[PUG] Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why You Have the Right to Do It

[INFJesus]

If you thought critically about how the others were feeling each time you questioned stuff presented to you, you'd have realised it's better to accept some shit from others, for peaceful relations.

Very few people want antagonistic relations, most are able to accept the dreary monotonous bs and want others to too. It's the basis of society.
Don't want to accept it, it's okay. They'll just remove you from their society.

I never considered that in regards to relationships, and have been accused a few times of not accepting the love people were offering me.
So you have a point.
But mostly when it comes to people on an individual basis, I am quite accepting, tolerant and easy to please.
Its just when they want to get into my head and heart. You can't manipulate love, know what I mean?

 

[Shai Gar]

You're just not skilled enough.

 

[INFJesus]

You're just not skilled enough.

Naw.. its they who are not skilled enough.
If they want in and can't get me to see their point of view, they need to try harder, not me. I am in demand :thumb:

 

[Shai Gar]

or, you could open up. Otherwise they're pissing against the wind, and no-one likes to do that. They'll dislike you for it and then dismiss you.
If you want to be accepted in a society, you need to learn its rules and play by them, otherwise you don't get accepted.

Skills are not enough.
Knowledge is not enough.

Applied Skills/Knowledge is how you get things.

 

[testing]

Norton and Duty, I just want to say that as an INFJ I have never once found your critical thinking to be obnoxious or onerous, and would not ask you or anyone to stop practicing it. I wish people would take the trouble to explain things more often, actually.

And what Morgain said is very true:

but it is also a right to express your deepest feelings and don't be criticized on it. Feelings, in my opinion that can't be called good or wrong, they just are. You can't critical analyse feelings.

To take that a step further: trying to control and prove and analyze feelings gets people in a lot of trouble sometimes; it can be the root cause of addictions, which allow us to numb or escape feelings we don't like, or which we find painful or irrational. If you're human, even if you are brilliantly NT and a scientist and all that, still, you are going to be prone to irrationality sometimes and you can't (always) critically think that away.

There is a brand of overly arrogant so-called "critical thinking" that makes a person sound like a 6-year-old know-it-all. (not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing that) It's the kind of critical thinking done by a person who has incomplete information but a tremendous amount of confidence. Not really all that critical or thinking.

 

[NeverAmI]

The reason I wrote this is because I think it would help many on this forum to keep critical thought in mind. It seems like we have had a large influx of "this is supposed to be a place that INFJ way of thinking is completely accepted" threads lately.

I just think it's a good thing to keep in mind: people wouldn't be in the right if they just accepted anyone's conclusions, even INFJs on an INFJ forum. Nobody here is out to cause others pain, and in fact when someone calls foul on a conclusion, it may be in the best interest of everyone to listen and not feel personal about it.

I think Indigo had some good thoughts. There is a middle ground. It's just that the general feeling I get is that the balance is toward "don't be critical of others at all." So just keep it in mind: critical thinking is a good thing, even when used on you. Don't take it personally and don't take it seriously. We're all friends here!

This is a good point. Critical thinking is indeed VERY important in life. Another aspect of critical thinking is valuing the perspectives of others.

Even if a person assumes they are always right, it is a potential fallacy to assume everyone else is wrong because they don't agree. Many people come to conclusions for many reasons, if there is a debate about a topic, you are more than welcome to share your opinion, however, I would think you are not allowed to force your opinion on others.

This is a generalization I have found in life, not specifically about INFJs.com

If you have a different perspective, AWESOME, I think most people would be interested to hear. It's not what you say, but how you say it. If you act in a way that can be potentially misconstrued, then it will most likely be misconstrued.

Some people don't want to listen and it is an absurd expectation that they WILL listen.


Certain people don't like to consider the fundamental facts of an argument. Certain people don't like to consider the emotional effects of an argument. People on both side of the coin could benefit, but that is a life lesson.

 

[Norton]

I'm very interested in critical thinking. I think it's a skill (i.e., type of thinking) that can be taught to anyone, regardless of personality type. Of course, some people may have a more natural inclination toward critical thinking than others, but that's true of many abilities that can be learned.

