Response to Andrew Warner

Andrew asked: "My question to this would be that, as brought up in class, if one begins to critically think habitually is it still indeed critically thinking or, because it requires less conscious deliberation, is it something else entirely?"

It is understandably counter intuitive to conceive a habitual act as critical thought. Despite this, I think there is no particular reason to list deliberation as a necessary component of critical thinking (I will diametrically contrast habitually and deliberately for the remainder of this discussion). Consider:

Elisha is a diligent knowledge seeker and places a premium on clear logical thought. She is, unsurprisingly, a philosophy major and repeatedly subjects all information and statements she hears to rigorous analysis and evaluation. Eventually, she begins to notice that she is analyzing and evaluating things such as jokes and obviously humorous statements. She understands that the joke is not necessarily meant to convey information of how the world works and will often rely on some inconsistency or impossibility, but she cannot stop herself from noticing such things due to the habitual analysis and evaluation.

While there is probably more to critical thinking than mere analysis and evaluation, it will still be a process capable of habituation. And when that occurs, it is still critical thought. Habituating critical thought is a laudable end goal, where it becomes the automatic response to the perception of information.

Question: Are there any requisite qualities of critical thinking that would render habituating it impossible?

Critical Curriculum

The second question I raised on my Q&A was concerning the formation of curriculum. Critical Thinking is a crucial activity for the process of education, and as such, it is important for the process of schooling to understand and account for this. But how would such accounting manifest?

It strikes me that to direct curriculum to the fostering of critical thinking is unnecessary. Critical thinking is the inevitable byproduct of quality teaching. No matter the subject material, it should be taught in such a way that requires, and will therefore improve, critical thinking. Though I do not have the means to defend it here, I would also posit that teaching in this manner would result in a higher retention rate, as contrasted to rote memorization of facts.

Question: Should critical thinking be an independent subject taught or will it necessarily be taught by quality instruction in all fields?

The End of Critical Thinking?

We, unsurprisingly, found ourselves with a temporal deficiency and therefore did not get to address any of the questions raised in our Q&As. This, therefore, will be the first segment in a two part series addressing my questions.

In our brief examination of differing definitions of critical thinking, it was not uncommon to find, attached to the end of the list of necessary and sufficient conditions, a condition of intent. "With the aim of improving..." "To the end of..." etc...

This idea of a telos, an end to which the critical thinking is directed, is rather commonsensical. It is difficult to imagine critical thought for no reason, but to stipulate a specific intent as a necessary condition is arbitrary and unnecessary. All critical thinkers must be critically thinking for the same reason?

Question: Must thinking, to be critical, be directed toward some specific end?

Critical Velocity

Today in class, the intuitive notion was raised that critical thinking was essentially slow. This was used in evidence for why critical thinking would be inappropriate in times that demanded immediate action. So I wanted to, for the sake of that application, contend that critical thinking is not, by its nature, a slow process.

First and foremost, critical thinking is a mental process; it is, after all, a form of thinking. The average thought takes approximately 550-750 milliseconds to process, with comprehension beginning at 250-450 milliseconds. So the question becomes: what aspect of critical thinking necessarily adds to this time frame?

The answer provided in class was to juxtapose critical thinking to automatic thinking, and since automatic thinking is fast, critical thinking is not. But that is insufficient. The juxtaposition does not mean they do that share certain qualities.

Perhaps it is the nature of critical thinking to be plural; perhaps a critical thought does not exist alone because critical thinking involves multiple thoughts. But if this is the case, the burden becomes demonstrating the correct quantity. How many thoughts need to be processed before critical thinking occurs. The most that can be said from this view is that critical thinking may be slower than regular thinking. But slow per se is not a claim that follows.

While it may be said that critical thinking is optimum if completed over a certain length of time, critical thinking exists along a continuum of quality. Critical thinking is not infallible. There is some critical thinking that is better than others. While good critical thinking may be slower, there is not a situation, I think that would be worsened by the application of critical thinking over regular thinking.

Question: Is there a temporal difference between a critical thought and a regular (meaning all other kinds) thought?