Critical thinking

[Propianotuner]

According to Wikipedia, critical thinking it the "objective analysis of facts to form a judgement", objective meaning, I suppose, without any emotional envolvement or vested interest. The question is really, how well can anyone have a critical judgement.

If you were to follow this trail to its end with me I'd likely still be asserting that no one can form a critical judgement under the definition you seem to be implying. Wikipedia, while great for the purposes of general reference (although I have to admit that the wording you've shared from that article appears more misleading than helpful), isn't adequate in my estimation for the question you seem to be asking here; neither would I try to rest on the laurels of Britannica or even Scholarpedia, because what you really appear to be asking for is the two pronged, fundamental question of epistemology: what is knowledge and by what means can it be acquired?

Given the question of epistemology I've researched most major positions in philosophy and am bound by the need to answer that question with a question of my own: is it possible to articulate and comprehend what knowledge is, and is there a means to acquire it in the first place?

We aren't born with knowldege, all knowledge comes from some source or another, and that source is often just one opinion, one presentation of a complex issue, or just one interpretation of one person.

Is that knowledge, then? What is knowledge, Progster? Out of so very many members here I have to say I've always found your content scintillating and am more than a little curious to see your perspective on the issue.

So what knowlege is truly objective?

If no knowledge is truly objective then knowledge doesn't exist by the traditional definition, namely a justified true belief.

And how can we be sure to perform an objective analysis?

I would argue that we can't. As far as I've learned, critical thinking is an exercise in ordered, disciplined thought, and it isn't an enterprise that has arrived at a solid basis for knowledge. All of academia is a deck of cards.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a myth that people on the spectrum are more logical and capable of critical thinking than the rest of the world.

If we're going to assess groups of people as a whole, I'm unresolved on the question on the basis of what I understand to be sound principles of logic. By that I mean that all of us here in the thread so far have nothing more than our own experiences and there are so very many people we haven't met. For all I know one or the other kind of person could have more of a natural predisposition towards critical thinking, but I don't find myself in the position to come to a conclusion that would satisfy me; what I have seen is many people with ASD online identifying themselves as ones who practice more logic than others, and them claiming that this is a trait related to the autism spectrum.

However let's not dismiss that there are some real reasons for people saying as much, it has not been an arbitrary claim. People on the spectrum are indeed more naturally prone to a degree of solipsism and it can make sense to think of that kind of world as one that engenders a preference for critical thinking.

I wonder if that belief isn't just a side effect of the supposed lack of "mind blindness" and empathy. In my long life, I've come across very few people who regularly engage in critical thinking, or who engage in it at all. In fact, as a whole, the human race runs on emotions rather than rational thought.

I'm actually given to understand that this reliance on emotions at a base level is logical itself. Consider the issue, if you will, along these lines: emotions aren't necessarily extreme and irrational. That emotions have the potential to be detrimental to rationality doesn't make them inimical, on the contrary they are a fundamental component of reasoning.

Conscious thought, abstract thinking included, is in a constant state of flux which the brain regulates through the use of mood chemicals. The endless variety of nuances between emotions which is remarkable enough that we require a voluminous vocabulary to fail, albeit admirably, at articulating, is a gestalt product of simple combinations and permutations.

What am I driving at here? Emotional states are really part and parcel of the reasoning process itself because they are the micro level to the mind's macro level when using abstract reasoning. Reward and punishment, inhibition and openness to suggestion, these are all part of what motivates a person to reason in the first place, what colors their responses toward what they deem to be reasonable or not reasonable.

Critical thinking is as much about ordering those emotions as it is about ordering perceptual information.

I too have been interested in metacognition for as long as I can remember. For me, the aphorism the unexamined life is not worth living ring completely true about 8 years ago. That's when I used clear critical thinking remove logical flaws inconsistencies and contradictions as well as old beliefs and associations inculcated upon me when I was young. I decided to try to be fully intentional about everything that I believed to be true.

You certainly appear to be a promising new member in my estimation, and I'm interested in hearing you account of this process in which you underwent such a change. Clearly you are perspicacious enough to provide us with a worthy reading on it.

One of my special interest is the humans all around us. I started analyzing their belief systems. Unsettling. I found that the emotion of fear, rather than an intellectual commitment to truth (or anything) was the glue that held most of these worldviews together.

