You’re Not So Sure of Yourself, Are You? Good! Skill of Thought , Part 3

It seems like people value confidence and correctness. We hate to admit we are wrong. We trust people who convince us that they really know what they are talking about. When someone wavers, we see it as a lack of expertise. We wonder if we should believe their opinion. 

That’s unfortunate because doubt is the sign of both wisdom and knowledge. 

Each year, I would ask my comparative religion students to tell me something on which they thought everyone could agree. They struggled. Often, we came down to something like 2 + 2 = 4, although George Orwell might disagree. 

There is a reason why we can’t agree on much and there is nothing wrong with that. It is because questioning, doubt, skepticism, and thinking from multiple perspectives are crucial to strong thinking. 

This does not mean that everything is unknowable. Quite the reverse, one way that we do know things is because we doubt them, test them, rethink them, and apply them. This way we discover what is true and then test it when new questions arise. 

When someone says they hold something as true and have no doubts, I hope the real statement is that they have no doubts right now. They had some once and resolved them. They know that it is likely that they will have doubts again. They are in between doubts. They are checking out doubts about other things and this particular thing will have to wait its turn. 

There is a proverb that says that a fool has no doubts and a wise person has too many. Doubt can be crippling. It can prevent us from taking important action. However, the lack of doubts can make us rush in where even fools fear to tread. When we have no doubts, we may be overconfident and impulsive. A person who has no doubts probably doesn’t know enough – or is denying their doubts. 

Sometimes, we have doubts, but we wish we didn’t. We want something to be true. We need it to be true. We wish it were true – really, really badly. We swallow and silence our doubts because listening to them erodes our fragile beliefs. We know that what we think cannot stand up to scrutiny and we wish it could. That’s a sign that our thinking needs strengthening. That’s just wishful thinking. 

When people change their minds, our politicians “flip” their views, or scientists update or alter what they consider fact, we should celebrate! Wrong is a fact of life. Change is the nature of the universe. Growth is the opposite of death. It is good to doubt and question these and all other ideas. 

Silencing the nagging voice in our head that asks, “What about…?” does only one thing: it marries us to our current way of thinking. Sometimes that works. Sometimes, it is inaccurate, out of date, or just plain wrong. If nothing else, our own humility should compel us to ask ourselves, “How might I be wrong? What is the downside here? What is an alternative way of thinking?” 

Doubt is the seed of learning and growth. Questioning is the road to truth. It is more comfortable to ignore complexity and ambiguity in favor of consistency and simplicity. Yet, our growth as a society comes directly because great minds have challenged current conventions and beliefs and moved us all from darkness into the light. 

If you doubt the truth of this: good! Ask the questions, seek the answers, and keep learning – forever! 

Nineteen Eighty Florida

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone—to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink—greetings!”

Although written by Orwell’s 1984 protagonist, Winston Smith, this message might be a missive from the sunshine state, which is increasingly making certain that the sun only shines on what is state approved and those who get up in the morning must go right back to sleep. Big Brother is alive and well in Florida. 

The state government of Florida –and the states emulating it - are taking their cue from Orwell’s classic dystopian novel. They are rewriting history, stifling free expression, and creating hated scapegoats. All of this to strengthen and sustain the power of, using Orwell’s label, the Party. 

The forces that are squelching any communication about topics that hurt the Party’s feelings are akin to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s novel. In 1984 there are four ministries: the Ministry of Peace, which makes war, the Ministry of Love, which is the secret police, the Ministry of Plenty which rations resources, and the Ministry of Truth, which among other things, rewrites the past so it justifies and supports the party’s political and social goals. 

“Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year.”

Like in 1984, Floridians have been given a menu of people to hate: Black people, Trans people, gay people, drag queens, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with the Party’s views. All evils are attributed to those who are “woke,” although they struggle to define what that means. The world of 1984 has the Two Minutes Hate every day. Like Florida, all evils were attributed to the traitor Goldstein and his organization, the Brotherhood.  

“The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching.”

Hate, fear, and the manipulation of history are critical to sustaining the Party in the novel. But why would Americans, who value our freedoms, abandon them? How can they believe “alternative facts”, political spin, and propaganda that are obviously designed to manipulate them? They just need to defeat their own memories and morality. 

“The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed— if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.”

Republicans who vote for abortion bans (but make sure that their pregnant people get them), condemn drag shows (and then turn up in drag), and insist that banning guns will not protect anyone (and then ban guns from their gatherings) are hypocrites. But even more, they and their followers are also experts at “reality control.” They have mastered “doublethink.” 

