Practical Intelligence:
How to Think Critically,
Deconstruct Situations,
Analyze Deeply,
and Never Be Fooled By Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.
Chapter 1.
Look Beneath The Surface.
Some of us are blessed with academic intelligence,
otherwise known as pure book intelligence.
This ability helps you in school,
but it has limited applicability in the real world.
It turns out there is just not that much use for memorizing equations and
taking tests most of the time.
Others of us have kinesthetic intelligence,
emotional intelligence,
and even musical intelligence.
You can guess what areas of life those help with.
But practical intelligence is sorely lacking these days.
It’s also known as common sense,
seeing the world for what it is,
and how to think.
In reality,
it turns out that how we navigate the world and approach it is far more
important than what we actually know about it.
Practical intelligence is about taking in your surroundings,
ascertaining what’s happening,
and then making the best decision for you with the information you’ve got.
This might seem to be the most important of thinking skills,
but it’s also one that is never explicitly taught.
We are mostly left to ourselves to figure it out,
and this can easily explain a lot of the mental errors we observe people making
on a daily basis.
Going out of business sale?
Okay,
I need to buy everything right now.
This news article makes an outrageous claim without a citation?
Well,
sounds about right,
so I will now believe it with all my might.
If I feel something is true,
then it must be true.
And so on.
You may be able to spot these errors at the moment,
but these thoughts occur automatically throughout our lives,
and we certainly don’t catch all of them.
Let’s take the first step into using our brains for good,
instead of using them to fall into traps and follies.
It’s always about looking underneath the surface and stopping the assumption
that you can trust what you see,
hear,
and feel.
We’ve all got that distant relative or long-lost friend who sends us
occasional e-mails outlining the details of an off-the-rails conspiracy theory.
This week,
it’s the outrageous,
infuriating,
and “totally proven!” theory that the government is using children’s
television shows to send secret messages to obey their orders.
And unfortunately,
you’ve opened this e-mail from your relative,
even though you should know at this point that when something from this person
is labeled “Important!” it most certainly will not be.
“Look at this data from the National Alphabet Council!” they write.
“It shows that Big Bird from Sesame Street triggers a part of your brain that
responds positively to authority!
It’s all in his beak!
Over 85 percent of all Sesame Street watchers report experiencing electrical
seizures every time Big Bird appears onscreen!
I learned all this from Jack Sprat’s podcast Under Attack!
Stop your kids from watching Sesame Street unless you want them to be lackeys
to an authoritarian dictator!"
Something strikes you as ...fishy about this particular story.
The National Alphabet Council?
What is that?
And all those kids reporting seizures?
Geez,
you know some people with kids.
You’d think you would have heard about this by now.
And isn’t Jack Sprat that guy who claimed pasteurized milk makes schoolkids
pledge allegiance to Satan?
All right,
so you Google “National Alphabet Council."
To your utter lack of surprise,
there’s no such organization with its own website.
But you did find a link to a Snopes.com article that reveals the National
Alphabet Council was used as a “source” to prove that Green Eggs and Ham
was a Communist manifesto.
First off,
this e-mail didn’t pass the sniff test—something just seems off about it.
Next,
you don’t find any data corroborating the reports on electrical seizures from
kids watching Sesame Street.
You find no evidence that Big Bird’s beak is sending out coded messages to
children.
However,
you do find something about Jack Sprat - an interview he gave with a major
metropolitan newspaper in which he admits,
“Look,
I’m just an entertainer.
I make people feel a certain way.
If I believed half the stuff I talk about,
I wouldn’t be doing a show.
I’d be curled up in the corner of my room,
waiting for the world to end.
Instead,
I get a handsome paycheck!"
You send this information to your relative.
They respond back,
“Well,
that’s interesting.
I haven’t thought about that.
But that Jack Sprat is so passionate about his beliefs,
and he’s a great communicator.
I think I’ll stick to what he says.
Say,
have you heard the Illuminati is monitoring your online dating profiles?"
Humans all want certainty.
We want to be sure of our beliefs—uncertainty is an uncomfortable feeling
that we try to eliminate every time we make a decision or plan an event.
And we want it fast—now,
if not sooner.
Many of us consider doubt and hesitation as roadblocks to getting things done
or signs of insecurity in our thoughts.
We’ve even been taught since we were young that speed of certainty is a sign
of intelligence and solid thinking.
As a result,
we often race to get our beliefs affirmed by the first source we find and adopt
them as proven truth.
This path presents a critical error in our natural thinking instincts,
and it’s a tendency we must veer away from for better,
smarter thinking.
Certainty is more important than accuracy.
We tend to seek out confirmation that’s more passionate than truthful.
We’re more impressed by someone on television mounting a fervent argument
about an issue,
instead of a calm,
reasoning,
boring person who simply lays out the facts as they are.
If someone’s acting intensely about their beliefs,
we’re inclined to think they must have the truth on their side,
and we get swept up right along with them.
Practical intelligence is about seeking truth,
not prioritizing removing uncertainty over establishing certainty.
They aren’t the same thing.
Eliminating uncertainty means giving serious thought to what’s causing
doubt—in our opening short story,
that would be looking up the National Alphabet Council to find out if they’re
on the up-and-up.
Establishing certainty is simply glomming on to the first “fact” that
soothes the uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty,
insecurity,
and simply not being sure of something.
This first chapter is about not accepting anything at face value,
because face value tends to deceive in often intentional ways.
It’s about seeking the truth and nothing but the truth.
You can imagine this might make you a pain in the butt to deal with,
but it’s really not about that.
It’s about the fact that every situation has at least some complexity and
nuance underneath it.
And if you keep digging,
oftentimes,
things are completely different from what they seemed at first glance.
Making this whole process harder is the fact that the brain loves certainty so
much that it processes it as a reward.
Uncertainty is perceived by the brain as a threat that needs to be extinguished.