Haven't many of us? Although I have to admit that I'm not as confident as you are that fear binds everything. For that matter my tendency in thinking is to assume that no situation is reducible like that and in this case my exposure to literature in psychology and cultural anthropology has borne out that truth. Human motivations are complex and if any one glue could be sought after here, I'd have to guess it is that people are social creatures, which if you look a little closer isn't really "one glue" or one fundamental observation at all.

Am I critical thinker? Maybe. But if so judged, I would say that this is the result of my higher education, and not autism. I think like an underwriter because I became one as a result of employment over a long period of time. I also learned to temper my "black and white" thought process as a result of my education in political science. Where I learned that humanity has many shades of grey in between all that black and white thinking.

I've seen a fair amount of your content and have noticed your tendency to be more impartial than others and to demonstrate a methodology to your thinking. Really it wasn't heard to guess at you at least having a well practiced interest in political science.

Would you say that these experiences in your background have contributed to you generally having a more disciplined attitude when it comes to abstract thought? That if you were out of your wheelhouse your thoughts would still have their own grammar?

I think everyone has at least basic critical thinking skills. It's been my experience that for whatever reasons most people are lazy thinkers. They avoid facts and fact checking. They're exceptionally biased. They're followers to a high degrees, flocking to their own kind and culture without thought.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, all of these traits are arguably a demonstration of some baseline level of logic, even exceptionally useful depending on the context. Everyone does have basic critical thinking skills because it is an inherent feature of the species.

It could even be said that all thought is critical, as even what people are wont to consider as the meanest intelligence and the crudest thought process are in all reality something extremely ordered, once one has broken it down and seen the cogs of the machine.

People think lazily because they are prioritizing how they use their mental energy and capacity to reason abstractly in accordance with what suits them at that time. They avoid facts and fact checking because they are organisms which have developed in a world which doesn't always afford a cumbersome thought process before the moment of decision, intuition just has to do. Intuition and reasoning both exist in an endless loop of cost/benefit swinging either way.

People are exceptionally biased because that can actually serve as a rapid and effective form of reasoning. Yes, they can be wrong, even in unilateral error about a particular bias, but people have myriads upon myriads of different experiences in their lives and the cost/benefit loop is one that plays out over a broad canvas indeed.

And lastly, of course people are followers who diligently participant in and subscribe to their own cultures. Have you seen the evolutionary premium that the brain puts on streamlining? Well, intuition streamlining meet streamlining 2.0: expanding your own grey matter with the other grey matter around it. A group is in a lot of ways a practical, usable extension for one's psyche.

 

[Judge]

Would you say that these experiences in your background have contributed to you generally having a more disciplined attitude when it comes to abstract thought?

Absolutely. Political science afforded me an understanding of "reading in between the lines". To subjectively filter what is between any understanding of what is objectively construed as "black and white". To recognize what may be considered to be "hidden agendas" beneath a surface of good intentions.

That if you were out of your wheelhouse your thoughts would still have their own grammar?

Most likely, as a result of having been an insurance underwriter. Where one is truly "Jack of all trades, master of none." Where one is expected to make complex judgments with potential consequences over so many exposures that one initially may have only a cursory understanding of at best. In general such a task most definitely requires applying whatever executive functioning skills one has to begin with.

Though again IMO these are skills acquired given environmental considerations more so than genetic ones. That without such an educational background my ability to mentally process things might have taken a very different turn.

 

[Shamar]

Critical thinking is based on objective analysis. I believe we can all agree on that. The problem is: can anything be truly objective? All information comes to each individual through different filters; thus the same information can vary from one individual to another. Factual knowledge is really only information that most (not necessarily all) agree on.

Are aspies better at critical thinking than the NTs? My *opinion* (not critical thinking analysis) is that we tend to use it more often. We are sort of force to by not having access to the mainstream of society, and are not exposed as much to the diversity of opinion that most members of society have. Thus, we are forced to figure things out for ourselves without the benefits of society.

I can state from my own experience (there go those pesky individual filters again) that I was forced to become more introspective and analytical than most of the other people I had to interact with. This could lead to an illusion of more or better critical thinking.

 

[Judge]

Critical thinking is based on objective analysis. I believe we can all agree on that. The problem is: can anything be truly objective?

