A500.5.1.RB - Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking

Hey, hey again! 😊 Welcome back to another week on my blog. So far, we have seen a lot in terms of critical thinking and leadership and I am about to reflect more on this subject. For this blog entry, I will be assessing how my thinking has changed in light of these critical thinking concepts. Hope you find something worth learning from my personal growth!

Take some time to reflect on the current state of your critical thinking competencies. Consider your thinking processes when you started the course. Have they changed at all?

Before I started this course, my way of thinking had been heavily influenced by the scientific process. This was due to having a strong ability and inclination to the math and science fields at a young age. This tendency was further nurtured by being involved in elementary and junior high school science fairs. By being able to successfully develop an experiment and be recognized by winning awards for my work as a kid helped to further spark my interest and confidence in this area. These events led me towards taking more challenging math and science classes as I progressed academically to obtain my degree in Physics and land my job as a scientist for the military.

In science, the way of finding out the answer to a question is to form an experiment. This method is usually inspired from our own observations that prompts us to ask a question. From this question, we can infer or deduce a plausible outcome or make an educated guess known as a hypothesis. From this, we can develop an experiment to test this possibility through falsifiability to either confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Photo: The scientific process shown as a diagram (HowStuffWorks, 2017).

The steps of the scientific process correlate to many of the elements and standards of critical thinking. According to Nosich (2012, p. 5), the three parts of critical thinking include asking questions, answering the questions with reason, and then believing the results. This relates to the scientific process where ‘asking the question’ corresponds to observations and questioning. The ‘answering the question with reason’ relates to the development of the hypothesis and experiment to be tested out. Lastly, ‘believing the results’ is similar to accepting or rejecting the original hypothesis.

Many of the elements of reasoning such as information through gathering data, evidence, and observations is heavily used in science (Nosich, p. 55). This element along with others such as assumptions, context, and concepts can help a scientist come up with a more robust and logical hypothesis. This can be further reasoned through the standards of thinking such as accuracy or depth and breadth to help filter out fallible reasoning.

This way of thinking through the scientific processes is where my mindset was when I started the course. I would typically observe and analyze things, but just from a more scientific scrutiny point of view. This course made the methodology of critical thinking more applicable to all other areas of knowledge and not only limited to just scientific reasoning. It helped to clarify the elements and standards and showed the different dimensions and tools to use for critical thinking. Overall, it just helped to cement these ideas and give it more depth and clarity to understand each component of critical thought.

Have you been able to internalize any of the techniques and concepts you have learned?

From this class, I have been able to internalize the differences between each standard and element of critical thinking. Before, it was more of an open line of thought that aimed to be critical, but not in a completely thorough sense. My thinking was not thoroughly vetted and may have missed some critical element filters. Now, by having all of the standards and elements differentiated and explained, it has added definition and a more complete picture for how to critically think better. I have learned how to better analyze all types of observations and information that I come across every day from understanding the various standards and elements.

What will it take to make lasting, positive changes in the way you think?

In order to incorporate the various standards and elements more effectively in the way I think, it would take a constant effort to always be cognizant of the various tools for critical thinking. This would entail a constant stream of self-reflection and thought into all the various claims in order to find the best answer. By thinking effectively, it helps to dive deep into understanding fundamental and powerful concepts in different disciplines. This kind of insight can only be achieved by fully understanding the material on a fundamental level and critically assessing the information to gain insight to the ‘bigger picture.’ This constant awareness in refining my thought process will eventually become second nature and lasting in the way that I think. Thus, the more I practice critical thinking the better I will become at being a critical thinker.

On that note, I hope that you all will keep on aiming to use critical thinking techniques and apply them to questions and problems that are pertinent in your life. In this day and age with a plethora of information available, from fake news to breakthrough studies and news stories, it is important to not take things as they are and to reflect and assess them for the truths that they represent!

Take care and see you here next week! Keep on thinking on!! 💪

References

Harris, W. (2017). How the scientific method works. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method6.htm

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

A500.4.3.RB - Ballet Slippers or Adorable?

