Chapter 8

Critical Thinking at Work!

Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice

and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs,

privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential

for critical thinking.

- Russian Writer Leo Tolstoy

Having a proper state of mind as offered above by Russian Writer Leo Tolstoy is crucial to critical thinking. Those whose thinking is laced with prejudice and resist learning about different customs, privileges, or beliefs are far from being open-minded freethinkers. Having an open mind is a major implied theme in this book. This chapter is where we try to open the reader’s mind and “put it all together” through an example of a complete System 2 (slow) critical-thinking project. This chapter will draw heavily on previous chapters. Since voting is the most important behavior in civic life, our example focuses on how a thinker (voter) should conduct a critical-thinking analysis before deciding who to vote for in an election.

Conducting the Critical-Thinking Analysis

Our voting analysis starts with a review of the critical-thinking framework. Figure 8.1 (reprint of Figure 2.7) provides the Comprehensive Critical-Thinking Framework introduced in this book. The components inside the circles and wedges of the Figure 8.1 framework are called The Elements of Thought. Thinkers should review the critical-thinking framework narrative first presented near the end of Chapter 2. In this chapter, the Figure 8.1 framework will be followed in a clockwise manner starting with the Purpose and Questions element.

Purpose and Questions

As discussed in Chapter 2, all thinking projects must first have a purpose and question(s). The purpose statement (could be a question) is usually a broader view of the problem or issue—often too broad to study with the time and resources available. The specific research question(s) (one or more) then narrow the problem or issue down to something the thinker can analyze with the resources and time available. The purpose statement and specific research question (here only one) for this chapter’s example include:

Purpose statement: What Presidential candidate’s potential policies and actions would most benefit me and the citizens of the United States? (A descriptive effort as defined on the Figure 2.8 research spectrum.)

Specific research question: “Which Political Candidate to Vote For?” (A problem-solving effort as defined on the Figure 2.8 research spectrum.)

This example assumes the next election is for U.S. president. Therefore, the government policies and programs investigated (as major societal issues) will be focused at the national level. The same process detailed below may also be used for any election with the candidates and societal issues adjusted to the respective state or local level.

Information (What We Know) and Context

Chapters 3-6 provide techniques seeking information (what we know) for conducting an initial critical-thinking information and context search. This is usually the most time-consuming part of a critical-thinking analysis. For this example, the specific research question of: “Which Political Candidate to Vote For?” requires the thinker to access several different literatures. Searching the literatures identified should follow the Figure 3.3 Prioritizing Open-Source Searches guidance. The literature to be searched include:

Data on the political parties and political ideologies of each candidate.

Data on the major societal issues in the specific election, particularly those societal issues most important to the civic and personal interests of the thinker (voter).

Information on all political candidates and their stands on the major societal issues. A psychobiography (Chapter 7) on each candidate is likely required. The information should include sufficient data to complete the initial points of view, assumptions, and beliefs analysis (Chapter 7) for each major societal issue and each candidate.

Trends on how and why citizens vote as they do and any existing voting theories or models.

Compounding the difficulty in collecting the above information is the vast amount of misinformation likely to be encountered in the search. The Figure 3.7 Checklist for Assessing Information provides a template to assist in identifying and discarding misinformation. The historical context for the specific research question will normally be collected as part of the initial information search.

Points of View, Assumptions, and Beliefs

Chapter 7 contains the procedures for points of view, assumptions, and beliefs analysis. This chapter assumes that the Chapter 7 examples for U.S. immigration views is one of the major societal issues addressed in the information search. Figure 7.3 Four Ways (Nine) Ways of Seeing Example: Immigration Views, Figure 7.4 Assumptions Analysis: Immigration Views, and the Chapter 7 Critical Belief Analysis example would be part of this chapter’s example analysis. Similar analysis on each candidate’s views on each major societal issue would also be needed. For this chapter’s example, other major societal issues are identified in the following Conceptualization section.

Conceptualization and Alternatives

In the conceptualization phase the thinker must use the material found in the first information search (including context) and generated in the points of view, assumptions, and beliefs analysis to develop a theory or model for the analysis. Alternatives contribute to developing theory or models by ensuring all possible options are considered. The theory used may be an existing one found in the information search, or one created by the thinker. Models may take on several different formats as discussed in Chapter 2. The goal here is to either create a theory (with hypotheses) or devise one or more models that capture, even if abstractly, the behavior under study (here voting decision-making). Hypotheses and models are then populated with information and tested in the later interpretation and inference element, providing the findings or answers for the specific research question(s). For this example, we will use a matrix model that is developed as follows.

