Chapter 2

Human Thinking Across the Ages

What we think, we become.

- Buddha

The above quote from South Asian religious leader Siddhartha Gautama (commonly known as Budda) captures how thinking influences human conditions. Living in the 6^th- or 5^th-century BCE (Before Common Era, ex-B.C.), he is considered the founder of Buddhism. As one of the world’s great religions, Buddhism remains the religion of many people in Southeast Asia and Mongolia and is a major influence in Chinese (Taoism) and Japanese (Shinto) religions. This chapter reviews how human thinking evolved across the ages, helping provide context and leading us to a better understanding of today’s world. The chapter also presents an introduction to comprehensive critical thinking as the most recent addition to human thinking.

Evolution of Human Thinking

Early human thinking focused primarily on basic survival. Archeologists and anthropologists estimate Homo erectus populated portions of present-day Africa around 1 million to 2 million BP (Before Present, meaning “years ago”). Homo erectus then spread across present-day Europe and Asia. This era was generally known as the Stone Age.^[1] Homo erectus is seen as the first of the nomadic hunter-gathers, who migrated to where they could find food, water, and shelter. The Stone Age hunter-gathers walked upright on two legs and knew how to make crude tools and weapons from wood, stone, and bone and how to control fire for cooking and heating. Homo erectus had a larger brain than its hominin ancestors and as a result was able to engage in more complex thought.

Around 100,000 BP, Homo sapiens (modern humans), descendants of Homo erectus, emerged from present-day eastern Africa and eventually displaced Homo erectus and their other descendants (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo longi (Denisovans?), and others).^[2] Homo sapiens learned to organize in clans or tribes and knew how to make war on hostile neighbors. Modern human languages did not emerge until around 50,000 BP. Languages allowed Homo sapiens to make plans, more effectively organize, and solve problems. Homo sapiens initially migrated to present-day Europe and Asia, eventually populating the present-day Pacific Islands starting around 30,000-50,000 BP, and arriving in present-day North and South America around 12,000 to 20,000 BP. These modern humans concentrated their thinking on achieving basic needs as defined by U.S. psychologist Abraham Maslow in his theory of the Hierarchy of Human Needs in Figure 2.1. Maslow’s theory offers needs lower on the pyramid must be attained before the human seeks needs higher on the pyramid. Basic needs are at the base of his pyramidal structure and include both physiological needs (food, water, warmth, rest), plus security and safety needs.

Human thinking advanced slowly in the Neolithic period starting around 12,000 BP. Approximately 10,000 to 12,000 BP, humans began to domesticate animals (herding) and develop agriculture (farming). Animals and edible plants were available to hunter-gathers previously, but in the Neolithic period animals and plants began being produced systematically by herders and farmers yielding larger and more consistent food supplies. The domestication of animals and the start of agriculture allowed humans to transition from lives as nomadic hunter-gathers to living permanently in one location. This sparked the establishment of settlements of groups of humans—forerunners of today’s towns and cities. These early herders and farmers initially settled in the Fertile Crescent, which included the coastal regions and along rivers in the Levant and adjacent regions—present-day southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan; areas along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in present-day Iraq; and along the Nile River and in the Nile Delta in present-day Egypt. The domestication of animals and agricultural techniques spread across the world in the following centuries. Around 5,500 BP the wheel was invented, first used to make pottery (potter’s wheel) and later employed to facilitate improved means of transportation. During the Bronze Age (3,300 to 1,200 BCE), humans learned to smelt minerals for making implements and weapons—primarily combining copper and tin to create bronze. The Bronze Age also saw the invention of writing. In the Iron Age (starting around 1,200 BCE), humans began to smelt iron and later steel for making implements and weapons. The Iron Age continued into the Middle Ages (Dark Ages, Medieval period) lasting from roughly 500 to 1,500 CE (Common Era, ex-A.D.). Except for gunpowder, arriving in Europe from China around 1,300 CE, there were few significant human intellectual advancements in the Middle Ages. In Maslow’s Figure 2.1 hierarchy, humans during these periods focused not only on basic needs, but also on fostering belonging and love (intimate relationships, friends, neighbors) and seeking esteem (prestige, feelings of accomplishment).

Human thinking accelerated in the Age of Enlightenment, a philosophical and intellectual movement taking place across Europe in the 1500s to 1700s CE. Similar movements were also taking place in Asia. The European Enlightenment included the emergence of a range of new ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of evidence and knowledge, and ideals of liberty, toleration, fraternity, and democratic government. The Age of Enlightenment was preceded and accompanied by the Renaissance (1400s to 1600s CE), which helped humans transition from the Middle Ages to the current Modern Age. The Renaissance marked the rise of classical cultures, including the flourishing of the arts, literature, music, etc., and advancement of mathematics, science, and technology. Famous Renaissance artists included Donatello (1386-1466), Michelangelo (1475-1564), and Raphael (1483-1520). Famous Renaissance mathematicians and scientists included Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), and Sir Isaac Newton (1646-1726). The Protestant Reformation also occurred in the 1500s-1600s CE where the Latin Christian (Roman Catholic) church was challenged by the emergence of Protestant Christian churches. Humans from the 1400s to 1700s CE sought the pinnacle of Maslow’s Figure 2.1 hierarchy as they strove not only for the figure’s lower needs, but also to achieve higher self-actualization needs (achieving one’s full potential, including creative activities), which has continued in today’s Modern Age.