Perhaps. Provided you subtract one consideration from the equation.

- Humanity.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

Or in another version of critical thinking,somebody's reading the posts on this thread

Saying

You didn't get that right
These guys are useless...
Seriously those shoes with those pants?

 

[kay]

My anxiety disorder gets in the way of any benefits autism may have given me in way of critical thinking.

Oh! an ad just popped up over to the side for a new exhibit at the Nelson! Hmmmm....if I just had a good reason to go to KC. Good, not bad. I've had enough bad reasons to go places, I need a good one this time.

^ that is an example of my thinking style (just started typing that sentence without much thought, left it for fun and as an example). Scattered with always a hint of worry. So, seems I can't be more than a different thinker, no more or less capable of critical thinking than anyone else, though I like to think I am more fair, sensible, and what not. But that may just be a self delusion.

What disjointed thoughts I have.

 

[unreality]

What about nature smarts?

There isn’t a quantifiable test for critical thinking. This entire discussion is based on opinions developed through real life experiences. My opinion comes from spending my entire life unable to find anyone who could connect with me on an intellectual level until I stumbled across this site filled with people like me. I have found numerous Aspies who enjoy deep analytical thinking. It’s not such a rare thing here. After interacting with thousands of NTs I have discovered deep analytical thinking to be very rare, practically non-existent.

It took a bit of education to turn my deep thoughts into critical thoughts, but that’s true for anyone. Education exposes us to contrary opinions. However, unlike the vast majority of my peers in school, I took the time to critically analyze every argument for flaws. I do not claim to represent all Aspies, but other Aspies are the only ones who understand the way I processed education.

Same here! I don't know about you, but posting at other forums is disturbing to say the least. I've always feel like I'm a completely different species. Don't get me wrong. The people at the science forums are knowledgeable, using great tools such as math, but it's very difficult for me to not get the impression that I'm speaking to a group of neanderthals or apes. No offense intended toward NTs. It makes me feel alone. That's not to suggest I agree with everyone here or will even get along. So far so good. ... I'll probably drive everyone here crazy as well though.

 

[WittyAspie]

Critical thinking is based on objective analysis. I believe we can all agree on that. The problem is: can anything be truly objective? All information comes to each individual through different filters; thus the same information can vary from one individual to another. Factual knowledge is really only information that most (not necessarily all) agree on.

Are aspies better at critical thinking than the NTs? My *opinion* (not critical thinking analysis) is that we tend to use it more often. We are sort of force to by not having access to the mainstream of society, and are not exposed as much to the diversity of opinion that most members of society have. Thus, we are forced to figure things out for ourselves without the benefits of society.

I can state from my own experience (there go those pesky individual filters again) that I was forced to become more introspective and analytical than most of the other people I had to interact with. This could lead to an illusion of more or better critical thinking.

Objective analysis is a farce. As you said, everyone is thinks through their own individual filter. Even so, we can strive to be an objective as possible by giving serious consideration to those with a different perspective. If a group of people with vastly different perspectives analyze a situation and all come to the same conclusion then we can be relatively certain their conclusion is factual. Not doing so is a rabbit hole that leads to questioning everything, even our own existence.

In some ways being an Aspie might increase the chance of encountering opposing opinions. Intead of constantly being surrounded with like minded peers who don’t challenge our worldview, we tend to spend more time alone. If that time alone is spent reading and learning we would actually be exposed to a wider variety of perspectives than our peers. Not fitting into the social strata allows us more of an outsider’s perspective and, in my opinion, helps us be more open to the values of different cultures.

Or maybe I am doing just what you said and fooling myself into thinking I have decent critical thinking skills. How would I ever know?

 

[clg114]

Autism is a wide spectrum, but in terms of aspergers the average IQ is over 100. I read that you can't have asperger syndrome unless your IQ is at least 100. Is that correct? The average IQ of NTs is 100.

According to the old DSM-4, in order to get a Asperger's diagnosis you must be of at least average intelligence. If it is below, the diagnosis would most likely be classic autism.

 

[the_tortoise]

I understand it as careful examination of things....as involving curiosity, open-mindedness, and incessant questioning, not just the application of logic to any particular paradigm / worldview / set of data.

