems thinking (multi-valent logic), it's hard to convince others...work in progress. 🙂