With the development of larger seagoing sailing vessels, the Age of Discovery was spurred in the late 1400s to 1700s CE by Europeans and the Chinese seeking increased access to world maritime trade routes, especially to obtain spices and other commodities desired in Europe and China. The Chinese traveled as far as present-day India, Middle East, and eastern Africa for trade. This period also led to the discovery and colonization by Europeans in areas in present-day Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands, North America, and South America. Early Age of Discovery Portuguese and Spanish-funded maritime explorers included Bartolomeu Dias (1450-1500)—first to discover the Cape of Good Hope (southern point of present-day Africa), Christopher Columbus (1451-1506)—first to cross the Atlantic (after the Vikings did so around 1000 CE), Vasco da Gama (1460-1524)—first to reach India and the Spice Islands from Europe by ship, and Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521)—first to organize and lead an expedition to circumnavigate the globe. These and the waves of following Age of Discovery explorers brought European products, culture, thinking, and existing technology to a larger world, while also introducing Europeans to the products, cultures, and thinking of other civilizations.

The study of formal thinking structures is usually traced to the teachings of Greek philosophers Socrates (470-399 BCE), Plato (428-347 BCE), and Aristotle (384-322 BCE). They sought to understand how premises (propositions) are assertively used in sentences to create good arguments. In other words, they studied how to combine facts, logic, and reasoning to generate supportable arguments.^[3] Today, the work of these Greek philosophers, usually called formal logic, is still taught and used widely in the fields of philosophy, history, journalism, and computer programming. Figure 2.2 provides some basic examples of selected formal logic. Formal logic teaching generally supports the inductive approach to research, which starts with the information (data, facts, evidence) already collected, or about to be collected, and then working from the information, applies logic and reasoning resulting in findings and conclusions. In academia, theories developed using the inductive approach are called grounded theories. Formal logic is still used to prepare written and verbal presentations using the structure of logical argumentation (see Chapter 4).

The scientific method was the next major advancement in early thinking. No one person or group of people invented the scientific method, but instead it was the culmination of centuries of attempts to find out how the natural world works. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is credited as one of the first to promote how a combination of observation and reasoning were required to understand natural phenomena. Figure 2.3 depicts the latest version of the scientific method.

With the advances in mathematics, science, and technology during the Renaissance, the scientific method was continually refined until during the late-1700s to early-1800s CE humans greatly expanded their knowledge and sparked the emergence of the Industrial Age. New inventions facilitated by scientific methods, such as the harnessing of waterpower for large manufacturing endeavors, building of inland canals, invention of the steam engine and cotton gin, and many additional technological advances, reduced reliance on beasts-of-burden, allowed mass production of items previously made by hand, and vastly improved worldwide transportation. The scientific method creates knowledge by combining empiricism (observation of data, facts, evidence) with rationalism (human abilities to reason). Today, the scientific method mainly supports the deductive approach to research, which starts with the existing knowledge and theory on an issue, develops new hypotheses/alternatives to verify or improve the theory, then carries out additional data collection and data analysis to test the hypotheses/alternatives, which lead to new or refined theories in addition to practical findings and conclusions (see Figure 2.3). Today, most U.S. elementary and secondary school curriculums teach the basics of the scientific method as applied to the natural sciences. Students are mainly taught the scientific method as it applies to their academic mathematics and natural science studies (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.), but not necessarily how it may be used to foster critical thinking in the social sciences and their personal lives.

Another advancement in human thinking came during the mid-1900s CE as scientists embracing behaviorism argued the scientific method could also be applied in social science—the study of human thinking, behavior, and conditions. Prior to the mid-1900s, most human behavioral research was based on qualitative historical analyses employing the historical or inductive method, formal logic, and logical argumentation (see Chapter 4). In these mainly intuitive analyses, scholars would use logical reasoning, case studies, and analogies to identify broad political, economic, and social patterns, which they could then use to describe, explain, and/or predict human thinking and behavior. During the 1950s and 1960s; however, cognitive psychology theories developed initially by Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) were expanded and adopted by social scientists. This provided the initial theories (i.e., rationalism) later applied to social science research. Additionally, emerging computing technology allowed social scientists to test their theories using statistical procedures applied to large empirical databases, which is substantially more difficult when all statistical procedures are done by hand. The behaviorist approach, which adopted both psychological-based social theory and quantitative analysis using computers, began to flourish by the late-1960s. The behaviorist approach won the resulting historicism versus behaviorism scholarly debate on which approach was better as more and more social researchers sought to make their work more scientific.

The recent rise of the Information Age, which is now overshadowing the Industrial Age, calls for well-developed critical-thinking skills. The Information Age began in the 1950s and 1960s with the advancement of computers. With the rise of the global Internet in the 1970s and 1980s, humans were able to compile and access increased information and analyze large data sets, plus transfer the information, data, and analytic results anywhere in the world within seconds. This revolution in information handling and analysis calls for even stronger critical-thinking skills because of the complexity of the analyses and the fact the Internet contains a significant amount of misinformation and disinformation. People need critical-thinking skills to sort through the truths and mistruths found on the Internet, which are also transferred through public media by television, radio, web sites, social media, and more (see Chapter 3).

