Teaching critical thinking: The first step is to pause and reflect
© 2022 Gwen Dewar, all rights reserved
opens Paradigm file
Why exercise nosotros fall for fallacies? Why exercise we become duped by lies? It isn't because we lack brain power, and it isn't because we are helpless to overcome our ain biases. Instead, what's really crucial is whether we have the time to pause and reflect — to consciously question our assumptions, and analyze the evidence.
Here's a test question for you to answer. Want to have a wait?
"On an abandoned field, in that location is a patch of dandelions. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to comprehend the entire field, how long would information technology take for the patch to embrace one-half of the field?"
Go ahead. Requite it a try.
Roll down when y'all're gear up to continue.
The question is a variant of a examination item invented by Shane Frederick, a psychologist who studies decision-making. Back in 2005 he created a tidy little parcel of such questions, and, over the years, researchers have administered his examination to hundreds of thousands of people.
How did you respond?
Since you know this commodity is most critical thinking, you lot may have approached the question with wariness. You stopped a moment to reflect and analyze. You wanted to exist certain you were thinking clearly about the solution.
Simply if you didn't pause and reflect — if yous responded quickly, if you were distracted, if you lot felt anxious most beingness tested — y'all might accept listened to the role of your mind that provides you with intuitive, human knee-jerk answers.
This intuitive mind may have told you, "This is easy. Half the field, 48 days. The reply must be one-half of 48, or 24!"
And that's wrong. If the patch of dandelions doubles each day, and so the moment the field reaches 50% coverage, information technology's merely 24 hours away from reaching 100% coverage. We should expect the patch to encompass half the field on Mean solar day 47. Not Day 24.
What exactly is existence measured by this question?
Mathematical skills, to exist sure. Just the skills required are pretty basic. And most people — even most college students — don't do very well on Frederick'due south test questions. They accept the mental tools to solve the problems, merely they still go them incorrect.
Moreover, when people get things wrong, they don't come up with just any quondam wrong reply. Well-nigh come up with the aforementioned wrong respond.
For case, when asked about the patch that doubles every day, most people who get it wrong say the answer is 24.
And in fact many of the people who get the right answer do so simply afterward because — and rejecting — that same, wrong-only-highly-seasoned answer. (Frederick 2005).
So there's something intuitive about the answer 24. And getting the correct respond seems to depend on overriding this intuition.
When people screw upward on this question, it's usually because they fail to stop and think . They neglect to engage in cerebral reflection.
Human being beings everywhere — throughout the world — are facing a terrible crisis of misinformation and gullibility. And it might seem like we're doomed because we lack intelligence, or because we're besides committed to our political biases to approach things with an open up mind.
After all, intelligence is linked with cognitive reflection. People who score higher on tests of cerebral power (IQ) tend to perform better on Shane Frederick'southward Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT).
Moreover, it's a well known fact: Nosotros're all prey to "confirmation bias" — the tendency to seek out and favor information that confirms our own, pre-existing beliefs. When we encounter information that challenges those beliefs, nosotros may try to ignore it. Or scramble to explain it abroad (Kahneman 2011).
But while intelligence is linked with cognitive reflection, the correlation isn't very strong.
Aye, being good with numbers helps you perform well on the CRT, considering the test questions oftentimes require mathematical thinking (Szaszi et al 2017). Merely general cognitive ability?
Loftier IQ is no guarantee that you'll ace the Cerebral Reflection Examination. In 1 report, fewer than fifty% of MIT students scored high on the CRT test (Frederick 2005).
Nor is high cognitive ability a prerequisite for doing well. When information technology comes to the CRT, the nearly important thing isn't the computational power of your brain. Information technology'southward whether you choose to use your brain resources to reason analytically — to switch away from an easy, intuitive, automatic mode of thinking, and into a mode that is slower, more deliberate, and effortful (Toplak et al 2014).
Nosotros likewise know that our motivations and biases — past themselves — don't prevent people from discovering the truth.
When people score high on cognitive reflection, they are resistant to accepting and sharing fake news headlines — even if those false news headlines entreatment to their political biases (Pennycook et al 2019; Sindermann et al 2020).
And open up-mindedness?
We need open-mindedness to larn new things, to detect ameliorate solutions, to recognize mistakes. But open-mindedness doesn't ensure that we'll call back rationally. Non on its ain.
