Intelligence, said Dewey, was “critical method applied to goods of belief, appreciation and conduct, so as to construct free and more secure goods” and was “the stay and support of all reasonable hopes”.
– Strategies for Teaching Students to think Critically: A Meta – Analysis
If it sounds too…
– Unknown
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, is according to Encyclopedia.com, a “modern proverbial saying, late 20th century, often used in warning” which is, sometimes enough to demerit a second look, let alone a closer one, at whatever it is, that is, by some objective measure, too good. The warning itself is qualified though.
Implicit in the phrase, too good to be true is the assumption that something can be too good. This suggests some kind of balancing exercise to arrive at a conclusion about deservedness. It also suggests that the considered thing is a value proposition which deviates significantly from the norm. Inescapably, the concept of price looms large.
The price of something is basically what it costs the seller coupled with what it takes to remain a going concern. This applies to every domain including, non-commercial ones. The key idea is sustainability.
Too good to be true essentially says I don’t believe you can sustain yourself while providing something at this price. In other words, this exchange somehow seems imbalanced. Recently there was an article on Goody Feed about Decathlon which sought to explain how the outfit is able to offer the prices it does.
Technological advancements, comparative advantages and a sharp eye (think of those who enjoyed a windfall by chancing upon some dusty and entirely unimpressive treasure at some makeshift street stall) suggest that things can indeed be very good – ‘too’ suggests imbalance; ‘very’ alters what is required on one end of the balancing scale. There is of course also good luck, a good heart, good timing (could be zero-sum) and bouts of extreme irrationality.
This is why the now oft quoted maxim has in it the sometimes-overlooked adverb, ‘probably’. Probably is where fortune and unfortunately, tragedy too, reside in every domain. To navigate correctly in the land of probably, one needs the map and compass afforded by critical thinking.
One could go out on a limb and suggest without critical thinking, there is not only no upside but also plenty of downside. There was once a man who told his child not to go for learning journeys because the consent form at the time had (according to his understanding) words which suggested risk; roller-coasters were out – too dangerous; soccer games with older boys were also out – also too dangerous. Then the boy in question met an older boy who introduced him to the concept of calculated risks – no venture, no adventure.
The question is how do we calculate or reduce downside risk? There have been observations about how subject matter experts get it wrong but that could be a call for more and not less subject knowledge. There is simply no better alternative to knowing what we are doing.
As alternatives, there are other risk reduction methods such as social proof but we are all too familiar with their limitations. We want to be able to judge a matter on its merits. We want to be able to do so independently and not because so and so said so.
Experts have been debating if critical thinking, which could lead to Voltaire’s Eldorado and help to steer clear of Macgregor’s Poyais, is context specific or general. If it is general, it can be taught as a standalone course and if it is context-specific, a student would need deep subject knowledge before being able to engage critically. There has also been research on if critical thinking can be taught, how best it is taught and if there are benefits of infusing critical thinking in curricula.
There is also discussion on what exactly critical thinking is and what it is not. Everyone needs it because we are all social creatures and we hear or read things. We have needs and it is not always immediately clear if all that glitter is gold or mica flakes.
Bernard and Agarwal (2014) in their comprehensive review adopted the definition, “developed by a Delphi consensus panel of 46 experts” and which suggests that the “ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgements, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are precise as the subject and the circumstances of the inquiry permit”.
Yes, but how do we do all that? How for example, can we be honest in facing personal biases and how can we be orderly in complex matters (disciplined thinking) or know exactly why the reasonable explanation is not a cleverly crafted string of fish to hook, premised on what we now know of limitations in human perception and is not in fact but a logical fallacy?
We need certain critical thinking skills which we have to apply on a regular basis. These, according to Bernard and Agarwal’s (2014) review, are,
- Interpretation
- Analysis
- Evaluation
- Inference
- Explanation
- Self-regulation
Each of the above skills can be further broken down into sub skills.
The issue with teaching each of the above as standalone skills is that students may encounter difficulties in application. In schools, students, including those in primary school are already exposed to each of the above in context in what Bernard and Agarwal (2014) call an “immersive” way. This means students learn to be critical thinkers without knowing they are doing so. This is done in two ways. First, the content, say for example, a Composition question or a Cloze Passage can be “thought provoking”. Second, questions asked of students would require application of these skills.
This can be contrasted with the “infusion” (Bernard & Agarwal, 2014) approach which is similar to the immersion approach except students will be taught how to distinguish between skills and take control of which skill they wish to apply in a given situation. One example of this is the Five Keys framework developed in-house, for compositions.
There is also the “mixed approach” which combines infusion and immersion.
Bernard and Agarwal (2014) found evidence that dialogue about issues (social constructivism), “authentic or situated problems” (for example, finding a solution to house Sin Ming Chickens done by students here) and “mentoring” increased students’ ability to think critically.
The problems of the 21st century and indeed any other century require and had required critical thinking. Personal decisions require critical thinking.
That it is possible to do only good every day is not too good to be true. At the same time, it will take critical thinking to know:
when it looks, walks and ….
The Brain Dojo