The realization of the need for more modern critical-thinking approaches began to grow in the professional and educational communities early in the 20^th-century.^[5] However, it became a key focus of the professional and academic communities in only the last few decades. In 1982, Maltese physician and psychologist Edward de Bono presented a BBC 10-week series entitled "de Bono's Thinking Course."^[6] In these programs, de Bono explained how thinking skills could be improved by attention and practice. This resulted in a series of books and other published material adopted for critical-thinking training in mainly business and some academic programs. In the 1990s, University of California Berkeley academics Richard Paul and Linda Elder launched the Foundation for Critical Thinking and the Center for Critical Thinking to promote critical-thinking education, including their critical-thinking framework consisting of the elements of thought presented below.^[7] Paul and Elder promoted their work across professional and academic circles. They published several books, pamphlets, posters, and other training aids to facilitate the teaching of their framework. The Paul and Elder framework was adopted by some universities and professional institutions, including the U.S. intelligence community. By the 2000s, several business and professional communities were publishing their own critical-thinking techniques based largely on the Paul and Elder framework but specialized for specific business or professional applications. While the last few decades have seen a growing interest in teaching and employing critical-thinking skills, the topic is still not widely covered in most academic and professional forums.

Overview of the Critical-Thinking Process

Although there are a number of textbook definitions for critical thinking, a good general definition offers critical thinking as a “…mode of thinking—about any subject, content, or problem—in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.”^[8] In other words, critical thinking entails “[t]hinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better….”^[9] Critical thinking must be both active and systematic. An active thinker selects the critical-thinking framework to use (there are several) and reflects on the use of the framework throughout their thinking. A systematic thinker follows a framework’s process and records their work for later review so others may evaluate the validity of the thinking results. To achieve validity, thinkers must strive to reduce bias in their findings. The main contribution of critical thinking is the reduction of biases in problem-solving and decision-making. Figure 2.4 below provides a basic outline of the process of critical thinking presented in this book. The details of this process are covered in this and following chapters.

Figure 2.4 reveals the critical-thinking process that starts with the agent collecting information, which is then put through several agent cognitive influences. An agent’s cognitive influences create points of view, assumptions, beliefs, which inform the following thinking process—leading to decisions and behaviors. Figure 2.4 notes the chapters in this book that go into greater detail on each step in the critical-thinking process.

Critical thinking is not only important for helping create an informed citizenry, but most employers seek these skills in their employees. Having skills in critical thinking and problem-solving increasingly are found in job advertisements in both the public and private sectors. The National Association of Colleges and Employers’ 2018 Job Outlook Survey found 99.2 percent of employers surveyed deemed critical thinking and problem-solving as essential and rated them at the top of all other desired skills and competencies sought in new hires.^[10] Employers want employees who can solve problems through evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing information. They seek employees who can be reflective, foster understanding, guide sound decision-making, and manage actions. Employees are sought who can combine facts, logic, and reasoning and not just apply intuition, emotions, and feelings to their thinking. Employers seek employees who are open-minded and flexible in their thinking to foster the creativity and innovation required in the future of both the public and private sectors. Thus, critical thinking is required to support an informed citizenry across U.S. political, economic, and social realms.

Humans are not born with critical-thinking skills—they must be taught. These skills cannot be gained in a single class or single course. This means critical-thinking basic techniques must be introduced early to elementary students, more advanced critical-thinking techniques added over time, and the techniques exercised and thinking evaluated across the entire elementary and secondary curriculums—just as with the skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. An emphasis on critical thinking should then be continued through post-secondary education. Without instruction and experience in critical thinking, human thought when “left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced.”^[11] As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, critical thinking has historically not been taught as a problem-solving and decision-making tool in U.S. elementary, secondary, or even most post-secondary curriculums. Those who should be teaching critical thinking to meet today’s citizen and workforce demands are generally not familiar with critical-thinking frameworks and techniques. Informed citizens must have critical-thinking skills.

People without critical-thinking skills usually develop several non-critical-thinking tendencies. These non-critical-thinking tendencies are the result of a lifetime of influences from sources discussed in Chapter 3. These influences often highlight how thinking should be fun, exciting, easy, spontaneous, free, chic, popular, patriotic, and beneficial to the thinker—in fact, none of these characteristics define good thinking. Figure 2.5 lists the tendencies of poor thinking that many people develop because of their lack of critical-thinking instruction and experience. Overcoming these poor-thinking tendencies presents severe challenges in today’s society. Do any of these sound common in your thinking?

Figure 2.5 poor-thinking tendencies are not what is needed in a modern informed citizenry living in the Information Age. If we want citizens to be both informed and good thinkers, they should be able to develop the characteristics for good thinking summarized in Figure 2.6. Citizens should be able to depend on the U.S. education system to develop such good thinkers—something it does not universally do now.

In summary, as a society we have neither prepared most citizens to handle the mass of information and data now available in the Information Age, nor to think critically about it. The next section presents a comprehensive critical-thinking framework for achieving the characteristics in Figure 2.6.

A Comprehensive Critical-Thinking Framework

Critical thinking is essential to becoming an informed citizen. The remainder of this chapter provides a comprehensive critical-thinking framework that can be taught and used to improve thinking in our civic, personal, and professional lives. As highlighted previously, humans are not born with critical-thinking skills—they must be taught. To teach critical thinking requires a coordinated curriculum that can travel across school grades and across different schools. There are several existing critical-thinking frameworks, some more useful than others, in addition to frameworks focused on specific professional fields. Whatever framework is selected, it must be teachable and structured to allow easy student, citizen, or professional recall. One of the most successful and easily taught critical-thinking frameworks is shown in Figure 2.7. This framework was originally created by the California-based Foundation for Critical Thinking. The Figure 2.7 framework consists of individual elements of thought that I placed in the order of the steps in the scientific method.^[14] The original elements, those in the Figure 2.7 wedge (triangular) shapes, were established by University of California Berkeley scholars Richard Paul and Linda Elder, the founders of the Foundation for Critical Thinking.^[15] State University of New York Buffalo scholar Gerald Nosich, an associate of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, added the content and alternatives elements in the Figure 2.7 central circle.^[16] I added beliefs to the original points of view and assumptions elements. Added steps for logical argumentation and intellectual standards are not elements but important in the framework. Figure 2.7 is an improvement on the scientific method and is extremely flexible. It may be used for both inductive and deductive research. It may also be employed in thinking projects throughout a citizen’s civic, personal, and professional lives.