Welcome back! 😊 This week I will analyze and reflect on the lecture entitled 'The Art of Choosing' by Dr. Sheena Iyengar.

In this lecture, Dr. Iyengar (2010) gives three assumptions that most Americans typically agree with in regards to choice:

1. Make your own choices.
2. More options leads to better choices.
3. Never say no to choice.

Throughout the presentation, Dr. Iyengar gives examples as evidence on how Americans perceive choice as compared to other nations. She starts out with a story of her trip to Japan when she asks for some sugar with her green tea. From the waiter's perspective, sugar is inappropriate to add to green tea and kindly rejects the customer's request. This is because it is inappropriate in accordance to their cultural standards to add sugar into green tea. In the American ideal, requests are obliged when they are a paying customer with a reasonable request, but in Japan, it was their duty to protect was was culturally appropriate.

In a more controlled study, Dr. Iyengar found that Anglo-American kids did better when they made their own choices and that first-generation Asian-American kids did better when the choice was made by a respected figure such as their parents. In this concept of choice, success was connected in a collective sense for the first-generation Asian-American kids rather than an individual motivating factor as for the Anglo-American kids.

This relates to the first assumption given by Dr. Iyengar that finds choice can be perceived from either an individual or collective point of view. When a decision is seen as clearly divided from others, the responsibility is seen as personal, but if it is seen as associated with other individuals then the success is driven from a collective act. This difference in how choice is viewed changes the weight of the responsibility.

Sometimes choices are seen as the individual being responsible and other choices as being responsible as a group. In the American ideal, choice is seen as a private and self-defining act that has a lower focus on interdependence. Thus, the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibilities and that factor alone helps to motivate to success. This view on choice may help drive some to be successful, but not everyone thrives on this pressure alone as shown in this study. Sometimes having the external drive to succeed is based on interdependence and a collective goal.

In the second assumption, having more choices should lead to better choices depending on how it is looked at. Dr. Iyengar found from personal communications in post-communist countries that some choices are grouped together because they are seen as trivial. For example, in America we see different soda brands (e.g. Coke-a-Cola, Pepsi, Sprite) as different choices, but in some cultures saw it as a single choice of just soda. To an extent, these people viewed these choices as artificial and unnecessary from a cultural standpoint.

By having an excessive amount of options can lead to too much information for one to sort through that can lead to confusion or frustration from the overwhelming variety. Dr. Iyengar points out that too much choice can ironically create limitations for those who are not prepared and can lead to poorer decisions.

Lastly, the third assumption is to never say no to choice. From the American ideal, individual choice is prized even when confronted with authority figures. Dr. Iyengar explains the results on how parents dealt with grief after making a life or death decision for their new born with a debilitating condition. In America, the final choice was the parents to make and in France, it was up to the doctors. A year later, coping with the event differed in that Americans were more negative in their emotions and the French were less so. From this perspective, the responsibility shifted from being individualized and deeply personal to a group decision from an authority figure in coping with the decision.

Overall, Dr. Iyengar provides thought-provoking points in thinking about choices in her lecture. She shows how the concept of choice can be viewed differently from a cultural standpoint as either a positive or a negative. Ultimately, Dr. Iyengar shows these three assumptions found prominently in American culture and contrasts it with other narratives from around the world.

Do you agree with Dr. Iyengar?
From the three assumptions that Dr. Iyengar defines as being the prominent features of American culture, I find that I agree with them to an extent. The success of America has been derived from the constitutional framework from our founding fathers. This country was built on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the freedoms that we have are preserved from the sacrifices of those who have served. The availability of choice is seen as an essential pillar for freedom in America. While it may have its downsides as Dr. Iyengar shows in her various examples, the positive outcomes outweighs the downsides. The freedom of choice allows an investment in the personal responsibility of its citizens that can be used to navigate our stories based on the hand that we are dealt.

