Richard Paul on critical thinking

Richard Paul on critical thinking

Critical thinking as a concept was developed more than 200 years ago and has continued to evolve. The phrase critical thinking first use was in the mid-late 20th century. Various definitions of critical thinking form a comprehensive concept into understanding the interdisciplinary interpretations of what it is. Michael Scriven & Richard Paul define critical thinking as the process of skillfully and actively conceptualizing, analyzing, applying, synchronizing, and evaluating information gathered through experiments, observations reasoning, communication, reflection, or experience. Arriving at conclusions is influenced by various factors such as beliefs, universally recognized values, the topic of interest, relevance, consistency, and alternate viewpoints. Critical thinking is self-guided and attempts to apply the highest level of fair-mindedness. Critical thinkers are rational, reasonable, and empathetic s who seek to make the best conclusion that is mutually beneficial to them and the society at large. To be a critical thinker is to be aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. Hence, a critical thinker needs to understand their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies and balance them to arrive a the most rational conclusions. They work to develop intellectual civility empathy, humility, and integrity, justice, and confidence in their critical thinking abilities. The most exceptional skill as a critical thinker is to accept the human error and understand there will always be a marginal error for mistakes and prejudices that will continuously need improving.

The elements of critical thinking fall into steps that make the process just.

Purpose: as a critical thinker, the intention of their thinking and actions profoundly affects the process. The objective ought to be in line with the set goals, beliefs, desires, and values. However, they tend to deny themselves of the true nature of their desires, which are sometimes subconscious. In critical thinking, there is a need to dive deeper into the motives.

Questioning- the most crucial element in critical thinking is questioning. Questions formulate the basis of arguments, and the more questions asked, the better analysis one gets. The defining problem sets the foundation for the thought process.

Information. A critical thinker should find out which information is relevant and judge its quality. There is an influx of information form millions of sources, and with the availability of so many sources finding correct, unbiased information can be challenging. Filtering the right information and synchronizing all the data gotten to fit into the question at hand is a skill every critical thinker should have.

Concepts- refers to the ideas an individual holds that makes other ideas comprehensible. There has to be a general conclusion that provides a platform for understanding different concepts. A critical thinker’s interpretation should be open to change and adaptability from what he or she believes to be the truth.

Inferences (conclusion, interpretations)- it refers to a mental process that makes decisions from conclusions made and their assumptions. A critical thinker applies good judgment from presentations to arrive at unbiased conclusions. They first evaluate the reliability of the information they are working with and place that against different perspectives and motives to achieve this impartial decision.

Assumptions- refers to the explicit statements that people have knowingly or unknowingly that influence the decisions people make. There are two types of assumptions, value-based assumptions, and description assumptions. Values-based draw assumptions from beliefs of how the world should be while descriptive draw assumptions based on how the world is. For a critical thinker, these two pose a conflict of interest. As a critical thinker, being aware of subconscious thoughts is vital in understanding statements and interpreting information.

Points of interest- it refers to the ability to see things from different perspectives. A critical thinker looks at an idea or question from many different angles. They first need to be aware of their view and thinking outside their viewpoint and take the differences into account. The multiple vies points add context to better the conclusion. At times, the numerous perspectives change the overall point of view of the thinker.

Implications. They are the expectations of the critical thinker before a decision. Before making any conclusion, critical thinking calls for consideration for both the impact and consequences of impending decisions. Their implications arise from their values systems and beliefs, which are either possible, probable, or inevitable. Looking at all scenarios makes one focus on the result rather than the simple part of the process.

It is through steps that this essay will analyze the three memos.

Amagulated public employees union memo. Local no. 121

The purpose of the memo is clear from the introductory statement that it is a reply to the question presented by human resources on opposing outsourcing the proposal to privatize DMV information systems. The memo offers responses to where the question arising is coming from by giving a brief background of the problem statement. The company wants to outsource the information system management function to a private company as it will cut on costs and assures union members of opportunities to work within the departments outsourced. The concepts of the union are that the proposed privatization assaults the values of the association by being anti-American. This belief is because when the privatization goes through, they will bid for lower wages than their members currently receive and set a stage for the government to also reduce ages in the future. The union is absolute that the government wants to manage and control it and is using the agenda as a means of micromanaging it. They have a firm conviction the government is in bad blood, and the trigger is the privatization plan. The fear of the future and bad relations with the government clouds their point of view. There was a lot of research done on what the proposal will do to their union, and the information is credible. The union applies a slippery slope argument by arguing its acceptance will lead to a spiral of wrong events that members will be forced to learn new jobs or relearn the positions in a new environment. The assumption being that the government wants to kick out older employees who will not relearn or might be unable to do at that stage of their lives. There is also a fear that there would not be enough opportunities in the new workplace for all union members, and they will be out on the streets. The memo is subjective as it does not create room for other points of view like growth and change in members’ careers into other departments but incited members with fear. Little effort goes is into sourcing for information.