Maneuvering within Figure 2.7 normally starts with the elements of purpose and questions and moves clockwise around the circle through other elements—a sequence consistent with the scientific method (see Figure 2.3). This process may seem linear as one step follows another; however, the proper use of the elements is anything but linear! Paul and Elder offer how in the best critical-thinking efforts the thinker will continually reconsider and readdress all the elements as the overall analysis or thinking project proceeds.^[17] Thus, all the elements are not only interrelated but also should be considered several times in a single thinking project.

The context and alternatives elements in the Figure 2.7 central circle overlap the other elements. This is because context and alternatives apply to all the other elements. Context is developed mainly in the first information element but also applies to the other elements as well. Alternatives for all the elements are developed throughout the thinking project. For example, an analysis may have alternative purposes and questions, alternative information, alternative points of view, assumptions, beliefs, and so on.

Figure 2.7 includes two information elements: (1) “what we know,” and (2) “what we need to know.” This is consistent with deductive research or the scientific method for depicting how an initial information search (Chapter 3) will uncover existing facts and theories previously applied to similar research question(s) driving the study. As the study develops conceptual models (theories), and possible alternative hypotheses, a continuing search for information usually is required to populate the conceptual model(s) with information or to test the hypotheses.

The final steps in the Figure 2.7 critical-thinking process are not elements but include logical argumentation and intellectual standards. The final thinking results are organized using the logical argumentation template detailed in Chapter 4. While logical argumentation provides an outline for the thinking results, this outline is also used to create the final project’s written document or verbal presentation. To assess the quality of the final documents and presentations, they undergo a check using the intellectual standards. At this point the critical-thinking effort is complete. However, in many cases. Just as with the scientific method, the critical-thinking process in Figure 2.7 may generate additional problems or questions to investigate, which requires the thinker to re-enter the critical-thinking framework and repeat the thinking process—often multiple times.

Figure 2.7 was designed to explain, predict, and/or recommend actions in human thinking, human decision-making, human behavior, and human conditions—meaning it is very social science specific. However, in a natural science thinking project (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) the elements and final steps would still apply. Not all the Figure 2.7 elements will play a role in every thinking project. But to use Figure 2.7 properly, each element should be considered and its actual use based on a conscious determination by the thinker. This is part of the “thinking about your thinking” approach mentioned above.

Below is a deeper description of each Figure 2.7 element of thought and final steps. This material is presented at the difficulty level that should be understandable by advanced secondary school and college-level students, plus out-of-school adults. For critical-thinking instruction for younger students, each element would likely require simplification to meet student understanding levels.

The Elements-of-Thought

Purpose and Questions elements. Every research or thinking project should begin with a broad purpose, which is usually so broad it cannot be studied by itself. For example, it would take years, if not decades, to study a general-purpose statement such as: “How do we eliminate world inequality?” This would require a study of the many world governing, economic, and social systems, including their ideologies and applications in every world country. It would also require a study of existing world programs to eliminate inequality. Instead, the thinker must narrow the purpose’s scope to address specific research questions able to be studied within the time and resources available. For example, a good research question may entail: “How do we reduce inequality in my hometown?”

The employment of specific research questions is not generally taught in U.S. elementary and secondary schools, resulting in students new to social science research methods and critical thinking initially struggling to develop good purpose statements and questions. Generating specific research questions is sometimes not even taught in undergraduate post-secondary programs. Instead, students are allowed to address broad questions (like the above example purpose statement), where they find a half-dozen or so references, with some references likely not even addressing the research question, and create a 5–10-page research paper summarizing the limited information found. These projects usually offer limited actual analysis, generally provided in the final few paragraphs of the paper—analysis that is usually no more than opinions based in intuition, emotions, and/or feelings. Sound familiar? Such a research paper is not based on critical thinking.

Critical thinking requires the thinking project to start with a broader purpose statement and narrower specific research question, which then drives a deeper search into information sources (next element). Just learning the critical-thinking process will create significant cognitive dissonance (mental anguish) in the student (see Chapter 4) as their old way of doing research is replaced with the new critical-thinking process—this replacement of the old with the new generates learning.