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able—and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years—to arrest the course of history.”

Fox News's editing of the events of January 6th is a public expression of doublethink. It is a revision of the facts into a form that fits Florida and its followers. To admit that racism is built into the fabric of our country and history, to accept responsibility and deal with the real issues and challenges facing us, to protect children in their schools, people praying in church, moviegoers in the theater, and shoppers in the mall from gun violence is not important. Battling drag queens, sexy candy, and elementary school teachers is far more critical than any other social ill. 

There is more, of course. The society of 1984 is divided by class, insiders and outsiders, party and proles. Further into the book, the similarities to Florida intensify. Orwell took the Soviet Union as his model for this novel, just as many Republicans are big fans of Russia’s Putin. 

Spoiler: Orwell’s 1984 doesn’t end well for Winston and those who rebel against the party. The power of the party broaches no compromise and has no compassion. It is a state run by fear, hate, lies, and violence. To quote Winston (and Orwell), “Down with Big Brother.” 

COVID Peek-A-Boo: I Don’t See You!

Remember learning about a baby’s conception of object permanence? They are only aware of things when those things are in sight. Hide them, and to the baby, they no longer exist. It is a sign of developmental growth when an infant will search for an object that it can no longer see. 

I think many Americans lack COVID permanence. They believe that, if they can’t see COVID right now, it isn’t here. If they close their eyes and minds to the situation, the situation will magically conform to their version of reality. 

Tell it to the virus!

I am shocked by the number of people who are going about their lives as if there is no virus, as if the entire pandemic is over and they are free and clear. The numbers are going up. The flu is very much present and hospitals are full of people, mostly children, with RSV, another contagious virus. It would seem that additional precautions are more than warranted. 

Nope! Eyes closed! I don’t see it! It isn’t there. I’m just fine! 

I shouldn’t be surprised. This has been an issue since the beginning of the pandemic, 1000 days ago. Humans in general, but Americans in particular, are shockingly good at fooling themselves into believing what they want to believe, even when it is painfully clear that they are living in a fantasy. 

Who won the 2020 election? Depends on if you subscribe to the real world or not. What must be done to combat climate change? Nothing if your head is buried in the sand while your behind is blowing in a hurricane! Racism? Playing the victim should be a new board game! Shall I go on? 

Some areas in the United States are moving indoors now. It has been more than a month since anyone could even entertain the thought of dining outdoors where I live. Thanksgiving events served more than turkey and stuffing. Families do what all families do: whatever they get, they share – and then they share it with the folks in the bus, plane, mall, and elevator! Tis the season of giving everyone the virus! 

In the areas of the United States where outdoor dining is still possible, the denial is so strong that their hospitals are shipping sick folks to colder places! People don’t want their so-called freedoms restrained, but are more than willing to use those freedoms to sicken their neighbors. 

And your conspiracy folks? They have moved into peek-a-boo eyes closed land. They know, somewhere not so deep down, that these fictions are just that. This is why any attempt to question or examine them leads down a never-ending spiral of evidence-free hypothetical speculation. They have fallen in love with object impermanence and will fight for their freedom to live in fantasyland. 

While that might have been okay in the past, now too many people’s refusal to grow up, put on big people’s pants, and address the problems facing all of us has become another one of the problems facing all of us. COVID, climate change, racism, election integrity, and so many other problems threaten all of us – but only some of us are actively working to address them. 

That part isn’t new. There have always been a small number of selfish and immature children who masquerade as adults - and now they are recruiting. They have decided that their game of peek-a-boo is a virtue, a right, and a fact. They are incensed over anyone’s attempts to acknowledge reality and protect all of us, seek justice, or save ourselves and our planet. 

But we see you! COVID is still here. Climate change is humanity’s greatest threat, and the movement toward a more equitable and just society is unstoppable. You can pretend otherwise, but that is all it is –make-believe. 

Reality doesn’t bend to your belief or acceptance. Reality doesn’t care about your freedoms or rights. Reality doesn’t play peek-a-boo. 

And reality is coming for you! 

It's Way Too Complicated!

“Let me make this simple for you.”

Simple? For me? Does that make me a simpleton? Why do you need to make it simple? What happens when you simplify? Are we losing important information and ideas if a complicated issue is turned from a detailed mosaic into a black and white cartoon? 

Sometimes, people don’t want to think that hard. Sometimes, they don’t want to make difficult choices and decisions. Life is so much easier when the alternatives are straightforward: good or evil, rich or poor, right or wrong. 