From the literature search, the thinker found how in past elections around 80 percent of total voters decide how they will vote based on emotions or feelings.^[1] Of this 80 percent, about half the voters cast partisan ballots (about 40 percent of total voters), meaning they vote for candidates from their preferred political party. This leaves around 20 percent of voters as less-emotional thinkers who tend to vote based on a combination of emotions and rational (critical) analysis of the candidates and major societal issues in the election. Emotional voters tend to base their voting decisions on their emotions and feelings driven largely by the Figure 3.2 epistemological categories of authority, faith, common sense, and intuition. These emotional voters are normally involved in System 1 (fast) thinking (Chapter 4). The 20 percent making up less-emotional voters tend to make rational decisions of whom to vote for using the knowledge gained from both assessing their emotions and the Figure 3.2 epistemology categories of empiricism, rationalism, and science. Rational voters are likely involved in System 2 (slow) thinking (Chapter 4). The above percentages are based on past trends in voting and can change based on the candidates and major societal issues in a specific election.

The biggest lesson from the above statistics is how around 80 percent of total U.S. voters use their emotions and feelings to make voting decisions, rather than undertake a rational (critical) analysis of the candidates and major societal issues. History shows those U.S. presidential campaigns focusing on voters’ emotions and feelings are almost always more successful.^[2] In building the matrix model for this chapter’s example we need to capture both the emotional constraints and cognitive (rational) constraints in voter behavior. While this example is for one specific voter (the thinker) it should be able to travel to other agents and other elections.

Figure 8.2 provides the matrix model for this example analysis for the thinker in deciding on “Which political candidate to vote for?” Figure 8.2 designates the options or alternatives, i.e., candidates, along the top right side of the matrix. It is assumed this is a U.S. presidential election, and the candidates have been selected based on their political parties’ primary elections and national party conventions. Thus, the candidates are given, and no further alternatives apply (discounting write-in candidates). The evaluation factors, evidence, and assumptions are listed down the leftmost column in Figure 8.2. Here is where other options come into play as each matrix model will vary for different voters as each must decide the factors important to them in selecting a candidate to support. We next discuss how Figure 8.2’s leftmost column was developed.

The Figure 8.2 example left column lists the potential evaluation factors for one hypothetical voter’s (the thinker’s) decision-making. This column includes the most likely emotional constraints evaluation factors, and the cognitive (rational) constraints evaluation factors the thinker decides to consider as the most important in selecting a candidate to support. Emotional constraints’ evaluation factors include:

Party: Ideology and Legacy. Many U.S. voters, around 40 percent from existing research,^[3] vote for their chosen political party’s candidates. These voters support one political party, likely for their entire lives, without looking deeper into other political ideologies or Figure 8.2 evaluation factors. Differing political ideologies and political cultures were covered in Chapter 6. Under each candidate in Figure 8.2 their corresponding hypothetical political cultures are noted. Candidate A is influenced by an egalitarian political culture. Candidate B is influenced by a mixed egalitarian-individualistic political culture. Candidate C is influenced by an individualistic political culture.

Informed thinkers (voters) should take a deeper look at the parties and candidates’ current ideology, political culture, and past behaviors, including successes and failures of each political party offering candidates in an election. Political ideologies do change over time. We have seen this over the last decade in U.S. conservative political ideology. Voters who always vote for candidates from the same political party, just because they or their family always voted that way, are not critical thinkers.

Candidate Character and Personality. Emotional voters and cognitive voters often look closely at the character and personality of candidates. This is best accomplished with an assessment of the points of view, assumptions, and belief systems of each candidate, including a psychobiography (see Chapter 7). Thinkers should investigate whether the candidate speaks or acts with decency toward other candidates and fellow citizens, plus works well with others.^[4] Additional factors the voter may assess include a candidate’s values, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, empathy/compassion, qualifications/competence, leadership/management styles, and moral compass (signs of narcissism, indecency, vulgarity, criminality, prejudices, bigotry, racism, misogyny, cruelty, etc.).

Cultural identity may also be a factor in candidate character assessments. In an almost cult-like manner, voters may look to define their own personal identity in terms of one candidate’s character and values. Voters may look for candidates who are pugilistic and aggressive and who they feel match their own cultural identity and thus feel the candidate will fight for the issues most important to them. Recent politics have revealed how voters have often discounted or overlooked other candidate character and personality flaws discussed above. Instead, they use cultural identity to drive their voting decisions. Those voting based primarily on a candidate’s character, personality, or cultural identity (or combination of all three) are also not critical thinkers.