Figure 2.8 presents a visual representation for developing specific research questions across the research spectrum. The thinker must first decide on the type of research to be conducted—descriptive, explanatory, predictive, or problem solving. As the thinker moves to the right on Figure 2.8, the research usually becomes more complex, and the steps shown to the right usually depend on the types of research to its left to be completed first. Descriptive research is generally taught in elementary and secondary schools and in the early years of undergraduate education. This is the domain of organizing data and telling a story. Historians and journalists are experts in descriptive research. Descriptive studies address specific research questions asking who, what, where, when, and how. Explanatory research asks questions of why and how (how questions calling for an explanation), in addition to asking what does it (this) mean questions. This is the realm of theory and is usually conducted by advanced undergraduate and graduate students, college faculty, and professional researchers, but is learnable by most citizens. Predictive research tries to determine the future. It asks questions about what will happen (in the future). While college faculty and professional researchers conduct some predictive studies, the real experts are those trained as intelligence analysts—it is also learnable by most citizens. Finally, problem-solving research asks what we should do about the specific problem. This is the realm of policy analysts and informed citizens and is the most complex of all analyses as it usually requires a combination of supporting descriptive, explanatory, and predictive research, leading to alternative solutions or recommendations. The bars under Figure 2.8 steps indicate the general purpose of the different research types.^[18]

Developing purposes and good research questions is a significant challenge to most students, even at the college undergraduate and graduate levels. This is because during their previous schooling they were allowed to conduct broad research projects as discussed above. Unfortunately, any research project will quickly “run off the rails” if they are not grounded in good specific research question(s).

Information (first attempt) and Context elements. Once the research question(s) are developed, the next step is to search for both existing information (data, facts, evidence), and existing studies and theories pertaining to the question(s). This search requires information literacy skills discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. Informed citizens must have well-developed information literacy skills, including being able to identify misinformation, disinformation, and outright untruths (lies). This also requires evaluating the logic and reasoning used by sources, including identifying cognitive biases, logic fallacies, and the quality of the resulting arguments (see Chapter 4). A good thinking project requires a deep search of the many sources that could include information pertaining to the research question(s). This is no small task and will usually take the most time in a thinking project.

During the initial information search, the thinker should attempt to identify information within similar historical, structural, and current situations to establish the general context of the thinking project. Establishing the context of the current issue is important in two ways. First, to ground the thinking process in its contextual parameters. Second, to help thinkers avoid utilizing analogies in their primary thinking processes—this is one of the poor-thinking tendencies highlighted in Figure 2.5. Analogies tend to assess past similar cases of the issue at hand and utilize these past cases to guide decisions on the current issue. Past cases of similar issues; however, usually have different contexts to the current issue and to use them in decision-making on a current issue is dangerous. For example, in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when Soviet Union nuclear weapons were identified in Cuba, U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s senior military advisors were initially using analogies based on Soviet past actions in Eastern Europe to predict Soviet actions in the Missile Crisis. The context differed between these past cases and the current case in two main ways. First, the Missile Crisis included a direct threat to the United States from nearby Cuba. Second, the case included possible use of nuclear weapons. Neither of these contextual differences existed in any of the past Soviet-East European cases. The president avoided nuclear war because he discounted the initial analysis by analogy of his military advisors and directed his advisors’ analysis through a classic critical-thinking process.^[19]

Points of View, Assumptions, and Beliefs element. Using material gleaned from the initial information search, thinkers next assess the points of view, assumptions, and beliefs shaping the decision-making and behaviors of case participants, including the points of view, assumptions, and beliefs influencing their own thinking. This analysis provides in-depth knowledge of the structural, historical, ideological, political, economic, social, cultural, religious, linguistic, personal, and security factors at play in the case. Chapter 7 discusses points of view, assumption, and belief analyses in greater detail and provides techniques for assessing these highly important aspects of a critical-thinking project.

Conceptualization element. The thinker next conceptualizes (models) the behavior of the persons or situation under study. Critical thinking requires the conceptualization of the problem by identifying and defining concepts, employing theories and models, and generating hypotheses or alternative scenarios. It starts with conceptualizing terms that allow people to think more clearly and share their thoughts with others. Conceptual theories may already exist or may be created by modeling, which combines facts, assumptions, logic, and reasoning to help people understand a situation. Hypotheses are simply statements of relationships between various components (factors, variables, steps) of a theory or model (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of establishing causality). Hypotheses are tested with empirical data to determine if they support the theory or model (in interpretation and inference element). Alternative scenarios identify different behaviors or outcomes that may occur. Most thinking projects require several different models to fully understand the issue under study. The conceptualization element depends greatly on the alternative element discussed in the next section.

People inherently use concepts in their daily thinking. Concepts are intellectual constructs that enable people to identify, organize, interpret, and compare ideas resulting from their experiences and thought processes.^[20] Concepts lead to words and symbols, which—when combined with grammar create languages. Grammar provides rules for using words and symbols. Clearly people think and share their thoughts using language, but the constructs of language vary by the people who use them and the environment where they live. For example, the English language has only a few words for “snow,” but Native Americans (First Nations) living in the Artic have over 50 words in their languages for different types of snow. These many words for snow developed to provide specific descriptors and serve Artic dwellers better in their harsh living environment.^[21]

Defining words and symbols is an important part of language. Definitions allow the conceptualization of ideas or thoughts, especially in creating a generalized idea of a thing or class of things. Agreed-upon definitions lead to clarity among people using the same language. Defining concepts usually includes designating the concept, identifying dimensions of the concept, and agreeing to indicators or attributes of the concept. When definitions are not agreed upon, it prohibits joint understanding and often results in conflict. In Chapter 6, we discuss the conflicting definitions of the term “socialism,” which different groups change as needed to advance their own agendas.