That’s why we sometimes tie ourselves into knots finding ways to make tough problems easier. That’s why politicians provide sound bites instead of thoughtful arguments. They believe we don’t have the time, patience, or mental capacity to understand the nuance, see the details, or appreciate the complexity. But we do. We must! 

Sometimes, we’re lazy. We make choices about where to spend our precious energy, especially our brainpower. Running a marathon is grueling, thinking one is even more so. Governments, advertisers, cheaters, and crooks appeal to this laziness hoping that, if they make it simple for us, we will do what they want us to do. They don’t want us to worry our pretty little heads about these grown-up issues. 

Trust me, this is the heart of the matter. This is what is going on underneath all the layers of manipulation, deflection, and denial. I’ll do the thinking for you. I’ll tell you what to think and then I’ll tell you what to do. You’ll do what I say. You’ll believe my interpretation. You’ll just follow along. Trust me. 

No! 

We must confront the complexity. We must take the time to sift through the information. We must examine the shades of gray, uncertainties, and inconsistencies. I’ll trust the expert who has credentials – and I’ll ask them to explain their reasoning. 

I might have a question. I might have many questions. If the issue is so simple that no questions are needed (or desired), then why are we talking about it? Why is there disagreement? If the statement begins with, “Anyone with any common sense would, of course, come to the conclusion that…” it is probably been over-simplified. 

Years ago, students would say to me, “I’m sorry, but I prefer math to English class because math doesn’t make me defend my interpretations and answers. In math class, the answers are just the answers. Everything is clear cut and I know when I am right.” In other words, I don’t want to think that deeply. Wow, were those students in for a surprise when they find themselves in upper-level math classes where content is as nuanced as any literary analysis. 

It is challenging to comb through information in search of patterns. It is hard work to reach decisions based on reams of information. But I would vote for thoughtful leaders who take the time and energy to really figure things out over simpletons who jump to easy decisions quickly because they won’t – or can’t cope with complexities. 

Dealing with COVID is complicated. The war in Ukraine is complicated. Dealing with racism is complicated. Important issues aren’t simple. We wish there were more, but, as the old saying goes, wish in one hand, spit in the other, see which one fills up first. 

Googling the question is not doing research. Reading an article or watching a story on television is not figuring it out. Real reasoning takes time and critical evaluation – and expertise. It is a rigorous process. This is why academic journals only accept peer-reviewed articles. This is why good journalists verify what their sources tell them. It is easier to jump to conclusions. It is faster to only read the headline or listen to the sound bite. It feels better to just decide that the answer you want to be right is correct. 

Unfortunately, I fear the simpletons and lazy thinkers are in the majority. Many people don’t want to think that deeply. They work hard doing many other things. They want the answers to be short, sweet, easy, entertaining, and cheap – and when the shysters claim that it is all really very simple, they are selling exactly what these simpletons desire. 

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
• Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
• Label advocacy and commentary.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
• Act Independently
• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
• Be Accountable and Transparent
• Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
• Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry. 

Reading for Treasure – Thanksgiving Leftovers

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction.

Here are some Thanksgiving leftovers: articles I have been saving, but haven’t neatly fit into a theme or category for the past few posts. 

One member of my family used to get very upset when another member of the family would reply to texts simply with, “k.” This article from Lifehacker makes the case for not sending quick and short text responses like this one for a simple reason: it comes off as rude: “Don’t Text ‘OK.’”

If it isn’t clear from the name of my blog, I am an enthusiastic fan of Fred Rogers. There has been some conversation that his tone and style would not work well with kids today. I disagree and so does Mary Pflum Peterson in this older article from The Washington Post, “What Happened When I Showed Vintage Mister Rogers to my 21st Century Kids.” 

One of my most recent posts questions some of the traditions of weddings – many of which focus on gender. This wonderful Valentine’s Day article from The Atlantic makes the point clearly, “If You Want a Marriage of Equals, Then Date as Equals.” Yup. 

Speaking of couples with some issues, how about Lord and Lady Macbeth? I laughed out loud reading, “A Letter from the Condo Association to Mr. and Mrs. Macbeth” from McSweeny’s. While we all might have had neighborhood issues, these are on a Shakespearean scale! 

While the above piece is satirical, this satire piece from last winter’s Chicago Tribune by Rex Huppke is right on point in its treatment of “deniers.” Whether it is the pandemic, insurrections, or other clear and verifiable events, Mr. Huppke joins them to cry, “A Major Chicago Snow Storm? That’s What the Media Want You to Believe!” Snowstorms? Hurricanes? Bah, humbug! They are all conspiracies. 