Let me start a list of some typical errors in critical thinking I regularly observe. Add to it, if you wish.

1. Concluding from anecdotal evidence--generalizing from limited personal experience (e.g., attributing obnoxious behavior of an individual to all who have the same MBTI type). This is also common when people make broad statements about health based on a friend's specific experience with a particular drug, supplement, or etc.

2. Ignorance of the scientific method. Even scientists are able to publish papers describing poorly designed experiments. Are the experiments controlled adequately? Is the statistical power great enough? Are the methods rigorous and clean? Are the conclusions justified by the reported data?

3. Confusing causation and correlation. For example, it was recently reported that the telomeres (ends of chromosomes) of regular, strenuous exercisers (e.g., those who run 80 or more Km. per week) were longer than those of the typical "couch potato." This is important because the longer the telomere, the "younger" a cell is and this may imply some relationship between rigorous exercise and anti-aging. However, it may also be that those who exercise the most do other healthy things that are the actual cause of the longer telomeres.

4. Arguing logically from a flawed assumption.

5. Making definitive statements from an incomplete data set. Sometimes, there's no choice and you do the best you can. But, at least, the incompleteness of the data set should be acknowledged. I was on a jury and this was a major issue. We convicted the SOB (child molester) anyway. Afterward, we were debriefed by the judge and he told us that the convict had had prior convictions which were not mentioned during the trial. Thus, we most likely were correct in convicting.

6. Cognitive dissonance interferes with objectivity. For example, it would be impossible for George W. Bush to admit that he was wrong to invade Iraq because he would not be able to accept the consequences and reality of such a terrible mistake.

7. Lazy thinking. Many people just don't like to think rigorously or deal with complexity.

8. Inability to deal with nuance. The world is not black and white. It's gray. People usually seem most comfortable having an a priori philosophy (idealogy) that they impose on the world, whether it is appropriate for a particular situation or not. For example, it is simplistic to preach "free markets" and eschew all regulation. Clearly, free markets without regulation are like games without rules--they devolve into anarchy. The true complex reality of free markets is that they are best when regulation is optimum, allowing a balance between risk and safety.

Norton and Duty, I just want to say that as an INFJ I have never once found your critical thinking to be obnoxious or onerous, and would not ask you or anyone to stop practicing it. I wish people would take the trouble to explain things more often, actually.

And what Morgain said is very true:


To take that a step further: trying to control and prove and analyze feelings gets people in a lot of trouble sometimes; it can be the root cause of addictions, which allow us to numb or escape feelings we don't like, or which we find painful or irrational. If you're human, even if you are brilliantly NT and a scientist and all that, still, you are going to be prone to irrationality sometimes and you can't (always) critically think that away.

There is a brand of overly arrogant so-called "critical thinking" that makes a person sound like a 6-year-old know-it-all. (not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing that) It's the kind of critical thinking done by a person who has incomplete information but a tremendous amount of confidence. Not really all that critical or thinking.

Clearly, thought and emotion are intertwined. Many "T's" like to deny emotion, but it's there just the same. Notice how many "logical" people become angry or obnoxious during an argument. This is an example of lack of control and understanding of emotion. OTOH, many "F's" have difficulty detaching from their emotions to make an important decision purely on the facts. This can sometimes skew the decision away from the optimum one. It can also feel extremely uncomfortable.

Someone who uses ostensible "confidence" to hide bad thinking is a turd merchant, clear and simple. The worst of this type are demagogues and they are rife in politics, be they in government or the media.

 

[Morgain]

Clearly, thought and emotion are intertwined. Many "T's" like to deny emotion, but it's there just the same. Notice how many "logical" people become angry or obnoxious during an argument. This is an example of lack of control and understanding of emotion. OTOH, many "F's" have difficulty detaching from their emotions to make an important decision purely on the facts. This can sometimes skew the decision away from the optimum one. It can also feel extremely uncomfortable.