The sooner we can remove that threat with certainty,
the better,
no matter how shaky the certainty’s foundation.
The most effective models of thinking help us quickly decipher and comprehend
what’s happening in our world.
They make it easier to decode and interpret what we see and lead us to consider
matters more thoroughly.
Ultimately that course will be more rewarding than slap-dash validations of
what we prefer to believe.
One helpful thought structure could be called “strong opinions loosely held."
This means being positive and assured about what you believe,
but open-minded enough to hear out viewpoints that might challenge your own.
It also means accepting that there’s nothing weak or embarrassing about
changing your mind.
Doing so with a solid grip on the facts is actually a sign of your mental
strength;
merely agreeing with the crowd is the real weakness.
Of course this is easier said than done,
what with our brains being hungry for assurance and anxious in the face of
disbelief.
But we can train our brains to go more deeply beyond appearances and uncover
the hidden details we don’t see at first glance.
Curious As A Cat.
The most powerful tool we have in overcoming our desire for certainty and
looking beneath the surface isn’t pre-existing intelligence or judgment.
It’s simple curiosity.
All human knowledge—from discovering fire and the wheel to the theory of
relativity—sprang from someone being curious.
It came from a drive to know more about the nature of the world.
Curiosity drives one to dive deeply into the nuts and bolts until they come to
a solid comprehension about a subject or situation.
And when they get to that point,
they’re eager to learn more.
It’s a self-perpetuating trait;
the more you have of it,
the more you want it.
And if you have enough of this one mindset,
you will be well positioned for deeper thinking.
Curiosity is a direct path to practical intelligence.
Pursuing your avenues of curiosity will help you learn and perceive things that
other people won’t.
Developing your inquisitiveness is vital to building your knowledge and
awareness.
Every field of thought or knowledge,
without a single exception,
is easier to learn if you keep your curiosity front and forward.
It’s how you can naturally get to the heart of things and comprehend deeply.
But curiosity isn’t automatic,
and it’s not something you can just will into existence.
Furthermore,
some of us are blocked from curiosity because of fear - we tend to have severe
anxiety about the unknown,
and that anxiety can be particularly high when we’re about to find out about
the unknown.
What we need to do is delve more deeply into the nature of curiosity to
understand how it really works and how we can use it.
It’s a far more versatile tool than you might initially expect,
and can help you think in smarter ways.
Think of this as a preliminary mindset to digging beneath the surface
effectively on any topic.
Most of us would think,
understandably so,
that being curious is just a simple matter of having a higher interest in
learning things or having new experiences.
When we say someone is “naturally curious,” we usually mean they are
motivated by this interest more so than other people.
But in reality,
there’s a lot more to curiosity than simply having a strong desire to know
more—people can become curious for quite a few distinctly different reasons.
Psychology professor Todd B. Kashdan from George Mason University spent a
considerable amount of time researching the nature of human curiosity.
Kashdan sought to nail down the diverse characteristics of curiosity into what
he called “dimensions."
Kashdan conducted a study with over four hundred participants,
each of whom answered three hundred personality questions.
Analyzing the data he received,
Kashdan developed a model of curiosity that identified five dimensions of
curiosity.
These aspects reveal how certain people are motivated to be curious in the
first place.
Knowing these dimensions and how they work might help you fire up your own
curiosity engines.
Kashdan’s dimensions include - 1. Joyous exploration.
When considering the nature of curiosity,
this dimension is probably what we’re picturing - the simple thrill of
discovering and experiencing things we don’t yet know about.
The joyous explorer views new knowledge as a component of personal growth,
which for them is its own reward.
They’re genuinely excited about reading all of Shakespeare’s plays,
trying sushi for the first time,
or riding cross-country in a race car.
Amassing a wealth of different experiences and knowledge simply makes them
happy.
2. Deprivation sensitivity.
This branch of curiosity,
on the other hand,
is more about anxiety.
Someone working from this dimension feels apprehensive or nervous about their
lack of information—being “deprived” of knowledge makes them uneasy.
To reduce this pressure,
they engage their curiosity.
The deprivation sensitivity dimension comes into play when we’re trying to
solve a problem,
getting up to speed with our comprehension,
or considering complicated or difficult ideas.
For example,
if you’re balancing your bank accounts and find you’ve spent more than you
have on record,
you get a little nervous,
which in turn makes you go through your receipts to see if you’ve missed
anything.
If you’re taking a philosophy class and the material’s going way over your
head,
you feel anxious about your abilities and study a little harder (if you
haven’t let fear stop you,
that is).
When you finally discover the information you’re seeking,
your discomfort will—theoretically—stop.
3. Stress tolerance.
Whereas deprivation sensitivity relates to how uncomfortable one feels about
not having certain knowledge,
the stress tolerance dimension focuses on the uneasy feelings that can come
from getting that knowledge or taking on a new experience.
A person with high stress tolerance in their pursuits is more likely to follow
their curiosity.
On the other hand,
someone who can’t deal with the uncertainty,
disorder,
or doubt that arises when exploring new ideas or having new experiences is less
likely to let curiosity lead them.
Take two people who have never been on a roller coaster before and are in line
to do so at an amusement park.
Both of them are at least a little nervous about it because it’s a new thing
for them.
One of them is more willing to confront their fears—they’ve done so before
with other things and have always survived—so they’re able to fight through
their anxieties and get onboard.
The other one,
though,
lets their fear reduce them into a quivering mass of exposed nerves.
They have to take the chicken exit and miss out on the roller coaster.
The first person clearly has a higher ability to tolerate stress,
can go past their fears,
and will follow their curiosity for a new experience.
As for the second person,
well,
let’s hope they really like the merry-go-round,
because that’s pretty much all they can handle.
4. Social curiosity.
This dimension of curiosity is simply the desire to know what’s going on with
other people - what they’re thinking,
doing,
and saying.
