The Critical Condition Of Critical Thinking

I've always sub-titled this blog "The random rants of a critical independent thinker."**  What does this critical thinker moniker mean to me?

First, I now realize it means I've been using an extra, unnecessary word for a lot of years, because true critical thinking is always independent.  It's should not be affected by race, gender, religious or political affiliation, or any pre-conceived notion that would alter one's perspective.

Critical thinking is actively assessing factual information, and then drawing a conclusion.  In other words, it's the opposite of most thinking today, in which people seek out information to support their already drawn conclusions (a/k/a confirmation bias).

Note that I said "factual" information.  Critical thinkers don't just assume everything they hear and read is true.  This is a real problem for most people today, who seem to swallow anything they hear from their neighbor, or read on the internet.  Critical thinkers not only question the rationality of the information, but also the reliability of the source providing it.

As for that sourcing, critical thinkers absorb information from a wide variety of people and places.  You can't call yourself a critical thinker if you only read the same, single newspaper / web site year-round.  Or watch the same broadcast network year-round.  Or talk to only people with the same background.

Based on that basic summary, it follows that I believe there's at least one other truth about critical thinkers:  These days, they are in short supply.

**Due to the second paragraph, as of today, it's "The random rants of a critical thinker."

Better To Be Seen Than Heard

Thirty years ago, I worked in a corporate administrative role that required daily phone contact with dozens of outside contacts around the country.  Most of the time, these conversations were cordial and professional.  Rarely but occasionally, these conversations were the opposite of cordial and professional.

Always, however, these conversations were better if I had met in-person with the individual on the other side of the phone.  Back in the day, travel was the only way to accomplish this (although now one could get halfway there courtesy of technology via Skype or FaceTime), but the relationship was consistently better if that occurred.  Once you looked another person in the eye and interacted with them, the relationship would improve, at least to some degree.

I was reminded of this again this week, after sending emails to my national elected representatives.  Knowing I would only get a form letter in return (maybe), I didn’t spend a lot of time on my email.  I quickly offered my opinions and my support or disagreement, and got out.  And in return, I got my form letters.   I suspect the same would have happened had I called.

With thousands of constituents, I understand that a personal reply from a congressperson is improbable, even from a staffer.   But it’s also too easy to be dismissive of faceless words and voices.  Thirty years ago, that was mostly done using a phone, but today, it can be done by email, text, and a variety of faceless social media.

I’m still convinced that the impact of whatever as individual wanted to say is more meaningful if delivered in person – even in the current political climate.  Each year I visit the Iowa Capitol building to visit my state reps.  There’s no doubt this carries more weight with them than an email, because I personify an actual constituent / voter.   [Note:  I did get personal emails back from my local/state elected officials in reply to my own.]

I’ve never attended a local meeting of a national elected representative; there are usually opportunities to do so, I’ve simply never had the passion for an issue to do that.  Maybe it’s time, because after all these years and technology substitutes, it's still better to be seen than it is to be heard.