Someone who uses ostensible "confidence" to hide bad thinking is a turd merchant, clear and simple. The worst of this type are demagogues and they are rife in politics, be they in government or the media.

I just going to quote you on this part of your post (sorry!). You are right that F's have difficulties with detatching from their emotions to make a decision. But F is also concidered a judging style. It is judging based on values and feelings instead of logical thinking. And it is not less than logical thinking in that regard. My parents have learned me to use my logical thinking whenever I make a decision and I do that a lot ... but ... whenever I make a decision based on my logic, it turns out to be the wrong one. I really need to trust my instincts and my deepest feelings even though it doesn't seem the most logical one and then everything turns out perfect. For example when I was applying for a job I could chose between two jobs. The one was a fixed position with a good salary and the other was a temporary contract but in THE company where I always wanted to work. If I would have followed my logic I would have signed for the first one but in this case I followed my instincts and signed for the second one. It was the best decision I had made. I LOVE the company, my collegues the work, I feel at home there. And in the meantime I have a fixed position there too. So thinking based decisions are not by definition better than feeling based decisions

just wanted to say that, sorry of it is of topic!

 

[Norton]

I just going to quote you on this part of your post (sorry!). You are right that F's have difficulties with detatching from their emotions to make a decision. But F is also concidered a judging style. It is judging based on values and feelings instead of logical thinking. And it is not less than logical thinking in that regard...

Actually, I do agree with you. I think that emotions are important in making decisions. I guess that what I mean to say is that, like most things, decision making requires a balance between thought and feeling. That is, some thinkers need to use more emotion and some feelers need to use more thought.

It is not a zero sum game. I know that some thinkers believe that if they accept their emotions as valid "data" they'll be less "T" and become more "F." I think that one doesn't lose one's "T" but, rather, adds more "F." The same holds for an "F" who develops his or her "T." This leads to a more competent, sophisticated person who is better equipped to succeed in this complex world.

 

[slant]

So why is it that we seem to not have the right to it? Every day we are impressed upon to be unquestioning. It is easily seen when you attempt to have a casual conversation about anything even slightly controversial. Politics, religion, philosophy, law, what you should do later on...it's bad enough to people if you disagree and make a case opposite of them, but once you question the line of reasoning they used to get to their position in the first place, it's suddenly war.

Can you dub an example of this, so I can understand the specifics of what we’re discussing?

Why is that? Why do people so hate to have their thinking evaluated? Is it because they see it as a threat to their status? To their intelligence? What causes people to be so upset at the critical thinking of others?

The answers to these questions depend upon the answer to the above questions, seeing as, I think from a societal standpoint there is a time and place for questioning and a reason asking about someone’s line of thought can be seen as inappropriate, insulting, a threat to their status, etc. depending upon the context.

And lastly...do people have the right to critically think? Do people have the right to critically evaluate the information or opinions people give them, even when it causes others frustration?

I would say you absolutely have the right, even when it frustrates the other person. How could an individual not assert this fact about themselves? The uncritical evaluation of information leads to stories like that of the domino theory of Communism and worse. If information is obtained through dubious means, I could even say it is our duty to question it before it goes out of control. For, the world is uncontrollable, except by chance, unless our information is accurate and applicable.

If it’s a right it can easily be taken away; rights are disposable, liberties are not. I wouldn’t imply that that it’s exactly a liberty either, maybe in the modern thinking American world but there are cultures that seek to oppress it, and times of war where our own country would suppress the act of communicating certain results of critical thinking because it puts them at risk. But critical thinking itself, seeing as it’s a part of the thought process and inside of our head, cannot entirely be suppressed which is why I think asking if we have a ‘right’ to it doesn’t make much sense. Nobody can exactly suppress our right think. Perhaps, verbalizing our critical thinking could be a right, and for that I wouldn’t exactly have an answer to, because that would be more of a freedom of speech topic.

So why is this right constantly threatened? Why do we feel such a need to react against those the critically evaluate our thought process? Would we not be more enthused to be corrected and set right? Wouldn't we rather be rescued instead of left in the depths of ignorance?