What if you are open-minded to the point of accepting many claims uncritically?
Without critical thinking, open-mindedness can lead to the same errors and absurdities that we associate with stubborn, close-mindedness (Pennycook and Rand 2020).
So no. The nearly important ingredient for critical thinking isn't high cerebral power. Our prior beliefs and biases aren't the biggest roadblocks to battling misinformation. Open-mindedness doesn't protect us from getting duped.
What's really crucial — the nearly important first pace for critical thinking — is to pause and reflect. Be ready to consider new claims, just don't accept them on their face. Have the fourth dimension to question your assumptions, and counterbalance the show.
What does this await like? What specific things should we exercise when we encounter a new puzzle, merits, or story in the news?
I don't have whatsoever special studies to cite hither. But researchers and fact-checking experts tend to concur on these bones tips.
1. Realize that you need to shift into an agile, skeptical fashion.
When a new merits or story comes your way, make the conscious decision to turn on your deliberative, belittling way of thinking.And be especially wary if the item in question evokes strong emotions.That's the stuff that makes united states of america especially gullible, and bad actors know it.
2. Investigate the source.
Who is saying this? If it's a claim or story, is there an author's byline? Who is this person? Conduct an independent search on the spider web. Tin your verify that this person exists? Are his or her credentials real? Who published this? Did it come from a reputable website or media organization?
iii. Clarify.
Never accept claims on the basis of a slogan, headline, or tweet. These brief statements are meant to get your attention — to manipulate you, to become a click — and they often leave out crucial details, details that can altogether change your impression of the underlying story.
In addition, as factcheck.org points out, some stories are actually intended as parodies. The headlines don't requite them away. You have to read the story itself to realize it's a joke.
four. Check for mutual manipulative ploys.
Is the item sensational, shocking, or emotional? Is the item in question merely an advertizing hominem attack, or a bit of trolling? Does its consequence depend on activating an "us versus them" response? None of these things make the claim true. But they encourage us to be gullible. Don't fall for it. Look for the hard testify.
5. Lookout man your assumptions and check the facts.
You might be thinking this is breaking news. Merely is information technology really? Check the date of the material to be sure.
You might also assume that the claims are supported past show. Only did the author cite any reputable sources? If so, do those sources actually say what the author claims they do?
And apply your common sense. If this is a large story, and it'south truthful, then you should be able to find information technology mentioned in the major media.
Non sure where to look for answers? Try searching the keywords along with the proper noun of one of the reputable fact-checking organizations — similar Snopes.com and factcheck.org.
So what learning resource are available for teaching these habits to children, teenagers, and others?
Cornell Academy offers this collection of articles, videos, and infographics nigh learning to evaluate media sources.
Mike Caulfield of the University of Washington has written a book called Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers. It is free and available online hither.
And here's something innovative and pretty fun: Researchers accept created a game that teaches players how to spot faux news and misinformation.
The game is called Bad News, and information technology'due south available online, in a variety of languages.
It was created by researchers at the Cambridge Social Controlling Lab at Cambridge University, and it's appropriate for people ages 12 and up. You can access the Bad News game here.
The researchers have as well created a similar game, Bad News Inferior, for kids ages 8-11. It's available online in American English and British English language language versions.
In all versions of the games, you play the role of an unscrupulous web publisher interested in getting as much attention as possible. Forth the fashion, you are coached in the techniques that real-world publishers use to spread misinformation.
Is the game effective? Does it improve your ability to spot fake news?
There's reason to recall so.
In a recent study, Melisa Basol and her colleagues randomly assigned approximately 200 young adults to play either (i) Bad News (the experimental condition), or (2) Tetris (the command condition), for fifteen minutes.
Each participant was tested — earlier and after gaming — on his or her ability to discover unreliable social media posts.
And the results? Just xv minutes of playing Bad News fabricated a difference.
Compared with people in the Tetris control group, the folks who played Bad News improved their power to spot misinformation techniques (Basol et al 2020).
What else should we tell our kids nearly the need to break and reflect?
The key signal is that in that location isn't any i lesson that is going to turn you into a good disquisitional thinker.
Disquisitional thinking doesn't work similar that. It isn't something that you lot principal one twenty-four hours, like learning to ride a bike, and then forever afterward excel at.
