WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING?

Now that the mid-term elections are over and the electorate has performed its voting responsibilities, it is an excellent time to examine the national mind set. The question that has been vexing me for some time is what has happened to critical thinking in America? Many of us are unwilling to weigh the facts or to think independently.  There are certainly many suspects that may be responsible this dilemma, including the lack of civics and social studies in the public schools; too much conflicting news on social media; one sided cable news networks and poverty in America.

 To highlight what dystopia looks like when open minded debate is not permitted by a central government, I will examine two authoritarian societies that are trying to eradicate critical thinking. Then I will return to this country, where critical thinking is not regulated but is not widely practiced by our citizens.  Lastly, I will  offer some solutions.

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our ego and native biases.

My first example of a country where there is a concerted effort to eradicate critical thinking is China. Since Xi Jinping has taken power, China has worked to mold the country into a singular ethnic and moral identity in tune with the Communist Party. The authoritarian leaders have come to fear critical thinking among Tibetans, Uighurs (who are Muslim) and Christians, among others.

 Recently, to mandate additional conformity, the government has adopted a nationwide “social credit score.” This project, which employees a massive amount of computing power, is designed to record not only economic activity of its 1.4 billion citizens, but is also designed to monitor behavior and moral character as defined by the Party. Twelve “core socialist values” were developed in 2012. They have become a direct rivalry with all religions and independent thought and are now taught to children starting with Kindergarten.  Those citizens that achieve low social credit scores because of their critical thinking are denied jobs and may be subjected to reeducation programs that resemble concentration camps.

My second example of an authoritarian country that does not permit critical thinking is Russia.  Vladimir Putin, although an elected President, has taken steps to eliminate all independent thought.  There is no neutral media or political opposition in Russia. Wearing the mantle of the liberator of the Russian people, Putin wages war on Russia’s enemies: namely, his own citizens who want democratic rights; Ukrainians and other neighbors who want independent states; or the European Union and the United States because they offer a way of life based on democratic principles.

A majority of the citizens in Russia simply choose to fall in line and not question their government. As Timothy Synder points out in his excellent book The Road to Unfreedom: Putin’s dominance is based on: “lies so enormous that they could not be doubted, because doubting them would mean doubting everything.”

There are many other authoritarian countries where critical thinking is either limited or eliminated by government policies.  These regimes claim they are trying to foster trust and eliminate partisan violence.  What they are really trying to achieve is more absolute power.  They are stark examples of what can happen when the public is not permitted to independently consider alternative political opinion.

While the checks and balances in our democratic constitutional republic present many problems on decision making and in recent years have caused gridlock, many freedoms, include the right of every citizen to exercise critical thinking, is not abridged in any way. Why then, is this basic privilege in such short supply and how can we encourage it?

The first key is simply to teach American history, social studies and democratic principles at an early age.  When one in three of our citizens cannot name the Vice President, political and social critical thinking is not possible.  The country cannot rationally address concerns such as gun violence or racism without a well-informed polity that has studied the history of these issues.  

  

In addition, once basic civics and social studies are taught to young students, they must be presented with tools that will help them to discern what questions to ask and when. This will enable them to gather and organize information necessary to reach sound conclusions. If students cannot think through social problems and are enslaved to their feelings and their opinions are reinforced by social media critical thinking is not possible. 

A few points from Forbes Magazine on sharpening critical thinking skills make sense for all of us when trying to escape the online, cable news propaganda world: (1) Imagine and envision what can work better, not just what has worked before; (2) seek continuous learning;(3) open up to curiosity and a “what if” mindset; (4) avoid all dogmatism and fundamentalism; and (5) investigate beyond the social media headlines.

Pew Research released poll results showing that two-thirds of Americans said they used social media sites to get news.  This will not change in the information age.  Either Americans will be taught to live in a world where ideas are open ended and debated to reach solutions, or one in which we live in parallel realities of alternate facts. The latter result will provide fertile ground for authoritarian leaders to hijack our democracy.

More critical thinking does not imply that more of us will favor the same policies. There will continue to be heated debates among well informed and well intentioned citizens. After all, disagreement is the basis of a well-functioning pluralistic constitutional republic.

The difference will be that those employing critical thinking will realize that politics, economics and social issues are not a zero sum game. We will come to understand that there are many solutions and that compromise among actors is acceptable. The playing field will become one of respectful tolerance for the contrary position. Well informed contributors will be in conflict with each another but will respect established facts and the opinion of opposing participants based on those facts.  Authoritarian principles will not gain a foothold.