The first assumption that we make our own choice does come at a price. We are able to choose and make our own decisions that can lead to our own successes or failures. We can speak our minds freely, but sometimes that comes with opinions that may differ from person to person. On a larger scale, there will be conversations filled with disagreements, but the ability to work through things one step at a time. It is part of our first amendment right that says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances' (Cornell Law School, 2017). We are able to question and dispute about nearly anything and make our voices heard. While there will be a lot of calamity at times, it is the sound of democracy at work. All the competing ideas and values may seem different on the surface, but are all part of the fabric of America.

In the second assumption, there can be a point where there can be too many choices that it ends up being trivial and superficial. However, with a free market, the less popular choices will eventually fade out of business due to competition. That is what is supposed to happen in a theoretical sense. However, sometimes shady practices to cut down cost can give a sketchy product that may appear to be wonderful. With the freedoms that we have, we can dispute these bad practices and bring them to light. It may not be immediate, but as the information grows and people become more informed these companies will be brought to justice. It can cause companies to become more transparent in their practices which is better for all of us as a whole.

Lastly, the third assumption is to never say no to choice. There are some difficult choices to be made and sometimes we want to defer them to experts or other people instead. The best that can be done is to hear the information, ask questions, and to let it sink in until it we can make the decision ourselves. It is an incredibly great responsibility of choice and having that allows us to to make impactful decisions. These decisions can shape our future for better or worse. The opportunity to be able to make choices like this is a blessing and curse because of the outcome that can follow. As long as we have our freedoms in the ability to ask, search, and understand, we would not want it any other way.

What is the implication of her comments on leadership?
In terms of leadership, the concept of choice and how it is applied can be viewed through action research. According to McNiff (2002), action research is the approach that encourages the person to be in control of their own life through self-reflection and self-evaluation. An action plan for action research includes:

1. Review current practice.
2. Identify aspect to investigate.
3. Imagine a way forward.
4. Try it out.
5. Monitor what happens.
6. Review and evaluate.

In a sense, the process and results of action research are the choices and decisions that we make to improve our own self and environment. From a leadership perspective, it is important to know how the decisions we make can influence policies and people in a short and long term way. The ability to self-reflect critically and allow vulnerability is important when embarking on action research because it grounds us (Bell, 1998). Action research allows us to take knowledge and advice, distill it to down to pertinent information, and then applied to our own situation at a personal and professional level. Dr. Iyengar's lecture shows that it is important to understand both the good and the bad with everything even as something as embedded in our culture as the freedom of choice.

Again, thank you for taking the time to read my blog! See you next week, but ultimately the choice is yours. 😉

References

Bell, Simon. (1998, April). Self-reflection and vulnerability in action research: Bringing forth new worlds in our learning. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(2), 179-190

Cornell Law School. (2017). U.S. constitution: First amendment. Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute. Retrieved on October 4, 2017 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Iyengar, S. (2010, July 26). The art of choosing [Video File]. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing

McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development: Concise advise for new action. Retrieved October 3, 2017 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp

A500.3.3.RB - Organizational Leadership as a System

Hello and welcome back to my blog! This week I will be reflecting on organizational leadership. I will attempt to evaluate this discipline through a 'system of thinking' compared to a 'body of information.' Hopefully, you'll gain some good insight afterwards. Ready to read my third post? 😁

Think about the distinction between seeing the discipline of organizational leadership as a 'system of thinking' versus seeing organizational leadership as a 'body of information.' What would you say are the key differences between the two?

According to Business Dictionary (2017), the term 'organizational leadership' is defined as 'management staff that typically provides inspiration, objectives, operational oversight, and other administrative services to a business.' This definition signifies that this particular component is in upper management. These people are involved with making strategic decisions based on the mission and vision of the organization to be disseminated to the employees. This basis in understanding organizational leadership will lay the foundation for this reflection.

Viewing organizational leadership as a 'body of information' can be compared to the 'textbook description' or 'best practices' that are derived from various disciplines such as business/management, psychology, or other fields. They are hypotheses or theories in leadership that are meant to be applied and can be based on case studies or some form of experimentation. Thus, it can be more abstract and may work in theory, but can be slightly different when applied to a real-world situation. The concepts can be good and lay a decent foundation of tools to be used.