This seems to be dealing with the fact that when a person is insecure with an idea or theory they have they become ignorant and do not want to listen to it. I’ve talked about this before, and the main reason for ‘hate’ and complete opposition of someone’s point of view without tolerance, telling someone that they are entirely wrong and have no way of ever being right is an insecurity if the issue at hand is one that clearly has no right or wrong answer. Generally speaking, people do like being corrected if it is something that has a clear right or wrong answer. If someone was going a math equation and came up with the wrong total, I’m sure they would appreciate if you corrected them or eased them to the correct number and why it had turned out off in the first place. But a lot of the issues we deal with on a daily basis have gray areas; meaning there is no clear, most certainly correct answer. Individuals don’t like when others argue with their opinion for two main points that I can think of:

1. Blind Faith/ Self Delusion
They believe in this idea so strongly and it has had such an emotional impact on their that they refuse to face the truth or any other point of view. Considering that they could be ‘wrong’, would put so much emotional turmoil at them that they refuse to look at it even when it is apparent that they have miscalculated something within their reasoning. A lot of people base their opinions on feelings and emotions towards a particular topic rather than data and hard statistics, and these people are more prone to have this complication occur.

2. Insecurity in belief/idea, occasionally arrogance

We have see this throughout history, and it tends to happen in groups of people. When a certain idea is developed and cultivated and it is considered true by many people, the fact that many people believe it is true outweighs any contradictory evidence. People who hold the belief, sometimes on the sake of tradition, become so rigid and convinced that their idea has to be true or such large quantities of humans wouldn’t also believe it that if someone tries to bring upon a different idea they will tackle it down. The insecurity in their own beliefs will cause them to react volatile towards any other suggestion and rip apart, even create groups based entirely against someone elses’ concept in order to embrace their own that has a lack of evidence or isn’t entirely provable.

Science is mainly theoretical, as well as politics, religion, and all of the largely non-discussable topics that will get people into a riot. There is no clear answer to any of these questions so the lack of not wanting to be corrected in these topics is because there is no answer, therefore, the best thing to do in a situation is to hold on to your opinion that has the most weight in the theoretical world. You can’t prove one theory is more valid than another theory without sufficient evidence, which in most cases, isn’t available.

 

[testing]

One thing about anecdotal evidence and the scientific process, etc. that I have always wondered, is, what if that is all you have?

For instance, I lack the ability, time, or resources to conduct, say, a scientific study proving my theory that being afraid of and avoiding painful emotions is a root cause of addictions (just picking a pet theory of mine that I mentioned before -- could be lots of things, though.) Also, there are books on the subject by people who are plenty smarter and more experienced than me, which I've read but not analyzed from a scientific viewpoint. (yeah, lazy, I know.)

Does that mean that anecdotal evidence, pieced together from observation and experience, is invalid? Or does it just mean that it is a hypothesis and unproven?

Half the decisions I make in life are based on anecdotal evidence and somewhat limited experience. Probably not the best application of critical thinking, but really, how would a person ever get anything done if they always insisted on the most rigorous scientific proof for everything? I mean, I would like to have proof, it is just not always available. And when information is available, half the time people are lying or mistaken anyway. (See: politicians) Which is why I pay attention when something "feels" right to me, or not... it's just another way of gathering information.

And I totally agree with Morgain, some of the best decisions I've made, particularly the ones involving personal relationships, certain decisions involving my work, and things that affect me personally, have been straight from the gut.

And, BTW, what do you do and how do you know about telomeres? That sounds interesting.

 

[WellNoWonder]

My parents have learned me to use my logical thinking whenever I make a decision and I do that a lot ... but ... whenever I make a decision based on my logic, it turns out to be the wrong one. I really need to trust my instincts and my deepest feelings even though it doesn't seem the most logical one and then everything turns out perfect.

This makes me wanna cry with joy because this is something I have gone through and also recently discovered about myself...

 

[Top cat]

Me three, wellnowonder/morgain

 

[Norton]

One thing about anecdotal evidence and the scientific process, etc. that I have always wondered, is, what if that is all you have?

