Why teach what no-one values?

[Figleaf]

Schools and universities both pretentiously insist that they educate students to be 'critical thinkers'.

I find this curious in two respects:

First, they seem to be picking a thing they show questionable success in to be their selling point.

Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

[Catchme]

Interesting that you say no one values critical thinkers, especuially not employers, when in fact quite the opposite is true.

In fact, why would one advocate against critical thinking unless one believed in indoctrination and cultish thinking?

This commentary against critical thinking is typical Dominionist lies.

[Posit]

Exactly! Why would one want to think freely when they could have corporatists think for them?

[geoffrey]

Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though.

[Figleaf]

Interesting that you say no one values critical thinkers, especuially not employers, when in fact quite the opposite is true.

Evidence?

[Figleaf]

Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though.

Seemingly, you believe at least one of society's great myths.

[kimmy]

Why teach math? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for doing math. It's one of our society's great myths.

Critical thinking, like math, is useless to an employer... until it's applied to some task.

The entrepreneurs who decide to build a product use critical thinking to gauge the market and determine what kind of need exists and whether they can make a profit in filling that need.

The engineers who design the product use critical thinking to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of the product in the most economical way.

The salespeople who sell the product use critical thinking to assess how to best convince a consumer to spend money on the product.

The human resources person who hired these people used critical thinking to assess which were the best people for these tasks.

The classics major who might have critical thinking skills but no concrete field of expertise to which to apply it might seemingly have little value to an employer. Then again, I recall reading that people from liberal arts backgrounds often find work in unlikely areas because they're able to apply their "soft skills" to tasks that others aren't accustomed to. Assessing whether an average consumer will find a user-interface convenient or annoying, for instance.

-k

[margrace]

I would guess that the problem with critical thinking is that it makes it hard to control people. I have heard some rather surprising assumptions from people who really haven't though things out. If one thinks for themselves and investigates things then they might not agree with Monsanto's line for instance.

One of my beliefs is that if one critically read and thought about the Bible, for instance, then one would find that it teaches critical thinking because it makes one use their brain. I continually go back to the bible, not because I believe God wrote it but because it gives one something to think about. Pro and con it is in the Bible, much like Easop's fables.

[Argus]

Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though.

Seemingly, you believe at least one of society's great myths.

I understand what you're trying to say, and while it is true that you could easily make a case that there is a lack of critical thinking, and respect for critical thinking in most large organizations - esp government - it is still a fundamentally useful skill in our society. In government, despite all the roadblocks placed in the path of doing what is best, of doing the obvious, of critical thought - mostly by HR and similar groups - the real successes which come about are because someone managed to get their ideas through the labyrinth of dull obstructionism put up by the system.

[Argus]

The salespeople who sell the product use critical thinking to assess how to best convince a consumer to spend money on the product.

The human resources person who hired these people used critical thinking to assess which were the best people for these tasks.

Kimmy, I'll excuse you because you're young - but once you get out into the world you'll realize that "critical thinking" is to HR people what Kryptonite is to Superman.

[Figleaf]

I understand what you're trying to say, and while it is true that you could easily make a case that there is a lack of critical thinking, and respect for critical thinking in most large organizations - esp government - it is still a fundamentally useful skill in our society. In government, despite all the roadblocks placed in the path of doing what is best, of doing the obvious, of critical thought - mostly by HR and similar groups - the real successes which come about are because someone managed to get their ideas through the labyrinth of dull obstructionism put up by the system.

Interesting comment. I agree that critical thinking is useful when it does get deployed. So it may be that it is (supposedly) taught sort of in spite of the short shrift it will get in reality simply on the chance that someone might someday use it.

[Figleaf]

Critical thinking, like math, is useless to an employer... until it's applied to some task.

Employers know what tasks to apply math to. They either have no clue how to apply critical thinking to tasks, or they don't want to.

The entrepreneurs who decide to build a product use critical thinking to gauge the market and determine what kind of need exists and whether they can make a profit in filling that need.

The engineers who design the product use critical thinking to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of the product in the most economical way.

The salespeople who sell the product use critical thinking to assess how to best convince a consumer to spend money on the product.

The human resources person who hired these people used critical thinking to assess which were the best people for these tasks.

The answer to each one of these is "Maybe. If you're lucky." The contribution of rote procedure, established precedents, conflicting incentives, self-aggrandizement, desperation, gut instinct, intuition, laziness, inattention and just plain misunderstanding involved are usually much more important than critical thinking.

[Figleaf]

Oh, and (how could I forget!?) the most important of all ... ASS COVERING.

[Riverwind]

The contribution of rote procedure, established precedents, conflicting incentives, self-aggrandizement, desperation, gut instinct, intuition, laziness, inattention and just plain misunderstanding involved are usually much more important than critical thinking.

Perhaps what you should define what you mean by 'critical thinking'.

[Figleaf]

Together these two definitions capture what I think I mean. If you need me to be more precise, let me know.