Thinkers employ modeling to expand individual concepts by combining known facts, assumptions, logic, and reasoning to assist them in conceptualizing a situation. Once a model is created, it is later populated in the interpretation and inference element with historical or current facts helping the thinker generate findings for their investigations. Modeling also may assist in uncovering assumptions (see above section) and developing alternatives (see next section), in addition to identifying problems with logic and reasoning (see Chapter 4), which might otherwise go unnoticed. Modeling can create theories, and both models and theories can generate hypotheses or alternative scenarios to be tested or to generate other insights that can lead to a better understanding of a particular situation. Overall, modeling can improve the rigor and precision of thinking projects. Models provide a representation of an object, idea, or system. That is, when analysts cannot interact directly with the object, idea, or system; models can provide insights to improve understanding.^[22] There are many modeling techniques, often learned in graduate studies, including physical modeling, geospatial modeling, temporal (time) modeling, process modeling, structural causal modeling, agency (decision) modeling, and many others.

Covering the many modeling techniques is beyond the scope of this book. For those interested in a more comprehensive coverage of modeling, see Chapters 7 and 9 of Security Analysis, A Critical-Thinking Approach.^[23] Instead, for our purposes in this book, we will look at one commonly used conceptualization technique, matrix analyses using tables of data.

Matrix analysis modeling is an inductive and/or deductive qualitative or quantitative technique considered one of the most powerful, versatile, and flexible techniques used in thinking projects. Both qualitative and quantitative information may be included in a matrix model analysis. It may be used to address past, current, and future events. Inductively, it is a handy, clear method for sorting information. It may assist in assessing and selecting from a list of alternatives. Deductively, it can be used for testing theories or developing other models and hypotheses. Matrix model analyses are analytically illuminating, because even when the analysis does not point to one solution or decision-making option, it helps sharpen analytic judgements.

Matrix models may project solutions or decisions from a dense body of information. Matrix model analysis may be considered a jigsaw puzzle, allowing the isolation of the pieces of the problem or decision. Each puzzle piece may be assessed in-depth and then the entire puzzle reassembled in a logical order. Matrix model analyses may allow:

Separation of elements of a problem.

Categorization of information by type.

Comparison of one type of information with another.

Comparison of information of the same type.

Uncovering correlations or patterns among the information.

A matrix model is simply a table grid with the number of cells needed for addressing whatever issue is being analyzed. It consists of rows and columns. For a matrix model analysis, the top row of each column usually lists the options, alternatives, hypotheses, scenarios, or recommendations being tested or investigated. In the first column (left-most), the evaluation factors, evidence, or assumptions are usually listed. The status of evaluation factors, evidence, or assumptions are entered into the matrix cells. Then each cell under options/alternatives and evaluation factors are populated with information (see Figure 2.10 below). This may simply be “yes” or “no” notations, whether the factors are consistent or inconsistent (C or I) with a hypothesized result, or a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessments for each option/alternative. The C or I may also use a double designation (CC or II) if the factors are very consistent or very inconsistent, respectively. In a matrix model the comparisons for all options/alternatives are easily made as they are all shown in one table. Figure 2.9 shows a typical matrix model often called a matrix output model—because use of the model results in an output of an answer to the research questions under study. In the interpretation and inference element (see below) the matrix model is populated with information and findings generated.

Alternatives element. Working in conjunction with the conceptualization (modeling) element, the thinker establishes additional evaluation factors and the range of alternative hypotheses or scenarios for the analysis, i.e., differing options to explain or predict the human behavior or decision-making under study or development of differing policy recommendations. There are several techniques for generating alternative evaluation factors, hypotheses, and recommendations. Some will flow from the modeling in the conceptualization element, and others will flow from a variety of techniques, including the initial information search; informed brainstorming; points of view, assumptions, and beliefs analyses; and the synthesizing of creative thinking into the critical-thinking framework.

Creative-thinking techniques generate those “out-of-the-box” alternatives, which should be both unique and useful.^[24] The creative-thinking alternatives are tested along with alternatives generated by the conceptualization element and other techniques. There are numerous commercial texts on conducting brain

storming (mainly in the business and management literature). There are also several commercial texts in the same literature on creative thinking. Daniel Forsett’s book, Kick-Start Creative Thinking, Instant Techniques to Innovative Ideas and Ingenious Problem Solving, is a good starter-text for those wishing to learn creative-thinking techniques.^[25] Chapter 8 of Security Analysis, a Critical- Thinking Approach provides a more in-depth discussion of using brainstorming and creative thinking as part of the alternatives element.^[26] Do not forget that the alternatives element should be applied to all the other elements of thought.

Information (second attempt) element. Referring to Figure 2.7, the information element is usually addressed a second time (what we

need to know) to generate data needed to populate the conceptualized model and thus test the alternative hypotheses or scenarios developed. An even deeper investigation of the material may be needed to complete the conceptual model and to populate the model with information in the interpretation and inference element. Re-engagement of the Chapter 3 information literacy techniques is normally required to complete this second attempt with the information element. Field data collection (interviews, focus groups, personal observations, surveys. etc.) may also be required.

Interpretation and inference element. With the alternative evaluation factors, hypotheses, scenarios, or policy recommendations generated, and the second information element completed, the next step is to test each hypothesis, scenario, or recommendation to determine the best options or alternatives to answer the research question(s) or solve the problems guiding the thinking project. There are numerous qualitative, comparative, and quantitative techniques for testing and evaluating alternative hypotheses, scenarios, and policy recommendations. You might not realize it, but you have been learning mathematical techniques since elementary school that are useful in completing the interpretation and inference element. Statistical inference techniques usually taught initially in college programs are widely used in generating inferences. There are also several non-mathematical or non-statistical techniques for making interpretations and inferences as seen in this section’s example. Analytic findings (best answers or solutions) emerge from this element.