For example, a prominent management professor, Dr. Douglas McGregor (from the MIT Sloan School of Management), developed some theories in management known as 'Theory X and Y.' This concept stems from a distinction in management style as being either authoritarian (Theory X) or participative (Theory Y) (Hindle, 2008). Theory X emphasizes productivity whereas Theory Y emphasizes commitment. In terms of motivation for employees, Theory X says there is a constant push from management to employees to do work. In Theory Y, the work itself is self-driven by the employee on their own accord. A reason for doing so is that it fulfills a higher level of intrinsic reward and satisfaction. Compared to Theory X, there is a lower level of achievement which gives lesser motivation. When this is applied to organizational leadership as a 'body of information,' it provides a general method to be applied and answers the possibly 'why.' In this example, that can be linked to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Photo: Diagram example of the management theory developed by Douglas McGregor known as 'Theory X and Theory Y' (Chapman, 2002).

When organizational leadership is analyzed as a 'system of thinking,' it is akin to a trouble-shooting methodology to figure out issues and problems that may arise or proactively improving the organization for the better in real-time. This is a more practical approach for the type of business in real-world applications. It takes key points from the 'body of information' in organizational management and applies it. Organizational leadership through a 'system of thinking' assesses the problem critically and looks at solving it in the best way possible by using these concepts. Some issues needing to be resolved may not have been encountered before and there may not be a case study to refer to. Therefore, a 'system of thinking' can help to resolve issues that are new or not well documented in the 'body of information' for organizational leadership. Thus, according to Nosich (2012, p. 94), fields like these are dynamic by ever changing, growing, and evolving based on information.

For example, the company TDK Technology (2017) uses the concept of organizational leadership and applies it in their company to best meet their needs. They select key points in this discipline that are then taught to their employees so that they have a better understanding of how the company is aiming to operate. This knowledge gives the supervisors and subordinates a basis to work on when dealing with issues. This company also has other forms of learning through 'Tech Talks' that furthers the employee's knowledge base. This method of communication works for this company and allows their employees to have the ability to work though issues through a 'system of thinking.' However, this may not work for all companies and other similar companies may approach organizational leadership in a different way.

The key differences between 'body of information' and 'system of thinking' for organizational leadership can come down to how it functions. Organizational leadership as a 'body of information' acts as knowledge to be learned in the discipline. When compared to a 'system of thinking' for organizational leadership, it acts as conceptual tools to be used and applied in various scenarios.

How will this understanding change the way you approach your course work?

Understanding the differences in the system of a discipline as either a 'body of knowledge' or a 'system of thinking' helps to realize between learning information and applying information. The body of knowledge of a field can be used to gain a fundamental understanding, but it is then synthesized and utilized in new cases through system of thinking. As a person becomes more proficient in a field, it can help lead to better critical thinking in order to test various truths in a field. Hence the reason why a Ph.D. is known as a 'Doctor of Philosophy' in a given discipline--they are able to push the boundaries and expand on the existing body of knowledge.

Personally for me, understanding this in the course work that I am taking now will alter how I interpret all information--within this class, my professional life, and personal life. The information in this class is valuable, but it has to be believed by me through critical thinking to accept it. In a sense, it is taking claims and even some 'facts' with a skeptical eye to find that 'truth' to believe. This may vary from a theoretical to a practical level, but it always reflective and aims to find the best answer that I am willing to stand behind.

On that note, even with these blog reflections, my opinions and thinking may change as I understand the concept of critical thinking better. Nonetheless, hope you enjoyed reading and seeing my progress as I continue to evaluate leadership! Until next time. 😎

References

Business Dictionary. (2017). Organizational leadership. WebFinance Inc. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organizational-leadership.html

Chapman, A. (2002). Douglas McGregor's XY-Theory. Business Balls. Retrieved from https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mcgregorxytheorydiagram-111024204119-phpapp01/95/x-y-theory-diagram-1-728.jpg?cb=1319488956

Hindle, T. (2008, October 6). Theories x and y. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/12370445

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

TDK Technologies. (2017). Key components of organizational leadership. TDK Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.tdktech.com/tech-talks/key-components-of-organizational-leadership

A500.2.3.RB - Tell Your Story

Welcome back to another week on my blog! 😤

This week, I will tackle the different thinking standards that I hold up to when evaluating statements, comments, and other types of information that we encounter on a daily basis.