We indulge this curiosity by interacting with or watching others.
We’ll have a conversation with a friend because we’re interested in a movie
they just saw,
or we want to hear their opinions on current events,
or we just have to share in the latest gossip they’ve heard.
Social curiosity can also come from a more detached point of observation.
A great example of this is people-watching in a crowded place,
like a bus stop or Central Park.
We might see a couple having a spat,
or a couple kids playing a game they just made up,
or a man walking his pet duck.
(It happens.)
Based on what they’re doing or saying,
we might form certain judgments or opinions about how they really are or how
they behave in a more private situation.
Curiosity drives us to study them.
5. Thrill-seeking.
This aspect is similar to the stress tolerance dimension,
except a thrill-seeker doesn’t just tolerate risk — they actually like it.
A thrill-seeker is more than happy to place themselves in harm’s way just so
they can gain more experience.
For them,
it’s worth the gamble of physical jeopardy,
social disavowal,
or financial ruin just to have an adventure or encounter something new.
For a thrill-seeking example,
look no further than Richard Branson,
the hugely successful entrepreneur.
He’s tried to balloon around the world.
He’s tried to race a boat across the Atlantic.
He’s stood valiantly in the path of oncoming storms that destroyed everything
else in the immediate vicinity.
Branson,
in fact,
claims to have had seventy-six “near-death experiences,” including one
where he went over the handlebars of the bicycle he was riding.
Branson escaped with only minor injuries as he watched his bike go off the edge
of a cliff.
Clearly,
Branson feels extremely comfortable in situations where there’s an element of
danger.
That’s your thrill-seeker.
For the joyous explorer and thrill-seeker,
curiosity is pretty easy and automatically generated.
It’s the same for the socially curious,
depending on the situation and who surrounds them.
For these three dimensions,
curiosity is a welcome and comfortable condition.
If you’re aware of the positive benefits you are getting from something,
it’s easier to indulge in them.
But we may not always feel that way,
so we can’t really depend on it.
If you’re resistant to curiosity,
you might serve yourself by considering the origins of your anxiety.
If you’re feeling awkward about not being “in the know” or left out of
the loop,
you could use that motivation to drive you to amend that situation (deprivation
sensitivity).
If you’re unable to fight through your fears,
you might consider ways to rationalize them and get stronger (stress tolerance).
Overall,
we just want to understand what drives us toward and,
conversely,
what prevents us from embodying a curious mindset.
Knowing the driving motivation helps.
For the remainder of this chapter,
we’ll look at techniques and approaches that can at least simulate a sense of
curiosity to help bring you to new knowledge and experience—therefore helping
you go beyond the surface level and get to the bottom of things.
We can’t all naturally think,
“Hey,
what does that really mean?” so these mental models will help you reach that
point methodically.
A Skeptic’S View.
Skepticism is a model to truly understand what you’re looking at and gain the
truthful view of it.
The word “skepticism” is frequently misunderstood,
sometimes being labeled an undesirable trait.
When someone says they’re skeptical about a certain thing,
they might ruffle the feathers of somebody else who thinks they’re just
letting their negativity get in the way.
Why’d they have to ruin all the fun with their skepticism?
Some people use the word “skeptical” interchangeably with the word
“cynical”—but there’s a world of difference between the two.
Except for both trains of thought involving a measure of disbelief,
they couldn’t be more different.
A skeptic approaches everything from a standpoint of reason and learning;
they’re open-minded but picky about requiring evidence.
The cynic,
however,
distrusts any viewpoints they don’t already agree with.
They’re firm and fixed in their beliefs.
They believe everything in life will progress in a certain way and there’s no
point in questioning it.
Even hard,
verifiable evidence may not sway their beliefs.
Cynicism is dangerous because it implies there are no answers to anything in
life.
A cynic believes that matters have already been determined and there’s no
point in challenging them.
Cynicism shuts down investigation and discourages interest.
That’s dangerous because it leads to hopelessness.
Skepticism,
on the other hand,
has a positive goal of discovering real truth.
A skeptic seeks to find irrefutable truth,
or as close as they can get to it.
This by definition involves going beneath the surface and determining what’s
really in front of you.
The word itself derives from the Greek skeptikos,
which translates to “inquiring” or “looking around."
The mission of a skeptic is to question.
The skeptic’s mind is trained to look for the basic facts,
impartial to any bias or agenda.
This is probably an unnatural way for most of us to be thinking,
but it can shed light on how much you leave uncovered.
Skeptics don’t settle for having blind faith or wishing truth into existence.
They don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble,
but neither do they want to fill someone up with false confidence.
They just want to understand,
and they do not discriminate between the conclusions that might surface.
They are the impartial judge of a criminal court,
with similar standards and adherence to intellectual honesty.
They see things in only black and white,
as you also must.
There can be no wiggle room.
Skeptics operate only on evidence.
They must have proof that the assertions of other people actually work or are
completely true.
They can’t accept facts simply at face value.
Before a skeptic can decide something’s real,
they need to see confirmation in the form of data or consistently repeated
results.
The mere fact that someone just “heard somebody say something” is nowhere
close to being evidence.
That’s merely an anecdote,
and the plural of anecdotes is also not evidence.
A healthy skeptic always considers and questions the source of certain
information—and no matter how high up or acclaimed that source may be,
they’re still subject to being confirmed by evidence.
A source may have impeccable credentials,
a gleaming reputation,
and considerable fame or authority.
All of that’s great.
They still need to have evidence.
Skepticism will feel more satisfying the more you use it,
and you’ll be less prone to flawed thinking,
counterfeit facts,
and weak arguments.
Just make sure you don’t become an annoying pedant with this newfound power
of scrutiny you’ve found.
Skepticism is more of a mindset of withholding judgment until you are sure the
truth is plain to see.
This pursuit of truth and reality might echo something you’re already
familiar with,
the scientific method.