The union uses Wikipedia, which is not the most reliable source to find the legal side of the proposal. They single out one example of the brother-in-law who lost his job during downsizing in his previous firm. In as much as this is a valid example, there are no comparative statistics for the members to look at make informed decisions on whether or not they agree with the privatization proposal. An excellent critical thinker would have outsourced the services of a labor lawyer to explain the situation and give them correct options and explanations and even draft an agreement for the labor union to present to their members and the privatization firm. The conclusion to the question is one-sided, giving no regard to the viewpoint of the members. Meeting one member is not conclusive to determine what the rest think. There would have been a meeting with all members to discuss the perils of the proposal. The conclusion not to support the privatization is not biased only to the union. In the completion of the association, there is a prevalence of self-interest.

Memorandum to the Board of Directors from Salvador Monella, SVP, Human Resources

The purpose of this memo is to update the board of directors from Salvador Monella on their efforts review. The problem statement well explains that there is a high rise in employee medical bills. The purpose is in line with the company policy that desires to provide its employees with the best packages. This evidence shown by the research done within the firm indicates employee wages rank at 35% of the company’s’ expenditure. There is adequate information from the study to drive the conversation. The research looks at employees’ satisfaction with their pay and benefits, which is the issue in question. Their analysis captures age, which is very vital in defining medical care policies as older people have more medical demands than the younger population. The concept for the argument for an annual wellness program assumes that individuals who neglect their health make up the most considerable growth in benefit costs. This group is believed to be smokers, those who do not undertake any form of exercise, and those that defer preventive care. According to the memo, having an annual staff checkup will help them detect any medical issues early enough to avoid the increasing costs of health-care. Affirming the consequent is an argument presented by the memo that for employees to be unhealthy, they must be doing something wrong like smoking. Weight or height or drinking can cause medical issues, but not all conditions arise from these. Gene, exposure, and other factors contribute to the wellness of an individual. This point of view is wrong and comes off as a violation of privacy for employees who may not want to make their conditions known to their co-workers. There is also guilt-tripping of employees into accepting the Get Well initiative by saying whoever does not get involved has something to hide. It may or may not be accurate, but the memo generalizes the reasons why some employees may not want to have the tests done. The research on obesity alone does not provide adequate information on the dynamics of the health issues in the company. Obesity is one of the lifestyle diseases. The tests employees are to take are form more than diabetes, which creates a problem. The implication here being overweight employees are not fit to work at the organization as they will be perceived to be inactive and a threat to the company’s’ cost. The firm may change the perception and offer the employees medical allowances instead and let them choose facilities of their choice. The company offered insurance left as an option for private checkups without coercion. This way, the employees feel safe and decide whether or not to disclose their health.

The Valedictorian of the University of Maryland drops out of school two weeks before

Graduation.

This memo is informative. The aim is to inform Maryland University of the decision to quit school and follow his dreams. He explained with clarity the purpose of his conclusion that education was not significant in shaping his success. The writer has an impressive perception of both life and culture. He identifies two emotions only, that is love and anger (pp 1). While in reality, the spectrum of human emotion is broad, the writer of the memo narrows down to two. The existence and the perception are not the same, and this contradiction influences a lot of what he further says. The question he is in search of answers is the quench for purpose and destiny, which he claims to have found. And it motivates his reasoning. His assumptions are more of value-based than descriptive as what he thinks vis a vis the reality are far apart, and he cannot seem to apply both. He argues in a very detailed, informative way why any other emotion in life is non-existent—fear, failure, and death by breaking them down in a series of philosophical questions. The argument the son employs here is the genetic fallacy, which explains how the statements an individual makes have not to effect whatsoever on the validity of the debate. The arguments against fear, death, and failure are not actual arguments but questions with a catch-22, either answer is right or wrong. The writer can use the discussion both negatively or positively as there is room for both. The valedictorian, though, has a full scope of knowledge and information on the psychology of human behavior. He uses the right expertise to prove the meaning of life and the barriers people pace on themselves that, in the real sense, are not quantifiable. He implies the was no need for him to undertake the degree program as there were alternative methods of doing so. He even goes ahead to thank those responsible for hos success, but nowhere does he mention the school. What he does not consider, though, is the consequence of his dropping out of school. He does not critically think of the future but ends his thought process at where he is. An excellent critical thinker looks for all possible outcomes before settling on what best to do. The future for him, in this case, can be both ways, a successful entrepreneur or a college dropout who wasted an excellent opportunity to succeed in the field of technology. Both are reasonable outcomes.