Critical vs Non-Critical Thinking Standards

Whether it is reading a trending news article, debating a topic with co-workers, or conversing with loved ones about an important issue, it is important for us to evaluate these exchanges of information based on various thinking standards. The process of taking in external information, processing that information, and coming to a conclusion or judgment is something that we all inevitably encounter every day. We all have to make judgment on the trustworthiness and accuracy of a claim and evaluate it on a personal level through our thinking standards. These standards can be classified as either critical or non-critical and can help us reach a decision objectively or subjectively.

Some items of information can be evaluated logically and argued against thoroughly, but other topics can be a bit murky and more difficult to come to a conclusion. The standard seven standards of critical thinking include: clearness, accuracy, importance/relevance, sufficiency, depth, breadth, and precision (Nosich, 2012, pp. 133-134). These standards act as the filters in critical thinking in order to reach a conclusion or answer. Critical thinking standards help to combat fallacies and other irrational forms of thinking, but sometimes non-critical thinking standards such as moral or ethical judgment can help aid us in more personal areas.

My favorite traits of critical thinking standards outside of the seven standards brought up by Nosich (2012, p. 153) include being reasonable, logical, consistent, reliable, and falsifiable. Being ‘reasonable’ and ‘logical’ are usually used when describing critical thinking because it adds rationale when evaluating information. The terms ‘consistent’ and ‘reliable’ are used in critical thinking standards to help to substantiate claims and adds truthfulness and stability. For example, during a discussion on ‘claim vs. fact,’ I brought up the equation ‘1 + 1 = 2’ to be considered a fact. While this is true at first glance, it is factual based on the assumptions that is agreed upon in mathematics. So, ‘1 + 1 = 2’ in normal math, but in a binary system, ‘1 + 1 = 10.’ This fall along in the depth and breadth of understanding math under the standards of critical thinking. Therefore, the foundation and parameters of the subject matter can dictate what the truth is and will be consistent and reliable due to the set assumptions.

Photo: The image above is an infograph depicting a simplified version of critical thinking techniques in an academic area. It utilizes the concepts of elements and standards of critical thinking that are easily understood to a broad audience. Mentoring Minds (2017).

However, not everything can be rigorously analyzed and proven on the same level with math as it can be in other more subjective areas such as art. Sometimes using non-critical thinking standards may help to provide insight when judging information. Some notable non-critical thinking standards include popular, moral, ethical, religious, and spiritual principles (Nosich, 2012, p. 154). These standards are more subjective and are based on our own personal beliefs and virtues. These forms of non-critical thinking standards can become fallacious because they may overshadow what is accurate or true based on some of the emotional ties associated with them to our own feelings. Thus, both critical and non-critical thinking standards need to be utilized appropriately when examining information.

What are some standards that are most important in your life?

For me, the thinking standards that I hold important in life include: integrity, freedom, falsifiable, and care. Integrity is important because it has elements of consistency and reliability that should hold true based on the foundation on which it is built upon. Integrity can be applied to a theory in science to our interpersonal relationships in life. This standard of thinking helps to develop trust and it allows us to work our way to an answer based on the integrity of the source. Integrity in leadership is paramount because you want to have the type of relationship with your co-workers and subordinates that will heed your words as truth. In a sense, that you would ‘walk the walk’ when a new policy is given or when an announcement is made. Integrity develops trust between co-workers and allows certainty to grow when information is relayed up and down the chain of command.