Indeed,
skeptics resemble scientists more than anything else for their strict standards
of proof.
The scientific method is a time-proven process for gathering information that
scientists have used for centuries to test their theories.
It works by putting observations and assumptions to scrutiny to ensure that the
truth is discovered.
For instance,
if someone makes an observation that it grows colder at night,
there would be no way of proving this to be truth unless data was collected
during daytime and nighttime and compared.
The scientific method is generally considered to consist of five stages -
asking a question,
constructing a hypothesis,
testing by experimentation,
analysis of results,
and forming a conclusion.
In fact,
this process exactly mirrors skepticism.
An assertion without evidence or fact is as good as an opinion,
and certainly nothing close to truth.
Thus,
in order to put everyday statements to the test,
you’re going to have to conduct an experiment,
collect data,
and analyze results empirically.
Skepticism leads you down a line of inquiry and discovery that cuts out the
assumptions and opens doors of truth.
Now that we’ve established that “skepticism” isn’t a dirty word and is
a hallmark of thinking smarter,
how does one actually use it to evaluate the relative truthfulness of a claim?
Here’s a skeletal guideline for how to approach a topic with appropriate
skepticism.
1. Intake the statement.
Fully absorb the meaning and implications of the claim after it’s been made.
Even if it sounds ridiculous to you at first hearing,
at least pretend that it’s a serious and meaningful belief.
Give your source the benefit of the doubt for this one brief step.
This will allow you to give it the attention it deserves,
if even just to poke holes in it.
When we dismiss,
we don’t pay attention.
2. Question the source.
Consider the viability of the source of the information.
Then,
consider the possible intentions of such a source.
If it’s a publication,
media outlet,
or website,
gauge its reputation and agenda—there are plenty of legitimate-looking
sources that aren’t above distorting or stretching the truth to serve an
agenda.
If it’s a friend,
relative,
or acquaintance,
ask them to tell you where they got the information (without devolving into a
heated argument,
if possible).
3. Search for supporting arguments or information.
If a certain claim has “gone public,” there’s probably ample information
supporting it that you can easily find on the web.
Find the arguments in favor of the statement you’re researching—and again,
question the sources as you go.
4. Search for opposing arguments or information.
Repeat Step 3,
but this time,
look for statements or sources that either deny or criticize the information
you’re looking up.
Be aware of the possibility of confirmation bias on your part while doing this
step—don’t discount opposing views or gravitate toward unreliable sources
just because they’ll back up your own beliefs.
Give yourself a higher standard of truth.
5. Question your findings logically.
Here’s where you put together what you’ve learned and weigh the likelihood
of the statement being true or false.
I like to write things down as a way of thinking through them,
and you can do that by listing pros and cons,
making a mind map,
or writing a persuasive essay to yourself.
Or you can simply do some heavy contemplation in your head without writing
anything down.
Remember,
you are seeking evidence,
not certainty,
and you don’t need an explicit answer.
You just want to look beneath the surface.
Wherever the evidence points is where you look.
If you find the original claim viable,
then you agree.
If you’ve found too much doubt or contradictory evidence,
you disagree.
If you’ve seen compelling evidence for both sides and can’t reconcile it
right now,
you can decide to leave it for the time being.
Again,
what’s important is truth,
not certainty.
The Critical Thinker.
Critical thinking is the act of delaying gratification in lieu of accuracy and
a three-dimensional understanding of the nuances presented to you.
It’s not terribly popular as a way of navigating life,
but it’s how you are going to learn to look beneath the surface of any
statement.
The goal of critical thinking isn’t to produce a quick,
easily digestible answer.
In fact,
it’s not even to provide any certifiable conclusion whatsoever.
Instead,
the point of critical thinking is to make a topic more transparent.
The essence of critical thinking centers not on answering questions but on
questioning answers.
The approach is different,
but the end goal is the same as skepticism’s—to find the truth of the
matter.
Rather than provide a rock-solid,
inarguable conviction,
critical thinking expands your viewpoint and gives you several ways to look at
a situation or problem.
It gets you past the external noise and easy answers to show you the whole
scope of a circumstance or issue.
It allows you to have a discussion about information or a topic,
even if only with yourself.
That’s where you’ll learn more than what meets the eye.
The questions you use in critical thinking go beyond standard “just the
facts,
ma’am” inquiries.
Instead,
they challenge the answerer to probe the reasons for a subject’s importance,
its origins,
relevance,
and countering or alternative beliefs.
They can be applied to any subject—even,
with some adaptation,
scientific or mathematical principles.
The goal isn’t to get you to agree or disagree with a given doctrine,
but just to understand the totality of its meaning.
Let’s try an example - the theory of gravity.
All you need to know is that it is generally one of the laws of physics that
govern our planet and the universe as we know it.
We might think we know what it is,
but subjecting it to a line of critical thinking questions would probably
uncover the fact that it’s not what you first thought.
Here are some questions you could use to critically evaluate the topic.
I’m not going to attempt to answer them,
because last time I checked,
I wasn’t a physicist.
But I did look up enough to form some decent questions,
and the main point of this exercise is to show how they can be phrased - What
makes the theory of gravity important?
This question,
obviously,
seeks out why the theory of gravity deserves to be talked about.
Which details of the theory of gravity are important and why?
This question gets down into the specific elements of the theory of gravity and
how they affect certain factors of a body’s motion.
What differentiates the theory of gravity from other theories?
Why?
This question seeks to discover why the idea does or does not have special
significance.
What is an example of the theory of gravity?
This question seeks to gain understanding through a concrete example.
What are the differences between the theory of gravity and other physics laws?
This query compares two different models and allows you to understand what sets
one model apart from the other.
How is the theory of gravity related to quantum physics?
This question sets up a description of how the subject relates to other
existing knowledge.
What evidence can you provide for or against the theory of gravity?
This question forces acknowledgment of both positive and negative aspects of
the subject.