Critical Thinking: A cognitive process based on reflective thought and a tolerance for ambiguity which has the following attributes:

Disciplined and self directed.

Oriented toward inquiry, analysis and critique.

Multidimensional and multilogical problem-solving rather than unidimensional, monological, or linear requisite knowledge and ability to generate options and make discriminating judgments.

http://web.uccs.edu/bethelstudenthandbook/...culum_terms.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Critical thinking:

An essential tool of inquiry; purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. (from http://www.insightassessment.com/dex.html)

http://www.netnet.org/students/student%20glossary.htm#C

[Riverwind]

Together these two definitions capture what I think I mean. If you need me to be more precise, let me know.

Critical thinking is necessary in almost every job to deal with the unexpected - even the most tedious and repetitive job. Jobs that don't have an unpredicable element can be done by machines.

[Figleaf]

Together these two definitions capture what I think I mean. If you need me to be more precise, let me know.

Critical thinking is necessary in almost every job to deal with the unexpected - even the most tedious and repetitive job. Jobs that don't have an unpredicable element can be done by machines.

You are describing simple consciousness with a basic human intelligence, not critical thinking as I mean it.

[geoffrey]

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though.

Seemingly, you believe at least one of society's great myths.

What's the myth?

[stignasty]

I honestly can't think of one job that I've had in the past 20 years that doesn't require critical thinking.

I think kimmy hit the nail on the head. It's such a fundamental skill in many professions that it goes without mention.

[kimmy]

Words like "innovation" and "ingenuity" are really just oversimplified descriptions of critical thinking.

If one looks at any service or product that's become commercially successful, that has occurred because someone has applied critical thinking to consumer needs and wants.

If one looks at any technological advance, whether it's a completely new technology or just a pen that won't leak ink onto your fingers, it's because someone has applied critical thinking to determine the shortcomings of existing technologies or the applications of new ideas.

If one looks at even the smallest details of day to day life, whether it be a new paperwork form at the bank that takes 30 seconds less to fill out than the old one, or a change in the garbage collection route that saves the city some money without changing the service, or a plastic handle on your ice-cream bucket that doesn't freeze your fingers, somebody has applied critical thinking to make that improvement.

And while not very many of these examples are on the scale of the Ipod or the transistor or the theory of relativity, they're still examples of people applying critical thinking to their jobs, however humble those might be. While there are no doubt many employees in all sorts of occupations who never have an original thought, it'll their colleagues-- the one who came up with the idea of moving the display to the other window so that more shoppers would see it, or whatever-- who ultimately get ahead. When it comes to handing out raises or promotions, an employer is not likely to think "Janie is a critical thinker," but they do tend to notice things like "Janie's really efficient," or "Janie came up with that great display," or "Janie had great ideas that made the Shizzlit 2.0 a big success." This stuff does get noticed, even if there's not a box on your job performance evaluation that says "Critical thinking" where your boss can put a checkmark.

-k

[Figleaf]

If one looks at any service or product that's become commercially successful, that has occurred because someone has applied critical thinking to consumer needs and wants.

Support?

If one looks at any technological advance, whether it's a completely new technology or just a pen that won't leak ink onto your fingers, it's because someone has applied critical thinking to determine the shortcomings of existing technologies or the applications of new ideas.

Sometimes. Many technological advances are merely the application of someone elses new technology. Your improved pen could be simply due to improved materials. IWC the materials guys may have though critically and the pen guys not. The point is, not all seeming advance comes from critical thinking.

And while not very many of these examples are on the scale of the Ipod or the transistor or the theory of relativity, they're still examples of people applying critical thinking to their jobs, however humble those might be.

I'm not denying that critical thinking exists, and that its possessors will sometimes benefit from using it. My point is no-one values critical thinking itself (though they may afterward want the improved bucket or pen).

-- the one who came up with the idea of moving the display to the other window so that more shoppers would see it, or whatever--

No. Not whatever. The above reveals that you are using a far too expansive concept of critical thinking. A bright idea, even a very fortuitous one, is no necessarily any indication of critical thinking. Please refer to the definitions I offered above.

[Argus]

While there are no doubt many employees in all sorts of occupations who never have an original thought, it'll their colleagues-- the one who came up with the idea of moving the display to the other window so that more shoppers would see it, or whatever-- who ultimately get ahead. When it comes to handing out raises or promotions, an employer is not likely to think "Janie is a critical thinker," but they do tend to notice things like "Janie's really efficient," or "Janie came up with that great display," or "Janie had great ideas that made the Shizzlit 2.0 a big success." This stuff does get noticed, even if there's not a box on your job performance evaluation that says "Critical thinking" where your boss can put a checkmark.

That's nice in theory. It's even true in small organizations. It certainly is not in government. HR has put in place so many procedures to eliminate "favoritism" - which don't work, btw, that the input of one's manager isn't even desired.