 

[fuzz]

The discussion on this topic is deep and philosophical. Reading through it has been enjoyable, if at times beyond my ability to understand.

I did want to add some thoughts that I think havn’t been raise yet:

I enjoy examining an issue and getting more information on it, whether or not this new information agrees with my current understanding.

My thinking is often:
1) hypothesis (e.g. curiosity)
2) testing (e.g. research)
3) conclusion (e.g. a more detailed understanding of the issue)

If I am with another aspie we can enjoy doing the above thinking process together.

If i’m with an NT it’s as if they are not much interested in step 2 - the research / examination. Instead they very quickly decide they don’t know much about it, and instead of researching it more, they try and turn it into a much simpler (possibly more emotional based issue). They seem to find it tough to investigate the question of how correct the initial hypothesis is. A good enough answer is often good enough for NTs.

The other thing I’d like to add is any fact is always open to future revision, based on new information. That means we can never reach a stable conclusion.

As a case in point, when done right, science is as fundamentally objective as its possible for anything to be (outside of maths). But, any current scientific conclusion, is *always* subject to revision by some future observation.

 

[Shamar]

Objective analysis is a farce. As you said, everyone is thinks through their own individual filter. Even so, we can strive to be an objective as possible by giving serious consideration to those with a different perspective. If a group of people with vastly different perspectives analyze a situation and all come to the same conclusion then we can be relatively certain their conclusion is factual. Not doing so is a rabbit hole that leads to questioning everything, even our own existence.

In some ways being an Aspie might increase the chance of encountering opposing opinions. Intead of constantly being surrounded with like minded peers who don’t challenge our worldview, we tend to spend more time alone. If that time alone is spent reading and learning we would actually be exposed to a wider variety of perspectives than our peers. Not fitting into the social strata allows us more of an outsider’s perspective and, in my opinion, helps us be more open to the values of different cultures.

Or maybe I am doing just what you said and fooling myself into thinking I have decent critical thinking skills. How would I ever know?

This is pretty much my point. Objective conclusions depend on the objectivity of the individual making the conclusion. In my career I have seen total nonsense masquerading as objective conclusions (my opinion supported by many others), and I have spent a lot of time convincing some people they are victims of a scam. They didn't believe it because the scam made so much sense and sounded so scientific.

When many different people with disparate views all come to the same conclusion, it is probably safe to assume this reflects reality. Everybody agrees that we all exist. Its just that there is no PROOF that I am not a disembodied intelligence and everything and everybody around me is just a creation of my imagination.

 

[Progster]

Given the question of epistemology I've researched most major positions in philosophy and am bound by the need to answer that question with a question of my own: is it possible to articulate and comprehend what knowledge is, and is there a means to acquire it in the first place?

Is that knowledge, then? What is knowledge, Progster? Out of so very many members here I have to say I've always found your content scintillating and am more than a little curious to see your perspective on the issue.

What is knowledge? In my opinion, information. Awareness of a situation or fact, having a record of information in your memory, or having information stored in physical or digital form. Some dictionaries will tell you that it is also necessitates a practical understanding, but I would dispute this, because it's possible to know something without understanding it. But this still doesn't explain what it actually is - what it comes down to is a series of neuron connections and electric impulses in your brain, which interpret and then store data. Words on the page mean nothing without the human brain to interpret them, which leads us back to my previous observation about the difficulty of obtaining true objectivity.

 

[Shamar]

In reading the posts and replies of WittyAspie, Fuzz, Progster, myself, and others, it looks like there is a general agreement. Different words, but the general philosophy and gist of things are remarkably alike. Now all we have to do is convince the NTs.

 

[Knit Hat]

One longtime and passionate obsession of mine has been the idea of critical thinking. I've often asked myself: what is critical thinking? How well can I do it and how well do people in general do it, especially in comparison to the way they perceive their ability to think critically?

In the past I read much on forums for people with ASD about how folks on the spectrum tend to place more of a premium on being sober-minded and making logical assessments. As I've carefully practiced and studied the art of reasoning I've found that this may not be all that true, and most importantly that I need a more modest sense of self awareness, that I should be just as quick, if not more so, to recognize my own failures to reason well about the world around me.

How do you understand critical thinking? How much of the time do you believe you can do it to your satisfaction?