Each subject or topic has weaknesses and strengths regarding its applicability
and universality.
What patterns do you notice in the theory of gravity?
This helps you search out repetitive elements and cause-and-effect
relationships,
which almost always indicate importance.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the theory of gravity?
This question sets up another comparison between the possible effects of the
theory of gravity.
When might the theory of gravity be most useful and why?
This question looks for an example of how the concept is used in the real world
and can affect your life.
What criteria would you use to assess whether the theory of gravity is accurate?
This question seeks how to establish hard proof that a concept is working or
not and introduces the concept of specific metrics.
What information would you need to make a decision about the theory of gravity?
This question addresses the conditions in which Keynesian models can thrive and
what contextual information is important.
Do you agree that the theory of gravity works?
Why or why not?
This question encourages you to use your own reasoning to judge the merit of a
certain concept.
How could you create or design a new model of the theory of gravity?
Explain your thinking.
This question urges you to reimagine the concept in accordance with your own
ideas and project how they could work in the future.
Whew.
That’s a lot of questions.
It’s only a fraction of the many sides and angles from which you can examine
any given issue.
None of them are answered in definitive terms,
nor can they be.
But their open-ended nature encourages you to pursue the facts from an
objective standpoint.
Is this beginning to sound circular and repetitive?
It can indeed be a never-ending and tedious exercise,
but if you keep the purpose of discovery and perspective at the forefront,
it becomes more meaningful.
At this point,
you may have used all your answers to formulate a theory or conclusion—or
you’ve come across conclusions from others that address their interpretation
of what the facts mean.
But as with the questions you’ve just asked,
the ideas you come across (even your own)
should also be subjected to the same kind of inquisition as to whether the
conclusions are sound and hold up.
The first few questions should address the structure of the conclusion,
whether it comes from a sound basis in reasoning.
A second set of questions focuses instead on the quality of the conclusions and
supporting arguments.
We can see this through the same example of our theory of gravity model - What
are the issues and conclusions of the theory of gravity?
This question addresses the foundation of the theory—the problem it was
trying to solve—and what the answers are.
What are the reasons for your conclusions?
A well-worded conclusion will list out the facts being used to support it.
This question identifies what those facts are.
And it’s crucial to separate facts from anecdotes or feelings.
What assumptions are you using in your theory?
If there are any variable factors being used when the conclusion is formed,
it’s important to ferret them out.
For instance,
generally,
the theory of gravity assumes that the laws of relativity apply and a quantum
singularity is nowhere nearby.
The next two questions seek to expose the shortcomings of thought that may have
compromised the finding of the conclusions - Are there fallacies in the
reasoning?
This question seeks out any inaccuracies,
mistakes,
or outright falsehoods in any of the reasons given.
How good is the evidence?
This is how you check that the supporting facts behind the conclusion are
airtight,
from legitimate sources,
and not discolored by bias or misinformation.
There’s a chance that these questions might raise even more questions instead
of answering all your inquiries.
But again,
that’s the main point of this line of interrogation - to create a
three-dimensional view of the topic you’re investigating and not just stop at
the first answer that looks “certain."
Just because something is certain does not mean it is truthful.
But wait—critical thinking can go even more deeply,
and we look to the Paul-Elder model for that.
This approach is really going deeper into the rabbit hole,
so to speak.
Paul-Elder Thinking.
As might be apparent by now,
improving the quality of your thinking,
your mental agility and your intelligence is never something that happens by
accident,
but rather something that you develop consciously and deliberately.
Paul-Elder’s framework for critical thinking is an extremely useful tool for
training yourself intellectually and improving the quality of your thinking.
This goes far beyond the set of questions we examined previously,
and sheds a light into an entirely different mode of thought.
Thinking,
as a function,
can take on many characteristics.
Just as physical movement can be graceful and in good form,
thinking can be ordered and “correct” in a similar way—or else clumsy and
inelegant!
By having intellectual standards,
we establish a goal for the quality of thought we strive to achieve,
and a big part of this is developing the skill and habit of critical thinking.
There are three main components to this framework - 1.
The Elements Of Thought Or Reasoning.
2.
The intellectual standards that should be applied to the elements of reasoning
and 3.
The intellectual traits of a critical thinker.
Let’s begin with the first component.
What are the elements of reasoning?
Paul-Elder invites us to consider the units of the thought process itself,
and assess them and their function.
The authors proposed eight structural elements of reasoning - 1.
Purpose.
2.
Questions.
3.
Point Of View.
4.
Information.
5.
Inferences.
6.
Concepts.
7.
Implications.
8.
Assumptions.
The first,
purpose,
is otherwise called your goal,
objective or intention.
A good critical thinker will be crystal clear on their purpose.
In other words,
what are you really trying to do here,
and why?
Does your goal need refinement,
or expansion?
Another element is the question itself,
the problem at hand or the issue being explored.
Heisenberg famously claimed,
“What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
Essentially,
the quality of your inquiry matters,
and will shape the rest of your critical thinking.
To assess this element,
ask yourself exactly what question you’re trying to answer—and how you’re
stating that question.
Could you frame it differently?
What kind of question is it,
and could it be simplified?
What form will the answer take?
Is it really a collection of several smaller questions?
Critical thinking also entails gathering information.
If you’ve refined your question properly,
you are able to gather data that is relevant to it,
and ignore data that isn’t.
Ask yourself whether the data you’re gathering is not just relevant,
but also sufficient—i.e.,
is there enough of it?
Is it accurate,
and where did it come from?
Is there some information you’re missing?
When you judge a piece of data as relevant,
how exactly are you making that appraisal?
This will seamlessly lead you to another component,
inference.
You take in the data in front of you and draw conclusions from it.
You interpret a set of facts to come to some conclusive statement about it.
However,
to check that you’re doing this correctly,
you need to make sure your inferences actually flow logically from the evidence
at hand.