For instance, I lack the ability, time, or resources to conduct, say, a scientific study proving my theory that being afraid of and avoiding painful emotions is a root cause of addictions (just picking a pet theory of mine that I mentioned before -- could be lots of things, though.) Also, there are books on the subject by people who are plenty smarter and more experienced than me, which I've read but not analyzed from a scientific viewpoint. (yeah, lazy, I know.)

Does that mean that anecdotal evidence, pieced together from observation and experience, is invalid? Or does it just mean that it is a hypothesis and unproven?

Half the decisions I make in life are based on anecdotal evidence and somewhat limited experience. Probably not the best application of critical thinking, but really, how would a person ever get anything done if they always insisted on the most rigorous scientific proof for everything? I mean, I would like to have proof, it is just not always available. And when information is available, half the time people are lying or mistaken anyway. (See: politicians) Which is why I pay attention when something "feels" right to me, or not... it's just another way of gathering information.

And I totally agree with Morgain, some of the best decisions I've made, particularly the ones involving personal relationships, certain decisions involving my work, and things that affect me personally, have been straight from the gut.

It's an interesting problem. My wife and I had a discussion about this over the weekend. She's an academic physician/researcher at a large medical research institution (and an INFJ, too). Anecdotal medicine is something that gets practiced because we just don't know enough, and never will. Indeed, it's necessary and combines experience with intuition. You might say that it falls under "the art of medicine." OTOH, there is a trend toward "evidence based medicine," which means that "best practices" need to be dictated by what is known "scientifically." This is partially driven by economics and the need to maintain a uniform high level of care. The problem with evidence based medicine is that it implies that there is some formula or algorithm that applies to every case a physician will see, and this is untrue.

Most decisions we make in life are without enough information, that is, they are "incomplete data sets." So, you do your best. In these cases, intuition ("gut feeling") is likely your best bet.

Remember, critical thinking is not the only thinking there is. It's just an important skill that is useful for understanding the world in as objective a way as possible.

And, BTW, what do you do and how do you know about telomeres? That sounds interesting.

I have degrees in electrical engineering and biology. I'm an inventor and I've worked on everything from satellites to implantable defibrillators. I've even helped develop a drug that will soon be available for treating scar tissue disorders (phase III's are finished). In biology, I am particularly interested in exercise physiology and the biology of aging (hence, telomeres). But, the telomere work was covered by the NY Times and other media, so it's out there.

 

[Morgain]

Half the decisions I make in life are based on anecdotal evidence and somewhat limited experience. Probably not the best application of critical thinking, but really, how would a person ever get anything done if they always insisted on the most rigorous scientific proof for everything? I mean, I would like to have proof, it is just not always available. And when information is available, half the time people are lying or mistaken anyway. (See: politicians) Which is why I pay attention when something "feels" right to me, or not... it's just another way of gathering information.
.

yeah, I consider something to be true (to me) when I deeply feel that it is "the way it is". When I feel in my guts "this is it". It is not scientifical correct but then again, I believe that scientific proof is to limited to use as a standard method for analysis. For instance accupuncture can not be proven in a scientific/logica way. This "ki" energy can not be measured, these meridians can not be seen and the medical approche of accupuncture is peoples based so each person gets a personalized approach which can not be studied in double blind placebo clinical trials. And yet this medicine, that has been praciticed for thousands of years in China, works. It does work! So do we have to throw it away because it is not logicaly proven?

I'm not saying we don't need logic. We just need to balance both methods like you said Norton

My got, I just scrolled down and see your post Norton

I say the exact same thing, high five!!!!!!!

I work in a pharmaceutical company searching for remedies against infectious diseases (I have a degree in industrial engineering in biochemistry). So I'm well familiar with scientific proof and logical thinking. Yet the best medicine are found by good old luck and mistakes :becky: and a lot of gut feeling. Therefore the best scientists have a lot of intuition.
Same goes for doctors for instance. You can do a lot with academical skills, knowledge and logical thinking. But it makes you a great doctor if you can follow your intuition from time to time

 

[TaylorS]

At first I wasn't going to put the "PUG" prefix on this thread, but how could I ever write an article about critical thinking and not openly invite people to practice it? It seemed almost dishonorable to me to not open this article up to criticism.