Freedom is an important thinking standard because to me it allows all ideas to flow from both sides of an argument to be expressed without hindrance. Part of leadership includes issues to be tackled that can range from a logistics problem to an interpersonal conflict. It is important that co-workers and subordinates can bring up these issues freely without fear. If there is an inability to communicate problems within an organization then it can develop into a systemic issue which can disrupt work and lead to a toxic environment. If I saw an issue and felt as though I could not bring it up to my direct supervisor, then I would look into other routes such as an Inspector General (impartial entity that evaluates complaints, available in many military organizations) or another equivalent source. If an alternate source is not available then the issue would continue on unresolved and could escalate to a more pressing issue.

The term 'falsifiability' grew recognition under Karl Popper and is based on the ability to prove something as incorrect (Lombrozo, 2017). This is an important thinking standard because it is one of the guiding principles of science. To help determine what is scientifically true includes a hypothesis that can can be nullified either through proving it as incorrect or false, hence the term. This type of scrutiny allows a hypothesis or theory to be tested to failure, which allows a controlled experiment to be conducted towards finding an answer. Relating this concept to leadership can be a bit difficult, but can be considered through different leadership styles used in order to become the most effective. These techniques can be derived from psychology, which can aid leaders to use different leadership styles based on the organization that they are in best manage their personnel. For example, my personal leadership style is servant-like which means I like to help out my subordinates and do as much as I can to help them out. According to Johnson (2017), this falls into a participative and transformational leadership style, which works very close to subordinates in taking their opinions with open communication and high visibility.

Lastly, a non-critical thinking standard that I find to be significant in my life is the element of care. This is an important part of humanity in general because it is how we look over those that we love, bond with close friends, and help those in need. This element when applied to leadership allows a close working relationship that extends out to a personal level that is more sincere. It provides evidence that a leader cares for its workers not only in the output and results, but on the actual worker's well-being. When this care is applied in the work environment from a leader, then workers can feel secure and can focus on the task at hand knowing that their boss is looking out for them. When I had a personal issue come up that my bosses knew about, they were able to get me the resources that I needed in order to resolve the conflict. They would even check-in a few weeks down the road to ensure that all was well. By knowing that they cared and took the situation seriously made me feel more proud to be in the organization that I was in and fortunate that I had such caring bosses. In turn, this made me more dedicated to my job and I was able to focus and do my best towards any given task with my undivided attention.

For example, you might hold yourself to a standard of honesty, of ability in sports, of being a good sister or brother. How did you acquire those standards?

Many of my standards on critical thinking first derived from my parents, teachers, and other adults that I looked up as a child. It came from their virtues and values and how they lived their lives and me being an observer of their choices and actions and listening to their advice. I feel as thought I received many of my non-critical thinking standards from my family, especially my mother, through the dedication and love she had for myself and my brothers. She was not always the most logical of thinkers, but her heart was in the right place. Her loving nature and all of her sacrifices allowed us to have a good education.

My critical thinking skills can be attributed to years of schooling and teachers that valued those skills. I am thankful to many of my science teachers who were able to teach me the scientific method, which intrinsically values inquiry and questioning to figure out the 'truth.' This is where I learned how to make a hypothesis and test it against the concept of falsifiability through a controlled experiment. The concepts from science permeated through other areas of my life too. It made me more critical of the everyday information that I came across. These reasoning skills that I acquired through grade school and throughout college helped to hone my critical thinking to be applied to virtually all areas of my life. It ultimately made me an independent thinker and a searcher for the truth.

How have they changed over the years?

Over the years, my critical thinking skills have gotten challenged through various life experiences. From being taken care of as a child to entering the workforce as an adult, I have been able to take these fundamental skills in critical thinking and work through any problems with an analytical and inquisitive mind. From my experience in the military, I have learned a great amount on dealing with many different personality types in formal and informal situations. This takes a lot of personal communication and leadership as well as being able to think critically through scenarios to effectively resolve any issue. My critical thinking skills have been able to get tested through unique problems over the years. This has resulted in invaluable experience that cannot be simply taught. It is the mix of experience and intelligence that gives wisdom. Thus, I have gotten a little bit older and have a nuggets or two of wisdom for anyone willing to hear. 😏

