Critical thinking is something I thought I had a decent idea about. 
Turns out I was wrong! My idea of critical thinking was to sit down and think logically about a particular idea or problem, weight up the pro’s and con’s and come to a conclusion on that basis.
Well,,, that is right in one sense, if your dealing with a written argument. But I never realised all the hidden detail, arguments and suggestions that can be hidden in the fine nuances of the English language, and how the use of a single word or phrase can have a profound affect on the reader. Even more importantly on the listener, if your dealing with the spoken word.
Some of the greatest and most inspirational speeches ever made have been completely lacking on detail and specifics, yet have a deep and emotionally uplifting effect on the listeners.
Take for example a scientific paper, published in a scientific journal. The scientist who has compiled the report must use correct terminology, facts and figures, and scientific evidence to support his or her arguments. The paper after all is being read mostly by their peer’s and experts in the same field. If however this same scientist wrote an alternate version of the paper for say, a national broadsheet paper and another version for a tabloid, then the approach and tone can different greatly between each article. They are free to use sensational language or even fear tactics in the newspapers to stir up support for their opinion much more so than they could in the scientific journal.
To a logically thinking person, if handed all three articles and given a proper chance to assimilate the information, would draw much different conclusion from each piece. Critical thinking top me, is something which anyone can apply if given sufficient time and information.
I’m interested in the spoken word and how you apply critical thinking to a well performed speech. Take for example this famous speech by Mario Savio, in 1964:
In it he talks about the ‘machine’ and how we can stop it. We are not told who or what the ‘machine’ is, but it is an inspiring speech, his use of body language, tone and the emotion he conveys in the speech makes it easy to just get behind his point of view and support him, it almost bypasses our reaction to critically think about the situation, through an emotional reaction.
There is on the other hand many great examples of people who through years of experience have learned to deconstruct arguments even if they are taking place during an interview. There’s not as much time to assimilate the information being given by the interviewee and vague, sometimes blatantly untrue answers can be given. This type of language was famously described by one former Taoiseach as “Waffle”.
This famous interview by Jeremy Paxman of Michael Howard shows this quite clearly; with the interviewee obviously trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question. Jeremy Paxman however recognises this and forces the issue repeating the question numerous times.
This is just an example of someone thinking on their feet and deconstructing an argument. This can however work in the opposite direction with an interviewer often leading the interviewee in a particular and “forcing them into a corner” to give a certain type of answer or sensational soundbite. A great satire example of this is in the movie ‘In the loop’ where a British M.P is forced into making a comment by the show’s presenter on early morning radio, stating “War in unforeseeable” and the consequences this statement has.
The point I’m trying to get across is that often it is easier to critically think about an argument presented in a newspaper, book, or article since we will generally have time to assimilate nd logically think about the information being presented, Aswell as recognising the tactics and ploys the writer is using to convince us. It is not however, as easy to do when listening to interviews with politicians, speeches given at political rallies or even the point of view a lecturer may try to get across during a lecture.
This is not something that is easy to do by any means, but after looking at critical thinking more and taking into account some of the techniques shown to use for making succesful and unsuccessful arguments, I feel that I am much better prepared to tackle all manner of media information, and to take my own views from them. I also feel I will be better prepared to deliver my own college reports in more convincing and logical ways.
trevorcoffey85 