Basically, you enter a "comptetition", which involves first passing the second language test, in most cases, or posessing the proper language rating, then taking a test of some kind, which may or may not be related to the work to be done. Once that is passed you are in a "pool" which means you're eligible for the job in question. There is the possibility that those selecting people from the pool for various positions in various areas will contact your manager as a reference, but if your manager thinks you're an idiot and wants to dump you he'll be very careful what he or she says. Mostly, HR screws up the competitions so badly, though, that there are usually about ten areas needing fifty people from a pool which only has 40 available. So no matter what an idiot you are you'll probably wind up getting selected.

As for your own manager promoting you - that isn't allowed. You have to go through the competitive process, and if your boss then has a full time position available he or she can select you from the pool by a roundabout manner.

[August1991]

It's the only real difference between a corporate slave and the executives. If you can think, you'll be rewarded for it. I'm not sure it can be taught though.

Can't be taught?

I suggest you rent the video Quest for Fire which is an attempt to view ourselves about 80,000 years ago. We today are little changed genetically from people alive then. A baby brought from that time to the present would grow up to fit in perfectly in modern society - marry, have children, use a computer.

We are species that teaches and learns but I'm just not certain that the modern method of teaching - crowding kids into a room for hours and years on end is the best way to do it. It's not the way we naturally learn.

Critical thinking is necessary in almost every job to deal with the unexpected - even the most tedious and repetitive job. Jobs that don't have an unpredicable element can be done by machines.

I have to agree with Riverwind and disagree with Geoffrey. Critical thinking is useful for everyone, whether wage slaves or the corporate elite. I was watching two waitresses yesterday and I realized that one was thinking, the other not. All things considered, the thinking one will get bigger tips and probably enjoy her job more. (Kimmy made the same point above with more panache.)

Incidentally, what Figleaf and others call critical thinking, I would call becoming an intelligent sceptic.

----

In economic theory, education serves two roles. On one hand, it's a form of investment in human capital. People learn new things and become more effective. On the other hand, it serves to filter people and then the diploma provides a signal for others. (Michael Spence recently shared a Nobel Prize in economics for this theory.)

I sometimes fear that our current education system puts too much emphasis on this second role. I'm even fearful that it fails at this and increasingly cannot even identify people with natural skills of critical thinking. Students learn nothing, the system filters nobody and the diploma is a useless signal.

----

Kimmy, I'll excuse you because you're young - but once you get out into the world you'll realize that "critical thinking" is to HR people what Kryptonite is to Superman.

I have to agree with Argus. My own theory is that in a large organization, people in personnel just lie. They have to. The good ones learn how to rationalize their lies.

It's in the nature of the beast. Staffing meetings are the longest and hardest. People have a direct interest in the outcome. The union solution to this problem is simply to rely on seniority which causes other problems of its own.

[geoffrey]

Can't be taught?

I suggest you rent the video Quest for Fire which is an attempt to view ourselves about 80,000 years ago. We today are little changed genetically from people alive then. A baby brought from that time to the present would grow up to fit in perfectly in modern society - marry, have children, use a computer.

We are species that teaches and learns but I'm just not certain that the modern method of teaching - crowding kids into a room for hours and years on end is the best way to do it. It's not the way we naturally learn.

I see where your coming from... but I'm still standing by my going to school never taught a person critical thinking viewpoint from above. Perhaps your right, perhaps our methods are flawed.

I will track down the movie.

I have to agree with Riverwind and disagree with Geoffrey. Critical thinking is useful for everyone, whether wage slaves or the corporate elite. I was watching two waitresses yesterday and I realized that one was thinking, the other not. All things considered, the thinking one will get bigger tips and probably enjoy her job more. (Kimmy made the same point above with more panache.)

Critical thinking is a key aspect of finding real happiness, but I don't think it's neccessary to 'get by' or even 'do well.' I know alot of non-thinkers that have found some reasonable (financial) success through having a good mix of skill and timing.

Of course it's better to think, but ya, it's not needed to pay the bills.

I sometimes fear that our current education system puts too much emphasis on this second role. I'm even fearful that it fails at this and increasingly cannot even identify people with natural skills of critical thinking. Students learn nothing, the system filters nobody and the diploma is a useless signal.

Agreed.

[Mad_Michael]

Schools and universities both pretentiously insist that they educate students to be 'critical thinkers'.

I find this curious in two respects:

First, they seem to be picking a thing they show questionable success in to be their selling point.

Second, why teach critical thinking? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for being a critical thinker. It's one of our society's great myths.

Critical thinking skills allow me to determine the fallacy of your assertions.

Those who have critical thinking skills are the ones who get promoted above you in the workplace. Critical thinking is probably second only to "ass-kissing" as the most important skills that universities teach - and corporations value.

Alternatively, your argument suggests that universities ought to just give courses on Britney Spears and Hollywood movies.