Instead, information technology's an ongoing, effortful practice. You have to keep reminding yourself to turn on your witting, reflective, deliberative encephalon.
Information technology'south besides of import for adults to become aware of the ways in which we — sometimes unintentionally — teach our kids to avoid critical thinking.
Starting time, there's the obvious. When we accept an authoritarian approach to parenting — or teaching — nosotros are sending a chilling message.Your job is to follow orders. No questions immune.
It'due south the defining feature of authoritarianism — opens in a new windowan insistence on unquestioning obedience. And that simply isn't consistent with critical thinking.
Merely you don't have to exercise authoritarian discipline to deter critical thinking.
As I've written elsewhere, I've seen preschool television shows teach the sort of sloppy thinking that tin hold children dorsum from achieving in Stem.
It happens at domicile and in the classroom, besides — when adults unwittingly perpetuate fallacies or misconceptions. Read more about information technology in my article, "Critical thinking: Are we didactics our kids to be dumb?"
And I see other bug. Hither in the United States, I've noticed a worrying trend in some schools. In the name of instruction argumentation — or persuasive writing — kids are being given some very dubious assignments.
Take, for instance, this question:
"Do trigger-happy video games make people more trigger-happy in real life?"
It'southward the kind of question that kids are sometimes asked to argue about, or write most. And in that location'due south zero incorrect with that.Not if kids are informed about the best-available scientific testify.
But in some cases, kids aren't informed. And then what happens? What happens when we ask students to pick a side, and debate it without ever learning the facts?
Instead of teaching disquisitional thinking, nosotros're educational activity something else, something antithetical to critical thinking.
Don't get together data. Don't analyze. Don't test. Your knee-jerk intuitions are enough.
So what should we do well-nigh these problems?
- We need to question — politely but assertively — cultural practices that advantage kids for parroting misconceptions and reaching hasty conclusions.
- Nosotros demand to encourage kids to bravely speak upwards when something doesn't make sense.
- Nosotros need to welcome their questions, value their skepticism, and show them how to find — and weigh — the bear witness.
Where does this get-go? It starts in our everyday interactions.
If a kid stumps you with a question (similar, "Why do people cry when they are sad?" or "How do airplanes wing?" or "Is world the only planet with life?") be candid.
Tell your kid, "That's a good question! I don't know."
Then show your child how to track downwards answers — how to observe out what scientists or scholars have learned about the subject.
And if it turns out nobody knows?
Now y'all have even more to talk about. What could scientists do to solve this mystery? What kind of data would they need to collect? Or is this a puzzle that scientists might never be able to solve?
More than Parenting Scientific discipline articles about disquisitional thinking
- Disquisitional thinking: Are we teaching our kids to be dumb?
- Didactics critical thinking: An evidence-based guide
- Contend lessons improve critical thinking skills
References: Suspension and reverberate
Basol M, Roozenbeek J, van der Linden Southward. 2020. Practiced News almost Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Amnesty Against Fake News. J Cogn. three(1):2.
Frederick S. 2005. Cerebral Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19 (four): 25–42.
Pennycook G and Rand DG. 2020. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. J Pers 88(2):185-200.
Pennycook G and Rand DG. 2019. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan faux news is amend explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition. 188:39-50.
Sindermann C, Cooper A, Montag C. 2020. A short review on susceptibility to falling for fake political news. Curr Opin Psychol. 36:44-48. 2
Szaszi B, Szollosi A, Palfi B, and Aczél B. 2017. The cognitive reflection examination revisited: exploring the ways individuals solve the examination. Thinking and Reasoning 23(3): 207-234.
Title prototype of silhouette of thinking child by harshvardhanroy / istock
Imprint epitome of daughter wearing glasses by STUDIO GRAND WEB / shutterstock
Image of dandelion past opens in a new windowshes_so_high / flickr
Paradigm of male child with pencil past Nikhil Patil / istock
Epitome of kids on their phones by Rido / shutterstock
Image of girl looking at frog by Melanie DeFazio / shutterstock
lineberryotile1991.blogspot.com
Source: https://parentingscience.com/pause-and-reflect-teaching-critical-thinking/
0 Response to "Teaching critical thinking: The first step is to pause and reflect"
Post a Comment