The interpretation and inference element is where the previously developed conceptual model is populated with the latest information resulting in the initial analytic findings. Figure 2.10 provides an example of a decision matrix model for an analysis of the research question of “Which U.S. immigration policy to support?” Evaluations presented in Figure 2.10 assess three alternative policies being considered within public discourse. Each individual citizen would have a different matrix and populate it with different assessments based on their previous experience and critical-thinking efforts. However, no matter the decision the citizen makes, by following the process of the critical-thinking framework presented in this chapter, the thinker (citizen) would better understand not only their own perspectives on the issue, but also the perspectives of others—a major goal of being an informed citizen.

Hypothetical Data/* Likely Decision/Findings

In the Figure 2.10 example, a C (Consistent) or I (Inconsistent) is assigned to each evaluation factor under each option. This indicates whether the thinker finds the option consistent or inconsistent with the evaluation factors they selected as the most important for their decision. For example, a C under “International Law (follows),” indicates if the option follows all the international laws (conventions, treaties, etc.) which the U.S. has signed. This analysis assumes the thinker desires international law to be followed. The “Decision” row lists the number of I (inconsistency) assessments for each option (I = 1, II = 2). The rules for matrix model analyses using C/I assessments determine the best outcome (decision) by selecting the alternative with the least inconsistencies. Figure 2.10 analysis assumes each evaluation factor carries the same weight in the final decision. However, seldom are all the evaluation factors of equal weight. When this is the case, the thinker would need to make their final decision by adjusting their assessments for the evaluation factors with more weight. For a more in-depth discussion on matrix analysis use, including how to address different evaluation factor weights, see Chapter 9 of Security Analysis, a Critical-Thinking Approach.[27]

Figure 2.10 is a simple example of immigration policy analysis. An actual analysis would be much more complex. The simple example is used here for teaching purposes. In Chapter 8 there is a more complex example of citizen voting decision-making using critical thinking.

Implications and Consequences element. This is the final element addressed in critical-thinking projects by assessing the practicality of the findings. This is an important element often left out of political and governmental decision-making. Implications claim or imply (cognitively/mentally) a related behavior, decision, or condition generated by the findings.^[28] Implications address ideas because they directly or indirectly indicate, allude, hint, suggest, intimate, or entail viewpoints, assumptions, or beliefs resulting from the thinking. For example, if a state is assessed as a strong democracy, it implies the state’s political power resides in the people (citizens) and not in a single leader or a powerful ruling elite minority.

There are three general types of implications: possible, probable, and necessary (certain).^[29] A possible implication is one that may not be expected but still has a slight probability of occurring. For example, a recurring police patrol along a normally quiet street would not be expected to cause a violent conflict, but it is still possible violence may occur. A probable implication may be expected and thus has an increased probability of occurring. If the police patrol purposely enters a neighborhood with a high violent crime rate, then a violent conflict probably could be expected. A necessary implication is all but certain (approaches 100 percent probability) to result in either a positive or negative consequence. When the police patrol enters a neighborhood with a high violent crime rate, including police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) members, to serve a warrant on a hang-out of known violent criminals, violent conflict will almost certainly follow.

Consequences are the result of actions flowing from the implications. Thinking through the implications of a situation may lead to positive (intended) consequences that solve the problem or otherwise support the purpose of the analysis. Failure to think through the implications may result in negative or negative (unintended) consequences that work against the interests of the thinker or decision-maker.^[30] Consequences flowing from implications result in behaviors, decisions, or conditions that are acted upon. For example, if a state takes action to become a democracy, it can expect the positive consequences to include fair voting, less domestic conflict and violence, and an improved quality of life for citizens. Consequences, either positive or negative, are thus what will likely happen and foster a series of outcomes. In the police patrol examples above, if violent conflict were to occur, the negative consequences could be police officers and violent offenders are injured or killed, innocent civilians are injured or killed, property damage occurs, and possible escalation into larger community unrest may be likely. Once the implications and consequences of a situation are understood, customers for the analysis can decide if certain positive consequences are desired or if they can devise actions to mitigate the effects of negative unintended consequences or discard the alternative and select another.

Cascading threat modeling is often used to support the thinking about the implications and consequences elements. Cascading threat modeling is used widely in emergency management, infrastructure protection, cyber security, and other security areas. This type of modeling is particularly applicable to risk assessment, where the models help in assessing threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. Cascading threat analyses take a systems approach, which usually consider natural systems (earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, etc.) and how they interact with man-made systems (communications, transportation, electrical, water systems, etc.). For example, hurricanes may cause cascading damage to electrical, communication, and transportation systems, while also causing property damage and flooding that affects the livability of homes and businesses.^[31]

Cascading threat models assume a disaster or other action will unleash a sequence of events—often resulting in a series of negative (or positive) consequences. “Toppling dominoes” is a good metaphor to visualize a series of sequential events. Lines of dominoes standing on end will topple if one end domino falls contacting and felling the next, which contacts and fells the next, and so on. The dominoes, representing sequences of events, may be arrayed in one long line or may have side-branches, much the same as sequential events occur in the real world. Scenarios with a long sequence of events have individual parts that often are referred to as first order, second order, third order, etc., consequences. Creating cascading threat models entails three main steps described below. Box 2.11 provides a cascading threat model example.

