Uncritical thinking

Most people are not gifted with exceptional intelligence, so they memorize facts and use those as proof of their own intellectual ability.

The use of memorized facts enables several useful functions for them. First, they do not have to think about what they “know,” only recite. Second, this knowledge is easily shared with others in social settings. Third, because it is of a fixed and unchanging nature, it is not threatening to them. It exists as a universal truth in a place beyond time, space or nuanced interpretation. It is absolute dogma; it is considered true as a conclusion, with no further interpretation possible, even if contradictory data exists.

Liberals, being a subset of those who join Crowds, are like the rest of that subset drawn to definitive external answers because of a lack of internal direction and understanding of the world. External answers are always social, and universal in the way described above, and so give such people a place in the social order and something to feel good about regarding their own abilities.

One of the first of these absolutes to be absorbed as dogma is the idea that reading, education and science are sacred religious rites. The assumption is that if one engages in these activities, intelligence is associated with them, thus the person must be intelligent. This is reversed thinking, since it moves from conclusion to question, where sensible people move from question (“is this person intelligent?”) to methods of assessment, to consequences in reality and finally a dissected causal relationship between those.

The dominant assumption in the Crowd is that if you take some generic person of low intelligence and send him to college, give him a ton of books and make sure he reads them, you’ll get a genius — or at least someone who is functionally equivalent to one. The Crowd loves this assumption because it gives them an external act that they must only complete in order to be accepted. They don’t have to get it right, or even be exceptional, just be complete.

You can see this bias in the collection of neurotic nagging nincompoops raging about the injustice and ignorance of it all in this article and associated comments:

The Texas GOP’s declarative position against critical thinking in public schools, or any schools, for that matter, is now an official part of their political platform. It is public record in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform. With regard to critical thinking, the Republican Party of Texas document states: “Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” (page 20, Republican Party of Texas, 2012).

Yes, challenging beliefs or claims is considered insubordinate, immoral and could lead to rebellion, disobedience or perhaps worse: revolution. For the Republican Party and their followers, thinking is subversive, imagination is a sin and the Republican Party in Texas and elsewhere is working to codify this into public policy. The plutocrats can’t have a working-class citizenry that is asking questions of those in power, be they parents or bosses; instead, the people must be taught the ideology of what is morally acceptable, what rules and regulations to follow. and even more importantly, how to accept and internalize hierarchical authoritarianism. Critical thinking is a direct challenge to the “leaders” and their claims on authority, and any opposition to vertical arrangements is ethically unacceptable to those in power. – “Truth Out”

What you see above is a typical external narrative. If your audience wavers, repeat at them the dominant dogma in such a way that it makes them feel smart to be repeating the same thing you are. Get them to say it with you and a hypnotic state sets in and soon they are yours.

In this case, the dogma is universalism. Books = smart. Education = smarter. Critical thinking = smartest. Anyone who opposes those things must hate intelligence and love ignorance because it’s easy to control.

They don’t mention that the HOTS curriculum teaches critical thinking only incidentally, and is mostly a program of teaching liberal dogma to children too young to know the difference between truth and lie.

But even more fundamentally, they’re in denial of the simple fact that “teaching critical thinking” is no kind of solution. People are limited as to what they can learn. The limitation is their congenital wiring, or inborn intelligence.

If someone has the right abilities, they learn critical thinking mostly on their own and benefit from instruction. If they don’t have those abilities, they memorize universals and apply them rigidly like the least creative bureaucrats, and then claim they are “thinking critically.”

The history of the West has shown us intelligent people inventing new ideas and methods, which then pass into the hands of the Crowd, who dumb them down into simple rules and us-versus-them ideas. They make internal skills into external memorization, and together as a group they repeat these as absolute truth and accept no deviation. Except that they are a pale imitation. Where the originals knew how to apply these ideas, the imitators don’t, and the result is a greater inflexibility.

Conservatives are right to oppose blanket teaching of critical thinking. We’re better off teaching basic skills, and then looking at the top students as the ones to receive further instruction. Otherwise, we are just handing weapons to those who will misuse them, and in contrast to our self-congratulatory murmurings, improving nothing.

10 Comments

  1. njatist49 says:

    The quoted article demonstrates the liberal intellectual sleight of hand: the writer quotes from the Republican Party of Texas document the statement that “critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification…”; then he goes back to the term “critical thinking”, using it in the common meaning to condemn the Republicans who correctly used, and defined, the phrase in its liberal and political context.

    The sleight of hand by liberals is to misname an activity or policy so that is has a dual meaning: there is an exoteric meaning for the outsider and an esoteric meaning for the insider; thusly, the outsiders’ ignorance can be used to protect the insiders’ true agenda.

    1. crow says:

      An example I run into daily, is the use of the term “community”, by leftists, to refer to themselves and their way of seeing things. If someone does not conform to this outlook, they are referred to as a threat to the “community” and should be run-off.
      Thus there is the Crowd, and those who are not interested in Crowds.
      Every member of the Crowd is “equal”, while those outside it have no validity whatsoever.

  2. Surely the extreme majority of people would benefit from accepting and internalising hierarchical authoritarianism.. it provides a distinct role and clear purpose for the duration of time spent within the hierarchy.

    I think most of the anger at “bosses” doesn’t come from the fact they’re in charge, but from that they’re transient with the market, rather than a permanent director. We have to control the boss, or he might fire us, and then what would we do!?

  3. Jason says:

    By definition, few people will be leadership quality. If solutions could be solved by placing leadership-capable people in leadership positions – then what are the obstacles?

    1. Lots of stupid people voting for bad decisions.
    2. Powerful interests who make money (alternatively: gain more power) off bad decisions.

    These two forces dominate public discourse and public decisions, circularly reinforcing each other. How would it even be possible to rise above this condition, without some sort of Military Coup that incidentally is led by King/Saint/Philosopher who is able to remain uninfluenced by international money/power and local masses of idiots? Seems we have better odds of being overrun by benevolent alien overlords.

    1. I think some sort of gamechanger is coming because the status quo is unsustainable.

      1. crow says:

        What about The End Of The World?
        That would do it.

        1. I always thought as a kid the best part of any fireworks show is discovering the spent cartridges in odd places where they fell.

          It’s not what happens, it’s where everything ends up after.

          1. crow says:

            Imagine the fun you’ll have rooting through the remains of a vanished civilization! It falls to very few to have that sort of experience.

            1. Isn’t that what people on Tumblr do right now?

  4. Jack Meoff says:

    Obviously an English major because basic set of skills would never work in a Physics lab.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.610 seconds