Does your interpretation make sense,
or have you overlooked another possible angle?
How did you reach your conclusion,
and is it sound—i.e.,
did you make any unfounded assumptions?
Inferences should be no more and no less than the data suggests.
Here’s the moment when you weigh up alternatives and question your
assumptions.
From this flows another component,
concepts.
These are the theories,
ideas,
models,
principles and laws we construct for ourselves to better help us understand the
data we see.
Again,
concepts should be “justifiable,” which means they should be appropriate to
the data,
not go above or beyond it.
Think carefully about your hypothesis,
your claims and your assumptions.
Try to find the core thread or principle and ask whether it’s sufficiently
clear,
simple and relevant.
Models are only good so long as they accurately reflect reality and allow us to
make predictions.
Does your model/theory do this?
Why or why not?
Assumptions are another component we’ve already mentioned.
These are ideas we take for granted—consciously or unconsciously—even
though there may not strictly be evidence for them.
Ask what “obvious” pieces of information you’re relying on or haven’t
properly looked at.
What is being taken as a given,
and what have you glanced over as unimportant?
Is it?
Look closely at all the steps you took to reach your conclusions or theories
and ask if they’re strictly supported by fact.
Implications and consequences are another component.
If you settle on an idea or “truth,” then some other ideas or truths will
naturally and logically follow from the first.
Actions have consequences,
and thoughts have implications.
Have you considered all of yours?
What naturally follows if you do/claim something?
What are the likely implications of taking your position or making your
particular claim?
Finally,
the eighth component is point of view,
which is essentially your own unique perspective or orientation.
Nobody has the privilege of a completely neutral frame of reference,
so it’s worth considering what your position is,
and how it affects your reasoning.
What are you focusing on and why?
Is there another alternative perspective worth considering?
Is your view reasonable—or does it ignore or amplify certain things?
Consider how your point of view interacts with your assumptions and your
conclusions about what’s in front of you.
Does it contrast with others’?
Are you giving yourself sufficient opportunity to challenge your orientation,
or reconsider points of view that may be limiting you or causing you confusion
or distress?
As you can see,
each of these components makes up the complex and ever-changing process of our
thinking.
But without conscious awareness of how these components are working and
interacting,
the quality of our thought is unlikely to be high.
You may run wild with unfounded assumptions,
draw faulty conclusions or start extrapolating from incomplete data to prove a
poorly conceived theory that is only backed up by partial,
low-quality data.
And you might not be aware that you are doing it!
Now,
the whole reason for understanding these elements (the first part of the
framework)
is so that you can appraise and improve upon them using your intellectual
standards (the second part).
In asking some of the questions we have above,
we’ve seen how it’s possible to challenge and explore each of these
components.
Paul-Elder had a more formalized way of doing this,
which they called their “universal intellectual standards."
These determine the quality of the reasoning,
acting as a guide for thinking.
You may perform some of these questions or appraisals deliberately at first,
but the goal is to make them more habitual and automatic with time.
There are nine standards in total,
and they can each in turn be applied to the elements listed above - 1.
Clarity.
2.
Accuracy.
3.
Precision.
4.
Relevance.
5.
Depth.
6.
Breadth.
7.
Logic.
8.
Significance.
9.
Fairness.
The first standard is clarity.
To clarify is to cut down on confusion or vagueness,
for instance if you can elaborate on a claim,
provide an example,
or if you can paraphrase or simplify what you’re saying.
Often,
what seems like a great idea is really just a noisy,
busy one that falls apart once you try to streamline it.
Accuracy is the standard of veracity.
In other words,
is it true?
How could you tell?
When checking a claim or a piece of information’s truth,
we also have to consider the source and motivation of the evidence itself.
Really ask why you have reason to believe this idea is true—or not.
Is it better understood as a theory or opinion?
The standard of precision is also important.
It’s about specificity.
Good thinking is about exact statements that are clear and focused.
Are you being too general?
Sometimes,
good critical thinking means getting into the details of things to find exactly
what you’re saying.
Relevance is a standard already mentioned.
This is not a value judgment,
or a personal opinion,
but rather an assessment of whether your thought actually has anything to do
with your stated aim.
It’s necessary to bear the original question in mind,
and keep comparing your questions,
data and interpretations against it.
Is what you’re thinking about actually helping the issue at hand?
Depth is the standard that concerns levels of complexity.
Are you thinking in too shallow a fashion?
Have you properly considered the difficulties and complexities of the issue at
hand?
This standard allows you to fully comprehend the real scope of the question,
and the extent to which you’re trying to solve it.
Similarly,
breadth is a question not of the complexities and difficulties of an issue,
but rather its natural boundaries.
Have you considered enough other perspectives?
Could the way you’re thinking be expanded to include more?
Here’s where you weigh alternative points of view and expand the edges of
your own.
Logic is an obvious standard that is harder to apply than it seems.
It can be difficult to pick apart,
but ask yourself whether what you’re thinking strictly makes sense.
If your thinking was an argument,
would each premise flow naturally from the previous one?
Does your claim actually follow from the evidence at hand?
Are you solving the problem in the right terms?
This standard is about making sure that the elements of your thinking are
actually cohering soundly.
The standard of significance is,
in a way,
about focus.
Look carefully at the information you are choosing to focus on,
and ask whether it really is the most significant aspect of the issue at hand.
Try to find the central issue of the matter and pay it proportional attention.
Are you getting sidetracked by relatively insignificant details?
Look closely to sift through and filter out only what is most important.
Finally,
the standard of fairness is significant,
although a little tricky to get a handle on.
Here,
you ask yourself whether your thinking is “justifiable."
A good critical thinker considers the thinking of others,
and the purpose they’re working toward.
This standard is the closest to a moral aspect—are you actually using your
intellect clearly and honorably,
or are you merely attempting to win an argument or manipulate data in order to
get what you want from the situation?