I would have to disagree with the idea that most people on the spectrum are more likely to think critically. I myself would fit into this catergory. I'm usually very stubborn about my stances on things, and have to make a conscious effort to see things as they are, vs my idea of how things are.

 

[sidd851]

Objective analysis is a farce. As you said, everyone is thinks through their own individual filter. Even so, we can strive to be an objective as possible by giving serious consideration to those with a different perspective. If a group of people with vastly different perspectives analyze a situation and all come to the same conclusion then we can be relatively certain their conclusion is factual. Not doing so is a rabbit hole that leads to questioning everything, even our own existence.

In some ways being an Aspie might increase the chance of encountering opposing opinions. Intead of constantly being surrounded with like minded peers who don’t challenge our worldview, we tend to spend more time alone. If that time alone is spent reading and learning we would actually be exposed to a wider variety of perspectives than our peers. Not fitting into the social strata allows us more of an outsider’s perspective and, in my opinion, helps us be more open to the values of different cultures.

Or maybe I am doing just what you said and fooling myself into thinking I have decent critical thinking skills. How would I ever know?

I have yet to meet the "emotive" that is capable of objectivity.
I achieve objectivity by the omission of emotion in the scientific process, (almost exclusively) by which I come to understand the world. Regardless of how I would "like" the world to be, it is useless to observe it other than with complete objectivity, unless truth, accuracy, effectiveness, or understanding is not one's goal.
It never ceases to amaze me how "desire" directly affects "likelihood" in the mind of an "emotive".
I find that it gets tiresome, being the sole voice of reason in a maelstrom of attachment, aversion, delusion. It gets downright maddening to make accurate, logical, realistic predictions that prove accurate time and again, only to be repeatedly ignored in favor of a "might makes right" emotional free-for-all.
If truth matters to oneself, one quickly abandons emotion in favor of accuracy.
To live, judge, orchestrate; to think, act, react, from emotional direction/response/perception is madness.
What use is an ever-changing, ever different yardstick?

 

[AloneNotLonely]

I would have to disagree with the idea that most people on the spectrum are more likely to think critically. I myself would fit into this catergory. I'm usually very stubborn about my stances on things, and have to make a conscious effort to see things as they are, vs my idea of how things are.

Often the main problem with objectivity when it comes to stubborn people, is their very ignorance of their own stubbornness.

The human brain is programmed to stick to what it knows and to reject what it finds uncomfortable or what is unknown, in essence all humans are stubborn. The amount of evidence it takes to convince someone of what they wish to believe is virtually nothing. The amount of evidence needed to change someone's mind is near impossible to come up with.

It becomes a problem when someone is not aware of this, and refuses to put forth the effort to combat their existing ideas in order to gain a better understanding.

In general I have found more people on this forum to be logical than other places. Not all people are the same and neither are all Autistics. Perhaps it could also be a side-effect of an higher average IQ here and have nothing to do with actual Autism. But there's definitely a difference.

The most logical people in the world I have found are traders and investors. Ever since I got into that I have been totally surprised at how they share around 90% of their life philosophy and political ideas with each other. So it's certainly not "All Autistics are logical and no NT's can compete with that".

 

[Sue53]

How do you understand critical thinking? How much of the time do you believe you can do it to your satisfaction?[/QUOTE]
I am a very logical, detail-oriented thinker. I worked for 17 years as a software tester, a good job for logical thinkers. I am a great trouble-shooter and love to think logically through issues to find solutions. It is very useful except around people who are annoyed by it.

 

[Propianotuner]

What is knowledge? In my opinion, information. Awareness of a situation or fact, having a record of information in your memory, or having information stored in physical or digital form.

Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here? In this post you appear to be citing knowledge of information in order to define knowledge itself.

But this still doesn't explain what it actually is - what it comes down to is a series of neuron connections and electric impulses in your brain, which interpret and then store data. Words on the page mean nothing without the human brain to interpret them, which leads us back to my previous observation about the difficulty of obtaining true objectivity.

What is a brain? How do I know there is one? You're quite a few steps ahead of what the main question of epistemology is essentially asking for, Progster. "Knowledge is x because I happen to know y and z" is a self referential way of looking at knowledge and it rests on presupposition.