Voter Wishes, Fears (Anger), and Values. In today’s politics, voters are often motivated by a combination of the factors of wishes, fears (anger), and values. Wishes concern the voter’s own self-interests and at times the interests of the larger society. A wish is a mental model of desired conditions usually associated with positive emotions of the voter.^[5] For example, if the voter desires there be no limits on the types of personal weapons they may own, they would likely be drawn to a candidate that is against gun control. This raises the specter of single-issue voters who only care about one or two societal issues. Some voters can be so emotionally attached to certain societal issues that it becomes all they care about in voting. Usually driven by extreme confirmation bias, the inability to accept information outside their existing world view (see Chapter 4), and possessing strong emotions about the societal issue, these voters may disregard all the other emotional and rational constraints in Figure 8.2 and support political candidates who match their views on the selected societal issue(s). Common single-issue voters have recently championed immigration, abortion rights, gender identity, sexual orientation, environment (climate change), taxation, and gun rights, among others.

Fears are strong motivational factors influencing voting. Fear creates a mental model of one or more unpleasant conditions associated with negative emotions, often leading to anger and anxiety.^[6] Over the past decade, fear and anger among U.S. voters have reached a zenith. Politicians understand the strong motivating force of fear and often create stories (usually based in misinformation) to increase voter fears and gain the voters’ support as the candidate argues they are the only ones who can fix things. For example, the U.S. economy may be structurally sound. but with a little more inflation than government officials desire. To foster and take advantage of the inflation fear factor an opposition political candidate may create a false picture using misinformation of a failing economy to gain voter support through fear.

Recent U.S. politics have seen citizen fear and anger generated around the loss of the mythical “American Dream.” There are many views on the American Dream, but at its core is the idea of how U.S. residents (citizens and other residents) will succeed through hard work and determination. Adding to this core idea is a widespread belief of how children should become better off financially than their parents. An even more idealistic view of the American Dream is how all families should be able to live a happy life and afford a home, possess two cars, educate their children, and take a family vacation annually. Some recent politicians have campaigned on the notion the American Dream is dead, thus stoking voter fears and anger.

U.S. citizens are always seeking who to blame in bad situations. Citizens seldom, if ever, take responsibility for their own role in creating their personal conditions and situation. Researchers have found U.S. citizens blame the loss of the American Dream on (1) big U.S. government, and (2) immigrants.^[7] Thus, it is easy to understand how voter support would be generated by political candidates who offer to restore the American Dream by disrupting the U.S. government (attacking “The Deep State” or draining “The Swamp”) and deporting all the undocumented and criminal immigrants residing in the United States. The American Dream thus becomes another single-issue voter concern where the voters ignore all other emotional and rational constraints in Figure 8.2 and vote only for the return of the mythical American Dream.

Values are another motivator of voting and can be defined as emotion-loaded beliefs concerning how things should or should not be morally, interpersonally, and aesthetically.^[8] A person develops their values similar to how they receive information, as is graphically depicted in Figure 3.1. Values can be developed from many sources but usually family, friends, religion, and education are the most salient. Future voters internalize their learned values. Different cultures possess different sets of values, both in a voter’s political culture and larger overall culture. Citizens are motivated and often vote using their “values map” as a guide. For example, some citizens revere the value of the tenet “thou shall not commit adultery.” Thus, if a political candidate is known to have committed adultery, it is less likely the citizen (voter) will support that candidate. There are literally thousands of values that could come into play in a complex U.S. presidential election. Values motivations are often intertwined with the voter’s assessment of candidate character and personality discussed above, especially in terms of the voter trying to match their values to a candidate’s cultural identity.

As with the other emotional constraints discussed above, a voter basing their selection of candidates on their wishes, fears (anger), and values is not a critical thinker, but likely using System 1 (fast) thinking. Figure 8.2 offers how a voting decision should only be made after a thorough analysis of both the above emotional constraints and the cognitive (rational) constraints discussed next.