This standard asks that we are being reasonable and mature in the way we think,
and to carefully consider the consequences.
Sadly,
many people mistake intellectual rigor for a blood sport,
or think that developing critical thinking is merely a fancy way to assert
intellectual dominance over others and win arguments.
This is why it’s crucial to consistently question your own position,
your own intentions and your own limitations.
A critical thinker is not someone who is really good at being right,
or showing their intellectual prowess.
Rather,
a critical thinker is someone who has trained themselves to be comfortable with
being wrong,
and who can use their cognitive processes not just to confirm what they already
know or wish was the case,
but rather to enlighten themselves and reveal new avenues of thinking that
might otherwise be hidden by sloppy or unexamined thought.
This leads us to the third and final part of the framework,
which is the intellectual traits that Elder saw as belonging to those who have
mastered critical thinking.
In successfully applying our intellectual standards to the elements of
reasoning,
we fine-tune our mental apparatus and become better thinkers,
period.
Those who have developed the habit (and it’s a habit,
not a static personality trait)
of critical thinking display certain characteristics,
and in turn can do well to cultivate the characteristics themselves.
These Traits Include -
1.
Intellectual Humility.
2.
Intellectual Courage.
3.
Fair-Mindedness.
4.
Intellectual empathy (i.e. the ability to not just pay lip service to other
points of view,
but to actually deeply consider them as alternatives to their own view)
5.
Confidence In One’S Own Reasoning.
6.
Intellectual autonomy,
i.e. the ability to “think for oneself” 7.
Intellectual perseverance,
i.e. the ability to push on with a confusing,
unpopular or difficult concept.
8.
Integrity.
Though it’s helpful to bear these qualities in mind when developing your own
mental capacity,
they are better understood as emergent qualities that come from the consistent
application of intellectual standards to the elements of your own reasoning.
In other words,
we can idealize the strong,
toned physiques of professional athletes,
but we can only achieve that for ourselves with diligent,
consistent training.
People who make critical thinking a part of their daily lives will learn to
formulate their problems clearly and concisely,
and will watch themselves think about solutions,
asking whether the data they’re using is relevant,
sufficient,
and logical.
They’ll keep asking questions (primarily of themselves!)
and test any conclusions they come to against both intellectual standards and
their own objectives.
They will take great pains to make sure they don’t accept faulty
interpretations,
or fail to consider alternatives.
They are simultaneously open-minded and geared toward refining and concluding.
They are above all curious,
and want to find the best way to satisfy this curiosity—not to be
“right,” but for the satisfaction of cultivating knowledge about themselves
and the world.
In all this,
they don’t lose sight of the context in which they operate,
and they know how to communicate with others,
even in complex situations or where viewpoints differ.
Let’s consider a few examples of how this entire process works together.
Imagine you’re at a get-together of friends and are introduced to someone
new,
and you strike up a conversation with them.
You compliment them on their cool shirt,
and they tell you how surprisingly cheap it was and what a good deal they got
on it.
You make a lighthearted comment about how it was probably made in a sweatshop
somewhere,
like so much of our clothing today.
The other person laughs but says,
“Well,
let’s hope not.
But,
not all sweatshops are bad."
You gear up to disagree,
and share what you know about the issue - that sweatshops for major clothing
labels are responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in the
world,
and exploit third-world countries only to make massive profits for already
wealthy corporations.
In fact,
you’re surprised that this person doesn’t know this,
and soon you’re embroiled in a heated discussion.
If you were a practiced critical thinker,
however,
you would pause here and practice some humility,
becoming genuinely curious about your new friend’s position and claims,
and what information they have to back them up.
You would be aware of your own emotional investment in the issue,
and would start to question your own perspective rather than jump in with an
argument based on assumptions.
Throughout your conversation,
you ask thoughtful but focused questions to try to understand their point of
view—and your own.
Why do they think that some sweatshops are not bad?
Where did they get their information?
You practice fairness in your thinking.
You hold off on making a conclusion until you’ve gathered the facts.
After a long conversation,
you discover that this person comes from a country where “sweatshops” pay
workers in one week what they’d receive doing a month’s worth of any other
work.
You learn that many previously destitute people are able to work and support
their families because of these clothing manufacturers—and your friend comes
from one of these families.
You learn that although sweatshops do indeed subject workers to horrific
conditions,
they also happen to be the best option for many in some countries—a
complicated piece of information you didn’t possess before.
You quickly realize that,
sweatshops being an issue you’ve never really taken the time to consider,
there’s more to it than you thought.
You also realize that,
compared to your friend,
you actually possess less information about this topic,
and are not even sure where your impressions about it come from.
You leave the conversation with a renewed interest in better understanding the
politics of your friend’s home country,
and are grateful for the opportunity to have questioned your knee-jerk,
unexamined opinions about a very complex topic.
In this example,
the elements under question include -
•Point of view (how your unique perspective affected your conclusions)
•Information (whether you have sufficient knowledge to draw conclusions,
or are missing key pieces of information)
•Concepts (the popular “zero sum” model of cheap labor in developing
countries)
•Assumptions (An obvious one - that nobody really wants to work in a
sweatshop,
right?)
Intellectual standards can then be applied to these in turn -
•Depth and breadth could be applied to your point of view (i.e. is yours
really the only viable one?)
•You can use some standards for good information (Is it sufficient and high
quality?
Where did you get your opinion from?)
•You can apply the same standards you have for information to your concepts
(Is your model of sweatshops accurate?
Does it really reflect the reality this other person is sharing with you?)
•The standard of accuracy and significance can be applied to the assumptions
you’ve made (Simply,
are they true?
Have you been focusing on the wrong thing?)
All the above can be considered together with the critical thinking traits of
intellectual humility and fair-mindedness (i.e. considering the fact that
winning the argument is not worth offending and alienating your conversation
partner.)