In reading the posts and replies of WittyAspie, Fuzz, Progster, myself, and others, it looks like there is a general agreement. Different words, but the general philosophy and gist of things are remarkably alike. Now all we have to do is convince the NTs.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure we've convinced ourselves yet

I have yet to meet the "emotive" that is capable of objectivity.
I achieve objectivity by the omission of emotion in the scientific process, (almost exclusively) by which I come to understand the world. Regardless of how I would "like" the world to be, it is useless to observe it other than with complete objectivity, unless truth, accuracy, effectiveness, or understanding is not one's goal.

It's fundamentally impossible to omit emotion in the scientific process, because emotions are an essential part of the human capacity to reason. Please visit this material from before, I'm also perfectly willing to reference literature and articles and elaborate on what I meant:

I'm actually given to understand that this reliance on emotions at a base level is logical itself. Consider the issue, if you will, along these lines: emotions aren't necessarily extreme and irrational. That emotions have the potential to be detrimental to rationality doesn't make them inimical, on the contrary they are a fundamental component of reasoning.

Conscious thought, abstract thinking included, is in a constant state of flux which the brain regulates through the use of mood chemicals. The endless variety of nuances between emotions which is remarkable enough that we require a voluminous vocabulary to fail, albeit admirably, at articulating, is a gestalt product of simple combinations and permutations.

What am I driving at here? Emotional states are really part and parcel of the reasoning process itself because they are the micro level to the mind's macro level when using abstract reasoning. Reward and punishment, inhibition and openness to suggestion, these are all part of what motivates a person to reason in the first place, what colors their responses toward what they deem to be reasonable or not reasonable.

Critical thinking is as much about ordering those emotions as it is about ordering perceptual information.

Okay, more from you (btw, I really like this post of yours):

I find that it gets tiresome, being the sole voice of reason in a maelstrom of attachment, aversion, delusion. It gets downright maddening to make accurate, logical, realistic predictions that prove accurate time and again, only to be repeatedly ignored in favor of a "might makes right" emotional free-for-all.
If truth matters to oneself, one quickly abandons emotion in favor of accuracy.

While I definitely sympathize with this kind of experience I can't relate to it as much because I'm quite unsure of what "accuracy" and "truth" look like in the first place. If anything can get tiresome for me, it's the same emotional mess you're referring to but rather its propensity to get in the way of healthy self skepticism.

There may not be an "accurate" direction to go, all things considered, but there are without a doubt varying degrees of perspective.

To live, judge, orchestrate; to think, act, react, from emotional direction/response/perception is madness.
What use is an ever-changing, ever different yardstick?

That's a hard question to answer. My challenge to you and any others reading this thread is to recognize that we all use this yardstick a lot, regardless of how we'd like to think we compare to folks around us when it comes to the yardstick. You and I are plenty susceptible; even minds much more disciplined than ours are susceptible.

Often the main problem with objectivity when it comes to stubborn people, is their very ignorance of their own stubbornness.

The human brain is programmed to stick to what it knows and to reject what it finds uncomfortable or what is unknown, in essence all humans are stubborn. The amount of evidence it takes to convince someone of what they wish to believe is virtually nothing. The amount of evidence needed to change someone's mind is near impossible to come up with.

You've hit it on the nail, my friend With my experiences in studying and debating difficult subjects with others, I've learned to take the most pride in my concessions, in instances where I've changed my mind. It's taken a lot to change my mind on some subjects and for me knowing that I am capable of doing that if I work on it enough is a real source of satisfaction. Almost invariably it involves an extended process and it's difficult to let go.

In general I have found more people on this forum to be logical than other places. Not all people are the same and neither are all Autistics. Perhaps it could also be a side-effect of an higher average IQ here and have nothing to do with actual Autism. But there's definitely a difference.

You're keying into something that I've observed and which has been coloring my understanding of a lot of the responses in this thread: the online autistic community vs people on the autism spectrum at large. I think it's more than a little possible that there is unrepresentative sample bias at play here.

 

[sidd851]

It's fundamentally impossible to omit emotion in the scientific process, because emotions are an essential part of the human capacity to reason. Please visit this material from before, I'm also perfectly willing to reference literature and articles and elaborate on what I mean

You're not familiar with mindfulness meditation, are you?