Thank you for reading my post and hope to see you here again next week! 😄

References

Johnson, R. (2017). 5 different types of leadership styles. Hearst Newspaper, LLC. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-different-types-leadership-styles-17584.html

Lombrozo, T. (2017, May 8). What is pseudoscience?. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/08/527354190/what-is-pseudoscience

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mentoring Minds. (2017). Developing 21st century thinkers. Mentoring Minds. Retrieved from http://www.speechbuddy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/developing-21st-century-critical-thinkers-infographic-mentoring-minds.jpg

A500.1.6.RB - Intellecutal Perseverance

Welcome to my blog! 😁

This blog will feature entries that combine my thoughts on various concepts of critical thinking with an emphasis on leadership. This will be done usually with a prompt of some sort followed by my interpretation and response. Hopefully, you'll be able to take away a nugget or two of wisdom from my posts.

The post for this week will be on intellectual perseverance as one of the traits for critical thinking and how it relates to leadership.

Happy reading!

What is 'intellectual perseverance?'

Intellectual perseverance is the stamina to persist in achieving deeper understanding despite the obstacles that may exist (The Critical Thinking Community, 2015). Other important intellectual traits include humility, courage, empathy, autonomy, and integrity as well as confidence in reason and fair-mindedness.

How does intellectual perseverance relate to your concept of a good leader?

Intellectual perseverance can be applied to the concept of a good leader because of the variety of issues that can arise and the choices a leader will have to decide on. A good leader will have to utilize critical thinking to make the best decision on behalf of an organization or group. This decision can run contrary to the status quo and by having intellectual perseverance can help to persuade others to do something better or logically sound based on concrete reason.

Intellectual perseverance aims at never being satisfied with an answer without critical scrutiny and healthy criticism. Truth is sought through rational principles withstanding irrational opposition and questioning over and over until the truth is gained through critical thought or deeper insight. This process can endure an extensive amount of time. Intellectual perseverance acknowledges this and continues to pursue the truth at these possible extensive durations.

Intellectual perseverance is an essential element in critical thinking and leadership because it is the drive to not fall into the fallacies such as group think, appealing to authority, or traditional wisdom (Dowden, 2003). Group think can be dangerous because it takes a group’s position blindly without critical thought. Appealing to authority can become fallacious when it is not a genuine authority figure as is portrayed as such. Traditional wisdom can be built on no rational basis just because it has been practiced as such without concrete reasoning.

These fallacies can sometimes be the status quo and can be difficult to overcome based on large support. Therefore, intellectual perseverance is necessary in order to aim for logical truth despite the possible oppositions that may arise from lack of critical thinking or rationale from individuals believing in a certain fallacy.

An example in history that depicts intellectual perseverance is proving that the Earth is indeed round and not flat (and there are still some non-believers, a.k.a. flat-Earthers, today! Google it! 😞). Anyways, Eratosthenes was one of the first to measure the circumferences of the Earth when it was accepted to be round and not flat in Greece around 500 B.C. As this hypothesis was expanding to other parts of the world, Aristotle provided some physical evidence for this argument that ran contrary to traditional wisdom that the Earth was flat (Chodos, 2017). This fact was refuted by decades from the general public and took decades of convincing before it became accepted though the logic and rationale of science. It took an extensive amount of intellectual perseverance to make this truth known and accepted.

Intellectual perseverance will be an important part in a person’s progression in learning. Studying a new subject or learning something different takes time to digest mentally to fully understand. Each one of us has a varying level of competency in any given subject matter that will need intellectual perseverance to strive through before being able to accept or understand it. Not everything a person learns will make sense immediately and sometimes can be disputed in search for a more truthful answer.

Hope you enjoyed my first post! Hope to see you here again next week. 😤

References

Chodos, A. (2017). Eratosthenes measures the Earth. American Physical Society. Retrieved from
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

Dowden, B. (2003). Fallacies. California State University. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

The Critical Thinking Community. (2015). Valuable intellectual traits. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528