The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

[AVGWarhawk]

Without providing the answers to all those questions up front aren't you really asking us to do the same thing you're criticizing us for?

I do not think it is being critical of anyone really. It is a general observation. For lack of a better example, do you remember the women video taped during the campaign for president where she said Obama will pay her mortgage? This woman believed this.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

The beginning is usually the best.

Like for instance: Whose research? What are their qualifications? How do they figure it's "most" people?

I'll be happy to provide what you ask, though unless you have access to academic databases like PsychInfo and the like, I won't be able to provide much if any of the actual research on the subject matter beyond simple citations. There has been a fair amount of research into the subject in psychology, and in the other social sciences. So much so that it's generally taken for granted.

"Most people" is a generalization admittedly. Its hard to provide exact figures, as the values vary wildly, typically depending on the socio-economic level of the area, but the suggested number is rather high.

Anyhow I am willing to try to provide hard data, but it will take me a fair amount of time to dig up, at least a week of digging through the databases for the research citations.

What proof is there that critical thinking is virtually non-existent? What is the justification for saying that people lack those basic skills?

Ok this is going to be rather long, and for the moment I'll have to justify it by rational and logical means. First off lets start with a definition of what critical thinking is. (quoted from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/top.../critthnk.html)

• ...the ability to analyze facts, generate and organize ideas, defend opinions, make comparisons, draw inferences, evaluate arguments and solve problems (Chance,1986, p. 6);
• ...a way of reasoning that demands adequate support for one's beliefs and an unwillingness to be persuaded unless support is forthcoming (Tama, 1989, p. 64);
• ...involving analytical thinking for the purpose of evaluating what is read (Hickey, 1990, p. 175);
• ...a conscious and deliberate process which is used to interpret or evaluate information and experiences with a set of reflective attitudes and abilities that guide thoughtful beliefs and actions (Mertes,1991, p.24);
• ...active, systematic process of understanding and evaluating arguments. An argument provides an assertion about the properties of some object or the relationship between two or more objects and evidence to support or refute the assertion. Critical thinkers acknowledge that there is no single correct way to understand and evaluate arguments and that all attempts are not necessarily successful (Mayer & Goodchild, 1990, p. 4);
• ...the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Paul, 1992);
• reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do (Ennis, 1992).

Now the first thing is, critical thinking is not a natural and innate ability, but a learned skill. This doesn't mean you can not teach yourself how to do it, but it is still a learned skill regardless. It doesn't come naturally as human beings are both predisposed and also conditioned to think in certain ways based on culture, experience, and other factors. These form our biases, which is a major hurdle for real critical thought.

Now in general critical thinking is not taught very much in schools, in fact we are taught to pretty much blindly accept things in school with out a great deal of questioning. Religion also tends to do the exact same thing with questioning. The only place you will find critical thinking actively taught is University as it is an essential skill. This right there highlights the fact that a lot of people have not been taught how to critically think. This doesn't mean that they are all incapable of it, but unless they have spent the time teaching themselves how to do it properly, they will not be able to do it fully.

Even in university large numbers of undergraduates lack critical thinking skills, and never fully develop them. This is a well recognized problem, and why universities spend so much effort trying to teach it. If you have any university professor friends or acquaintances, you can ask them about it (first year students are usually really really bad at it as evidenced by their writings). This tends to supports the statement that most people lack critical thinking skills.


Anyhow I'm running short on time right now to finish this post, I'll take it up later tonight perhaps or over the weekend. I'll look at the psychology behind why people tend not to be inclined to use critical thinking, and a bunch of other stuff when I take it up again.

Without providing the answers to all those questions up front aren't you really asking us to do the same thing you're criticizing us for?

Not exactly no, I did not answer all those questions initially, as the subject is very expansive and a lot of it is considered common knowledge. This however doesn't mean you shouldn't question what I wrote, and blindly accept it. That would be bad critical thinking right?

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Not exactly no, I did not answer all those questions initially, as the subject is very expansive and a lot of it is considered common knowledge. This however doesn't mean you shouldn't question what I wrote, and blindly accept it. That would be bad critical thinking right?

Well I may not have a choice. Going by what you're saying i'd need access to scientific databases, which I don't have, and specialized training to even decipher the information in them.

I guess my question is what can "most" people do BUT blindly accept most of the stuff they hear on the news? I mean if the TV talking head tells me that, according to "experts", the health care bill is a bad thing, or that the Iranians are secretly arming Hezbollah, or that human activity is the source of global warming, or whatever, is it reasonable to expect me or most folks to be able find out the truth on our own? and by "able" I mean still keep meeting their own commitments.