Failing to understand the elements of your own thinking (your point of view,
the data you have,
the assumptions)
or work hard to improve their quality by applying intellectual standards
(asking about the logic,
veracity,
relevance and depth of your thought processes)
may have taken this conversation in a completely different direction.
It could have well turned into an argument,
especially if instead of challenging your assumptions and realizing you were
coming to conclusions off of incomplete data,
you assumed the other person was ignorant and it was your job to educate them.
Though you still think it’s not a good idea to buy “fast fashion,” you
have a more nuanced understanding of the issue than you did before.
Because of your critical thinking,
you learned something and improved your own intellectual abilities in the
process.
I’m sure you can agree that is more satisfying in the long run than the mere
feeling of having “won” the argument!
Let’s take a look at a more concrete example.
As a clothing manufacturer,
you’re interested in using a newly developed cotton polyester blend that will
be cheaper than your current fabric.
But you have concerns about its quality and how well it will work with your
machines,
so you do some trial runs with sample fabric to test its performance in the
factory.
Already,
you have worked to form a concept (an experiment to test the new fabric)
from which you intend to draw inferences (if it works in the experiment,
it will work on a larger scale)
for a stated purpose (to save money on fabric).
To all of these elements of reasoning you can then apply a few intellectual
standards.
You ask whether you’re being accurate in your measurement of the fabric
performance.
You ask whether the cost of the fabric is truly the only parameter to consider,
or whether other things you’re not thinking of could jeopardize your stated
aim (i.e.,
you apply questions of depth and breadth).
You notice that you want a particular outcome (you are aware of your own point
of view and see how this affects the questions you ask)
but try hard to conduct the experiment neutrally.
When the experiment shows that the new fabric gets jammed in one kind of sewing
machine,
you use logic to extrapolate to an appropriate conclusion - the fabric is
incompatible with one type of machine,
but that doesn’t logically follow that every type of machine will have the
same problem.
And so it goes.
Perhaps you notice,
however,
that not all of the standards have been applied here—for example,
the question of fairness is not considered,
and there is only a very narrow view of the question (lack of depth and
breadth),
with a very limited understanding of consequences.
The company may switch to the new fabric,
only to discover that it washes poorly and that customers are so unsatisfied
with it after purchase that within a few months,
repeat custom drops significantly,
completely cancelling out any small gains made in using the cheaper fabric.
Here,
a critical thinker would notice the problem,
update their mental model and make a point to remember this the next time they
face a decision similar to this one.
They would recognize that a few of their underlying premises were not
sound—i.e.,
the idea that the clothing cost and whether it worked with the machines were
the only parameters to consider.
Critical thinking can be applied on grand scales to big decisions like these,
or in smaller situations like the conversation we saw at the get-together.
You could apply critical thinking every time you use your brain—which,
luckily,
is pretty much continuously.
The first step is to become aware of the various elements of your thinking.
Your goals,
your limitations,
the “map” of reality you are using.
But the next step is to take responsibility for these elements,
and apply intellectual standards to improve them.
Is the way you’re thinking clear?
Logical?
Fair?
Are you focusing on the right things,
and have you properly understood your goal?
Eventually,
critical thinking becomes more automatic.
This doesn’t mean that you are never wrong,
or that you suddenly become a super-intelligent mega-mind.
Rather,
you are taking conscious control of your own mental and intellectual machinery,
and using it to its highest potential.
You may still be wrong,
you may still feel confused and you may still miss or misunderstand huge
amounts of information out there,
even though you explicitly try not to.
However,
making mistakes for a critical thinker is not a problem—it’s merely more
“grist for the mill,” and can be fed back in and processed again,
this time with the privilege of having updated your concepts,
sharpened your goals and verified your claims.
In essence,
critical thinking is not really about what you think,
but rather how you’re thinking about it.
Focus on improving the quality of the process,
and the content of your thoughts will naturally improve as well.
Takeaways -
•Practical intelligence is another way of saying common sense,
but we all know that common sense truly is not so common.
One of the key lessons to learn with practical intelligence is that nothing is
what it seems at first glance.
The world doesn’t readily reveal itself nakedly to you,
so it’s up to you to look beneath the surface to understand what you see.
We want to do this,
but we are too often driven by certainty and speed instead of actual truth.
•The first and most natural way to probe below the surface is through
cultivating curiosity.
There are five types of curiosity,
each of which can be said to be a motivation for asking questions - joyous
exploration,
deprivation sensitivity,
stress tolerance,
social curiosity,
and thrill-seeking.
However,
curiosity will rarely come easily or naturally,
especially about things that we don’t have an innate interest in.
So we need to generate that same approach through other methods.
•One methodical way to seek truth and simulate curiosity is by embracing
skepticism.
No,
it’s not about being cynical or simply refusing to believe what people tell
you.
Rather,
it’s refusing to blindly believe what people tell you,
and requiring evidence and facts.
In this way,
a skeptic is quite similar to a scientist utilizing the scientific method.
No answer is required here,
and only understanding is sought.
Skepticism requires slowing down your thoughts and thinking like a scientist.
•Finally,
we come to critical thinking.
Critical thinking is concerned with questioning answers rather than asking
questions.
It seeks to take nothing at face value and provide a three-dimensional and
nuanced view of a topic or stance.
Without that,
you are by definition jumping to conclusions or relying on someone else’s
word—an opinion without inquiry is a weak one.
We can practice critical thinking through a series of questions,
but we can also go a level deeper by running inquiries and thoughts through the
Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking.
This involves three components that ultimately work together to build a
bulletproof thinking process - (1)
elements of thought and reasoning,
(2)
intellectual standards to be applied to these elements,
and (3)
the cultivation and eventual development of intellectual traits.
This has been
Practical Intelligence:
How to Think Critically,
Deconstruct Situations,
Analyze Deeply,
and Never Be Fooled By Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.