Step 1: After completing the critical-thinking interpretation and inference analysis, assess implications and consequences of resultant findings or recommendations, starting with a group informed-brainstorming effort. List and address every combination of Figure 2.10 alternatives and evaluation factors. The informed brainstorming should be supported by historic inputs from past research on similar cases, generic inputs from group members with experience in the field, and creative-thinking inputs. Focus on using both divergent (consider many alternatives) and convergent (focus on one or a few alternatives) thinking techniques to develop a list of implications and consequences for each option/alternative and evaluation factor combination.

Step 2: Create (model) a set of events trees that list the contentions being assessed followed by their implications and related consequences. As an events tree unfolds, continue the informed brainstorming to refine the list of implications and consequences.

Step 3: Assess insights from the events trees and design mitigations for each negative or unintended consequence for the contention selected for action. If the consequences are negative, the thinker should consider their original contentions.

After considering the implications and consequences of options/alternatives resulting from the interpretation and inference element, other options or alternatives may seem more practical than those selected as the initial finding. The back-and-forth consideration of the interpretation and inference element results and implications and consequences element should lead to the thinker’s final findings.

Logical Argumentation

When the thinker’s final findings are generated, the next step is to create a logical argument for documenting and presenting the written or oral results. This process requires the thinker to demonstrate not only the final findings but also detail the other options/alternatives analyzed and show why they were not selected. Chapter 4 provides details on how to create a logical argument. For a more in-depth look at preparing written reports and verbal briefings see Chapter 11 of Security Analysis, a Critical-Thinking Approach.^[32]

Intellectual Standards

Before presenting the logical argument written or verbal results to policy-makers and decision-makers, and to support the findings to potential audiences (citizens, media, other organizations, etc.), the written documents and verbal briefings resulting from the logical argumentation work should undergo a quality check using the intellectual standards. The latest draft of a critical-thinking-based written report or verbal briefing should undergo a self-review using the intellectual standards^[33] detailed in Figure 2.12. The intellectual standards check on the quality of the critical thinking used in the thinking project and the quality of the draft written report or verbal briefing. Both the entire draft and each analytic finding in the logical argument should be examined using the Figure 2.12 intellectual standards checklist. Depending on the type of written report or briefing, other standards the analyst may consider include whether the draft report or briefing is reasonable, consistent, falsifiable, testable, well organized, authenticated, effective, and/or factual.^[34] As a result of the self-review, the thinker may find a need to revisit some of the elements of thought used to reach the findings and make revisions to the draft.

At this point, from the thinking project’s purpose and question(s) to the logical argumentation reports or briefings and intellectual standards self-review, the thinker will have traversed the entire critical-thinking framework. To be a proficient critical thinker a person must practice the techniques in this chapter for all major decisions in their civic, personal, and professional lives. The remaining chapters in this book expand upon the comprehensive critical-thinking framework in Figure 2.7 and apply it to civic life issues.

Notes

1. For a comprehensive coverage of human development see: Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 1999).↑

2. Ongoing archeological research frequently updates the classifications of ancestors and descendants of Homo erectus.↑

3. See Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 10^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth, 2008).↑

4. 10 Examples of Formal Logic, https://ejemplos.cc/en/formal-logic/ (accessed August 28, 2025).↑

5. See Philip C. Abrami, Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research, June 2015, Vol, 85, No. 2.↑

6. Broadcast – BBC Programme Index, https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk (accessed September 16, 2022).↑

7. Foundation for Critical Thinking, https://www.criticalthinking.org/ (accessed September 26, 2022).↑

8. 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), 19.↑

9. Ibid, 367.↑

10. National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), “Job Outlooks 2018 Survey,” (Bethlehem, PA: NACE, December 11, 2017), http://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/employers-rate-career-competencies-new-hire-proficiency/ (accessed June 21, 2018).↑

11. Paul and Elder.↑

12. Modified from Morgan D. Jones, The Thinker’s Toolkit, 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving, Revised ed. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998), 8-46.↑

13. Ibid, 19.↑

14. Foundation for Critical Thinking.↑

15. Paul and Elder.↑

16. Gerald Nosich, Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculums, 4^th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2012).↑

17. Paul and Elder, 96-97.↑

18. Modified from Katherine Hibbs Pherson and Randolph H. Pherson, Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence, 2^nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/CQ Press, 2017), 50.↑

19. See Richard Neustadt and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time, The Uses of History for Decision Makers (New York: Free Press, 1988), 1-16.↑

20. Paul and Elder, 360.↑

21. David Robson, “There really are 50 Eskimo words for ‘snow,’ The Washington Post, January 14, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/there-really-are-50-eskimo-words-for-snow/2013/01/14/e0e3f4e0-59a0-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html (accessed January 15, 2021). ↑

22. Robert M. Clark, Intelligence Analysis, A Target Centric Approach, 5^th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE/CQ Press, 2017), 66.↑

23. 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. ↑

24. Russell Carpenter, Charlie Sweet, and Hal Blythe, Introduction to Applied Creative Thinking, Taking Control of Your Future (Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, 2012).↑

25. Daniel Forsett, Kick-Start Creative Thinking, Instant Techniques to Innovative Ideas and Ingenious Problem Solving (Amazon Kindle ebook, 2012).↑

26. Collier.↑

27. Ibid.↑

28. Paul and Elder, 93.↑

29. Ibid.↑

30. Ibid, 117.↑

31. 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).↑

32. Collier.↑

33. Paul and Elder, 127-166. ↑

34. Nosich.↑

35. Paul and Elder, 141-142.↑