Cognitive (rational) constraints concern major societal issues affecting the thinker (voter) or the larger society—those issues the voter cares (or should care) most about. The voter must have in-depth knowledge of the issues and determine how each candidate plans to address these issues. Societal issues often change between elections. For this example, voting booth exit polls have found recent major societal issues at the national level include threats to democracy, jobs and the economy, cost of living and inflation, abortion rights, immigration policy, crime and terrorism, the environment and climate change, and gun safety (gun control).^[9] These major societal issues have been entered under cognitive (rational) constraints in Figure 8.2. Each of the major societal issues should undergo a points of view, assumptions, and beliefs analysis for each candidate as was completed for the immigration issue in Chapter 7.

Voters (thinkers) may also add additional societal issues they find important for assessing which candidate to support. If the election was being held at the state or local level, the societal issues would no doubt differ. It can be seen how an informed voter would be challenged to know about each candidate and how they would rate on the Figure 8.2 emotional constraints and in their plans or views on each of the Figure 8.2 cognitive (rational) constraints. More on this analysis process is contained below. The final Figure 8.2 row for Decision helps the thinker decide which candidate most closely aligns with their voting preferences and is explained in greater detail below.

Information (What We Need to Know)

At this point the thinker (voter) must likely return a second time to the information sources (Figure 3.3) to gather information needed to populate the Figure 8.2 matrix model for the following interpretation and inference element. Additional information is also likely required on each of the societal issues under cognitive (rational) constraints in Figure 8.2. Additional information and analysis may be required to complete the points of view, assumptions, and beliefs investigations on each candidate (see Chapter 7). The alternative element comes back into play here as for each societal issue the thinker must uncover background (context) information and current information as they establish all the options and alternatives candidates might use to address these issues.

Interpretation and Inference

Figure 8.2 is populated with data (information/analysis) In the interpretation and inference element. This leads to the critical-thinking projects’ initial findings. They are “initial findings” as it is common for findings to change when they are subject to the implications and consequences element analysis in the next section. Figure 8.3 presents the Figure 8.2 matrix model populated with the thinker’s assessment for each candidate’s emotional constraints and cognitive (rational) constraints. The thinker’s assessments are indicated by a C (Consistent), CC (Strongly Consistent), I (Inconsistent), or II (Strongly Inconsistent). The assessment designation indicates if the thinker’s (voter’s) self-interests, or hopefully larger societal interests, are consistent (C or CC) or inconsistent (I or II) with each candidates’ stands, views, or desires on each Figure 8.2 evaluation factor.

To complete Figure 8.3, the thinker should also employ a Four Ways of Seeing (Figure 7.2), Assumptions Analysis (Figure 7.4), and a Critical Belief Analysis (Chapter 7) on their own views of each major societal issue. Additionally, the thinker must research each candidate in terms of their emotional constraints. The thinker then compares each candidate’s ratings in each emotional constraint to their personal view of the evaluation factors under emotional constraints. Next, the thinker should determine their personal view of each of the cognitive (rational) constraints similar to the Chapter 7 analysis of the immigration issue. Finally, the thinker must assess each candidate on their views of each major societal issue. Figures 7.2 and 7.3, Figure 7.4, and the Chapter 7 Critical Belief Analysis process are a good framework for assessing each candidate against each major societal issue. Figure 8.3 reveals the results of this analysis by one thinker. Other thinkers will likely have different results.

Hypothetical Information/ *Initial Winner

In interpreting Figure 8.3, the number of inconsistencies for each candidate are tabulated. C and CC ratings are not scored. An I rating is assigned a score of one (1) point. An II rating is assigned a score of two (2) points. The Decision row lists the number of inconsistencies for each candidate. The candidate with the least inconsistencies (here Candidate B) is the initial winner, indicating their stands, views, or desires are the most closely aligned with the thinker (voter).

The Figure 8.3 analysis assumes the voter desires action on each item under cognitive (rational) constraints. This example also assumes each evaluation factor carries the same weight in the final decision. Matrix models using C and I assessments normally determine the best outcome (decision) by selecting the alternative (here candidate) with the least inconsistencies. However, seldom are all the evaluation factors in a matrix analysis of equal weight. When this is the case, the thinker would need to make their decision by adjusting their assessments for the evaluation factors with more weight. Examples of weighted analyses are contained in Chapter 9 of Security Analysis, A Critical-Thinking Approach.[10]

Implications and Consequences

Implications and consequences is the final element of thought addressed in most critical-thinking projects. This element assesses the practicality of the initial findings. Implications claim or imply a related behavior, decision, or condition generated by the findings.^[11] Implications address ideas because they directly or indirectly indicate, allude, hint, suggest, intimate, or entail beliefs, assumptions, or viewpoints resulting from the thinking. Consequences are the result of actions flowing from the implications. Thinking through the implications of a situation may lead to positive consequences that solve the problem or otherwise support the purpose of the analysis. Failure to think through the implications may result in negative (unintended) consequences that work against the interests of the thinker or decision-maker.^[12] Consequences flowing from implications result in behaviors, decisions, or conditions that are acted upon. Chapter 2 provides a deeper discussion of implications and consequences.

