CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

How well these two candidates perform one of the most important aspects of CT in the next several months will determine, to a large extent, which party will occupy the White House for the next four years. These two candidates face a daunting task; they must control their race for the White House in such a manner that it will not severely harm the winner’s opportunity to win the 2008 election.

Their struggle for supremacy between now and the convention could very well do significant harm to their party’s chance to win the WH. While they fight against one another John McCann can sit back and prepare for the finals; they must somehow not only compete with one another in a grueling fight but they must do it in a way that will not seem unseemly to the American people who will be carefully watching.

The daunting task these two must navigate in the next few months is to work together in dialogue so as to allow each to fight fiercely in the race while not doing harm to their party in the process. They must be expert at the task of dialogic.

Dialogue combined with dialectical reasoning is equal to dialogic.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis; in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.” Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life”


“On Dialogue” was written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London”.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue dialogically we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.'
I think this last portion is too idealized. I think it is all right to want to influence the dialogue partner - as I assume you are trying to do here, coberst - but this urge should not override one's adherence to truth and ethical relations and so on. I have certainly experienced diologic with people, often where we explore together a topic of mutual interest where we have not yet formed hardened opinions. With some people it has happened even where the opinions have hardened to some degree, but there are aspects we are not sure of. Or we are curious to see what happens now when out positions interacts - we are exploring them together.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.

What is the point of talkig at all then, if the two individuals should not try to influence each other?
If they should not try to influence each other, they might as well not speak to each other at all.

However, not communicating at all can be an excellent basis for harmonious co-existence.

We were both struck by the same phrase.

One thing is certain communication will influence the other person, though perhaps not in the way you intend - and you may not be aware of the ways you intend to influence the other person.

CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

How would Obama and Clinton communicate with us dialogically? Would they have no interest in influencing us - to vote for them, for example?

Would CI skills be beneficial to a candidate for the Presidency? Or a priority in any case?

Our culture is structured on competition.

We debate rather than dialogue. Winning is number one and reasoning together is for the “girly man”. Training youngsters to be good soldiers is more important than educating them to become Critical Thinking citizens. In fact our concept of reasoning seldom examines the aspect of consciously seeking harmony. Speaking of harmony, we rap or roll rather than snuggle in poetic symphony.

I suspect the competitive mode of being is very important for our survival. However, I think that this competitive mode will make it difficult for our civilization to survive another two hundred years.

When we couple this strong competitive mode with a strong technological expertise and a weak communicative rationality we are flirting with Armageddon.

How would Obama and Clinton communicate with us dialogically? Would they have no interest in influencing us - to vote for them, for example?

Would CI skills be beneficial to a candidate for the Presidency? Or a priority in any case?

Obama and Clinton would dialogue with one another. The purpose of their dialogue is to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion that will fulfill the goal of each--the goal such that their continued campaigning does not result in a winner that looses the final election against McCann.

Do you mean privately?

I assume they would each be trying to influence the other one to take this protective strategy.

Does CT allow to tell the truth?

Do you mean privately?

I assume they would each be trying to influence the other one to take this protective strategy.


I suspect that they would have important aides who would communicate one with the other and would thus dialogue not directly face to face for fear that emotion would sway reason.

Does CT allow to tell the truth?


CT is about truth and good judgment.

Making good judgments is an important and complex matter. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. To make better judgments requires many kinds of knowledge, skills, and character traits all working together.

Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach these things but it is an effort that is just beginning and it is a difficult one to accomplish.

Just to give you an idea of what CT is about I have copied the following info from the Internet:

This info was taken from workbooks for classes K-12. This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.


A. Affective Strategies
S-1 thinking independently
Thru
S-9 developing confidence in reason

B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities
S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
Thru
S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills
S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
Thru
S-35 exploring implications and consequences

S-1 Thinking Independently

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to "divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

And so on

================================================== ==========

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

{This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3crit.htm

I suspect that they would have important aides who would communicate one with the other and would thus dialogue not directly face to face for fear that emotion would sway reason.
Reason without emotion is lost.

But really my main point was not how they would set up the meeting or negotiations, but to say that they would in this scenario be trying to influence each other. Your OP makes it sound like trying to influence your dialogue partner is wrong. I think this is absurd, especially in a political context.