Welcome to 2016. Now is the time to be on our toes in terms of critical
thinking. Over the next ten months we
will be exposed to all kinds of ads, sound bites, speeches, analysis and
opinions. Here are some critical
thinking watch-outs for the days and months ahead.
When one party (candidate, reporter, supporter, commentator,
etc.) labels the solutions proposed by another as simplistic, it is only a label.
There is no other content, no counter-argument. It implies that the position of the other
party is wrong, but does so in a glib way without presenting any evidence. The speaker expects the audience to nod in
automatic agreement, but don’t buy it.
Require more.
When one party counters the position or programs of an
opponent by accusing him or her or being greedy, racist, sexist, homophobic or
simply evil, that is not an argument against the position or in favor of an
alternative. It is merely a label used
to demonize the opponent, a shortcut used by the speaker instead of dealing in
facts or evidence. It shows a certain
laziness on the part of the speaker to attribute motives rather than saying,
“My opponent is mistaken, and here is why.”
After the election it will be results of these programs, not the real,
imagined or proclaimed motives of anyone that make our lives a little better or
a little worse. Remember, we have had
many representatives at all levels who have been very nice people, but not very
competent at their jobs. In passing this
kind of judgment, they expect the audience to nod in unthinking agreement, but
don’t buy it. Expect more.
Sometimes we hear, not usually from the candidates
themselves but from other interested spectators, that an opponent of their
ideas is stupid or naïve or crazy or some other label attached not to motives
but to abilities, a label attached directly to the person, an ad hominem attack. As more people get their political insight
from late-night comedians, there is no telling what insults and throwaway joke
lines might take the place of valid criticism. These, too, are cheap shortcuts, easier than
dealing with real facts, data or issues.
They expect the same kind of robotic reaction from followers and
supporters. (It applies equally to empty
praise of the candidates’ strengths or motives, unsupported with results or
behavioral examples.) Again, don’t buy
it. Demand more.
As citizens and voters we deserve better, but we will not
get it unless all those parties get the message that some significant group is
thinking critically, immune to this kind of blatant propaganda. I’ve heard many people comment about the upcoming
elections, that our choices have gotten progressively worse – “can’t we vote
for none of the above and start over?”
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that
way. Just like almost everything else,
the quality of candidates and information we get is a direct consequence of voters’ behavior
in the past.
The behavioral model requires behavioral examples as
evidence to any attribution, not mere name-calling and accusing. Critical thinking reinforces this requirement.
Exactly.
ReplyDelete