Finally, a wonderful and relevant discussion of an interesting dice game called “Drop Dead” in the fantastic blog, Math with Bad Drawings. This game, which you could certainly play, also demonstrates a lesson about complex systems and the idea that more is better: “When A Trillion Dice Are No Better Than A Dozen.” 

I am currently rereading Frank Herbert’s Dune before seeing the movie! 

A Crisis of Critical Thinking

As a toddler, my son loved trains. We sat by the crossing and waited for hours for trains. Once, as we waited, he proposed a way to make a train arrive: activate the gate. If we turned on the flashing lights and brought down the safety bar, he thought, the train would arrive. From his point of view, it made complete sense: the lights came first, the train came second. When I tried to explain it to him, he was incredulous: I just didn’t want to wait with him any longer. I didn’t know how to turn on the lights and I wasn’t willing to admit it. He WANTED that train to come and my rational (and correct) explanation did not satisfy him. I was powerless to do an experiment. 

I call this toddler logic. It makes its own kind of sense. Toddlers want what they want and they want it now! They are good at figuring out how to get it, even when their methods defy logic, reason, or common sense. 

P.T. Barnum said that there is a sucker born every minute. Like Barnum, there are people who have made the exploitation of toddler logic into a business plan. They are growing rich and powerful making people believe that all it will take for their train to come is to turn on the signal. 

Robocalls, phone scams, phish emails, and other schemes are flourishing. I have written about strategies to prevent falling victim to this kind of nefarious traps. It is a sad statement that being trusting and open can be used for harm. 

It is more than falling victim to fraud. We live in the age of alternative facts and false news. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are so prevalent that it is understandable that some even bright well-meaning folks are deceived, duped, and deluded – because other people make it very difficult to distinguish toddler logic from reasonable, rational thought. This is a crisis of critical thinking. 

What are the barriers to critical thinking? What habits of mind must we practice so we and the people we love do not fall down the skunk hole of toddler logic or worse? 

Critical thinking takes effort and time. Sometimes we don’t want to work that hard. We are not willing to do the heavy thinking that is almost always required to sift through the cacophony of misinformation. It is quicker, easier, and more satisfying to grab the first reasonable or appealing idea and not ponder further. Critical thinking requires intellectual patience and power.  

We must not confuse what we wish to be true with the verifiable facts. My son was invested in a train coming. He wanted to see a train. He was aware that, if we waited too long, I’d take us home and he wouldn’t get what he wanted.  Often, it is not our logic that drives our thinking, but our desires. We aren’t thinking; we are feeling. Because we want a specific answer or conclusion, we rationalize a way to get it. We know the sum of the problem and we fudge the numbers so they add up. 

Complexity is unavoidable, frightening, and not as attractive as simplicity. When the problem is too big, when we are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issue, we are tempted to simplify it. We reduce the problem and thus eliminate the pieces that are getting in the way of solving it – or getting us what we want. How many times have people framed issues with something like, “this seems complicated, but is really simple.” Few important issues are really cut and dried, and while we may argue over them, the problems that are likely to turn us into suckers are usually ones that, when simplified turn us into simpletons. 

Even when they deliver bad news, we must both evaluate and embrace authorities. Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it seemed like everyone was an expert in medicine? I found myself asking “How do you know this?” and “Is there some research to back this up?” all the time! Yet, experts often disagree. We can’t be expert in everything and thus must rely on specialists to help us. It takes work and is highly complex to evaluate the authorities and weigh their opinions. Reading technical journal articles is both time consuming and not nearly as fun as reading novels! Wading through the opinions of specialists and authorities is like, well, root canal sometimes. Dismissing experts because of their expertise is dangerous; we may not like what the doctor tells us, but if we don’t listen to her, we might pay with our lives. 

Humility allows us to use error to our advantage. People like to be right and hate to be wrong. If we stick our neck out and make a statement, it is embarrassing when we make mistakes. Critical thinking requires error. It requires a process where we evaluate, decide, and then apply our thinking. Sometimes, oftentimes, that means we are wrong. Unless we have the humility and resilience to admit our errors, learn from them, and then change our thinking, we will be stuck. We will be like that person who will not take directions on the road trip. It will be very long, not where you want to go, and there will be no bathrooms.

Thinking is hard work. Critical thinking is complex and intricate work. Without it, however, we turn into P.T. Barnum’s suckers trying to lure trains with our signals. Some might come – but we will not have called them, even if we think we did.