Critical thinking is the process by which we choose to accept or reject information, and how much confidence we put into that choice. In short, critical thinking is not a statement of whether a claim is true or false, but is an evaluation of the method(s) used to produce that claim. An evaluation of the domino theory of Communism, in the context of critical thinking, would tend to look at the way that this theory was formed, and not as much on the theory itself. Is this theory logically consistent and complete? Is the available intelligence on the USSR, relevant to the theory, credible and accurate? Is the theory even significant to our choice of intervening in Vietnam? These are the kinds of questions that critical thinking employs.

As you can see, critical thinking would have helped the decisions of the US government quite a bit in the 1960's. It is admittedly one of the most important, and widely applicable skills for people to develop.

So why is it that we seem to not have the right to it? Every day we are impressed upon to be unquestioning. It is easily seen when you attempt to have a casual conversation about anything even slightly controversial. Politics, religion, philosophy, law, what you should do later on...it's bad enough to people if you disagree and make a case opposite of them, but once you question the line of reasoning they used to get to their position in the first place, it's suddenly war.

Why is that? Why do people so hate to have their thinking evaluated? Is it because they see it as a threat to their status? To their intelligence? What causes people to be so upset at the critical thinking of others?

And lastly...do people have the right to critically think? Do people have the right to critically evaluate the information or opinions people give them, even when it causes others frustration?

I would say you absolutely have the right, even when it frustrates the other person. How could an individual not assert this fact about themselves? The uncritical evaluation of information leads to stories like that of the domino theory of Communism and worse. If information is obtained through dubious means, I could even say it is our duty to question it before it goes out of control. For, the world is uncontrollable, except by chance, unless our information is accurate and applicable.

So why is this right constantly threatened? Why do we feel such a need to react against those the critically evaluate our thought process? Would we not be more enthused to be corrected and set right? Wouldn't we rather be rescued instead of left in the depths of ignorance?

The problem is not critical thinking, the problem is people using it as an excuse to be tactless jerks. Bluntly criticizing someone's stupid beliefs more often then not backfires, it causes the person to dig in their heels and causes them to be more irrational rather than thinking logically. If you want to change people's opinions one should never do a full direct assault on their positions, one must tactfully create doubt in the person's mind and create cognitive dissonance. Socrates did this very well.

 

[Shai Gar]

The problem is not critical thinking, the problem is people using it as an excuse to be tactless jerks. Bluntly criticizing someone's stupid beliefs more often then not backfires, it causes the person to dig in their heels and causes them to be more irrational rather than thinking logically. If you want to change people's opinions one should never do a full direct assault on their positions, one must tactfully create doubt in the person's mind and create cognitive dissonance. Socrates did this very well.

The former is using critical thinking to look at the validity of the argument alone.
The latter is using critical thinking to look at how the argument applies to the person, and how to change it without it backfiring.

 

[Barnabas]

The problem is not critical thinking, the problem is people using it as an excuse to be tactless jerks. Bluntly criticizing someone's stupid beliefs more often then not backfires, it causes the person to dig in their heels and causes them to be more irrational rather than thinking logically. If you want to change people's opinions one should never do a full direct assault on their positions, one must tactfully create doubt in the person's mind and create cognitive dissonance. Socrates did this very well.

true if you not trying to simply win an argument.

 

[NeverAmI]

The problem is not critical thinking, the problem is people using it as an excuse to be tactless jerks. Bluntly criticizing someone's stupid beliefs more often then not backfires, it causes the person to dig in their heels and causes them to be more irrational rather than thinking logically. If you want to change people's opinions one should never do a full direct assault on their positions, one must tactfully create doubt in the person's mind and create cognitive dissonance. Socrates did this very well.

You must till the land before you can plant the seed if you want anything to grow.

Well said.

People do not wish to be told, they wish to discover.