For this example, the cascading threat modeling technique is used with Figure 8.3 to assess the implications and consequences elements. Chapter 2 also provides additional discussion of the cascading threat modeling technique.^[13] Figure 8.4 provides the implications and consequences analysis for the Figure 8.3 assessment of candidate B’s I rating under threats to democracy where the I was the result of candidate B having no plan for this societal issue.

In considering the Figure 8.4 implications and consequences analysis, the thinker may find other options or alternatives (voting for other candidates) more practical. For example, the thinker may decide by voting for Candidate B that the risks to democracy developed in Figure 8.4 are unacceptable. Therefore, the voter may decide to shift their vote to Candidate A. Candidate A has only a slightly lower Figure 8.3 score on inconsistencies (4 instead of 3). Selecting Candidate A has the added advantage of Candidate A being consistent with the thinker in all emotional constraints. Additionally, Candidate A is strongly consistent with the thinker on the cognitive (rational) constraints of Threats to Democracy and Environment (Climate Change)—two issues the thinker cares deeply about. The voter’s decision may change further as they conduct additional implications and consequences analyses on other Figure 8.3 emotional and cognitive (constraints) scores. The back-and-forth consideration of the interpretation and inference element findings and implications and consequences element analysis should lead to the final findings.

Logical Argumentation and Intellectual Standards

When the final findings are generated, the voter should create a logical argument (see end of Chapter 4) explaining how and why their decision was made. In this voting example, there would be no written or oral report on the findings. However, there may be family, friends, or colleagues that ask about how the thinker (voter) sees the election and who they may support. In the United States, the voter has the right to answer or not answer such queries. Even without a written or verbal report, the final findings should undergo a quality check using the intellectual standards in Figure 2.11. Thus, from the thinking project’s purpose and questions to the logical argumentation presentation of the final findings, the thinker would have traversed the entire Figure 8.1 critical-thinking framework in deciding who to vote for in the example election.

Notes

1. Drew Weston, The Political Brain, The Role of Emotion in Deciding The Fate of the Nation (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 115.↑

2. Ibid, chp. 1.↑

3. Ibid, 115.↑

4. Amanda Ripley, “One Woman is Holding Politicians Accountable for Nasty Speech. It’s Changing Politics,” Politico, January 20, 2023, https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-woman-audacious-quest-dignify-093000892.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEFM8aKOL4uiII_mXR5kMppCRvUw3Pa2F8jlDNLpum59A8nED8DiJDOxuLYclnPP--ywWjBsTELAq5Dsr07JF1wKVlGDFG9y58byuY3t6EwoboGJKfwRZIJAcPK1ERVbIIFn6kCXh9fO2WY-y9tFRpVYVQdMu3bPZHm8kHT6cB6j (accessed January 21, 2023).↑

5. Weston, 81.↑

6. Ibid.↑

7. Timothy P. Carney, Alienated America, Why Some Places Thrive, While Others Collapse (New York: Harper Collins, 2019).↑

8. Weston, 82.↑

9. The societal issues listed came from an exit poll from the 2022 mid-term Congressional elections published as NBC News Survey, November 3-5, 2022, Study #220806 by Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23272032-220806-nbc-november-poll-v2 (accessed November 6, 2022), and NBC News Exit Polls 2022, November 10, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-elections/exit-polls (accessed November 13, 2022).↑

10. Michael W. Collier, Security Analysis, a Critical-Thinking Approach (Richmond, KY, Eastern Kentucky University Libraries Encompass, 2023), https://encompass.eku.edu/ekuopen/6/ or https://manifold.open.umn.edu/projects/security-analysis.↑

11. Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking, Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, 2^nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2014).↑

12. Ibid, 117.↑

13. See Fred May, “Cascading Disaster Models in Postburn Flash Flood,” in The Fire Environment—Innovations, Management, and Policy, eds. Bret Butler and Wayne Cook, Proceedings RMRS-P-46CD, March 2007 (Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2007).↑