[AVGWarhawk]

I guess my question is what can "most" people do BUT blindly accept most of the stuff they hear on the news? I mean if the TV talking head tells me that, according to "experts", the health care bill is a bad thing, or that the Iranians are secretly arming Hezbollah, or that human activity is the source of global warming, or whatever, is it reasonable to expect me or most folks to be able find out the truth on our own? and by "able" I mean still keep meeting their own commitments.

I do not think it is a matter of being able to find the truth because most believe it at face value as it is played on the news. Chalk it up to "good faith" that the news is correct. If they tell me the 'experts' then who are these experts? Same question you asked of Neon. For the most part, people hear 'experts' and that is all they need to know. The story is accepted.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Oh lord you just lost some respect

Haha. A lot, or a little?

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

For the most part, people hear 'experts' and that is all they need to know. The story is accepted.

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

A very good point. I guess the alternative is to trust the people who represent you. That's the reason for a representative government... so the citizens don't have to understand the issues, they just have to have faith in their representatives.

Myself, being an analyst, I prefer getting my own information from the source, but I agree it is not easy and is very time consuming. I am also one not to put a great deal of trust in my representatives, but that is a symptom of being a cynical independent.

What concerns me is when people rely on commentators (Limbaugh/Oberman and the like) to tell them what to believe.

The only accountability that commentators have is revenue. That does not bode well for an authoritative source.

With the advent of the Internets Tubes, it is easier to get information about the issues, but it is also easier to get crap about the issues. That does not help the average citizen much I am afraid.

Unfortunately, there may not be a solution to this problem.

[Stealth Hunter]

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Platapus

A very good point. I guess the alternative is to trust the people who represent you. That's the reason for a representative government... so the citizens don't have to understand the issues, they just have to have faith in their representatives..

Therein lies the problem a lot of people do NOT trust the likes of Pelosi and Reed and certainly do not feel their representatives actually represent the people rather that they represent special interests and their own cushy positions.

Polling has shown that alot of citizens want nothing to do with this health care legislation. Most polls show a majority do not want it.

But the thinking of representatives on capitol hill in their plush chambers is that we just dont know what is good for us.

Unless there is something more nefarious afoot.

Personally I have called ... make that 'tried' to call my representatives but their voice mail is full the phones go un-answered and emails go unread.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Haha. A lot, or a little?

We report you decide

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

I guess my question is what can "most" people do BUT blindly accept most of the stuff they hear on the news? I mean if the TV talking head tells me that, according to "experts", the health care bill is a bad thing, or that the Iranians are secretly arming Hezbollah, or that human activity is the source of global warming, or whatever, is it reasonable to expect me or most folks to be able find out the truth on our own? and by "able" I mean still keep meeting their own commitments.

Well they can if they have the time look at multiple sources of the same news, try to avoid biased news sources (that or mix your sources so your getting both sides of the bias), and seek further information from what ever sources you can. The best thing to do though is try your best to filter out all the subjective crap included with the news, all the commentary and other fluff, and form your own opinion on it through rational thought.

What I always object to is blind obedience and acceptance with out thinking it over first. As for experts, I tend to examine how many experts agree. For example if large numbers of the scientific body support a theory then they probably have a good reason to. If I can I will also try to get my hands on some of the data to examine it.

Originally Posted by August

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

Unfortunately that is a problem in science, it tends to lack in transparency and accessibility. Some of it is unavoidable, but I think the community tends to make it unnecessarily difficult. There isn't an easy answer to this, but in cases where I lack the training and expertise (or time) to investigate it first hand, then as I said above I will examine the direction the community is going. I also try to maintain a degree of skepticism towards all things.

Originally Posted by Platapus

What concerns me is when people rely on commentators (Limbaugh/Oberman and the like) to tell them what to believe.

The only accountability that commentators have is revenue. That does not bode well for an authoritative source.

With the advent of the Internets Tubes, it is easier to get information about the issues, but it is also easier to get crap about the issues. That does not help the average citizen much I am afraid.

Unfortunately, there may not be a solution to this problem.

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in. This is really just pure manipulation of the public. They make it easy for the public not to think for themselves, just get your opinion on a subject from the media, no thinking about it, or examination of the sources, or motivation, or anything.

I don't mind when people disagree with me, disagreement is very human and is to be expected. I just don't like it when the opinion is not based on any personal thought on the subject, but rather it has been fed to them. You can always tell when someone is defending a position they did not put much thought towards, as they will quickly turn to rhetoric, or insult when challenged on their view.

I guess I am of the opinion, that if you have an opinion on something, you better be able to back it up with something more.

[AVGWarhawk]

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in.

And this has been the complaint as of late. Most now consider it opinion journalism and not hard news. For the most part I would have to agree.

This is really just pure manipulation of the public. They make it easy for the public not to think for themselves, just get your opinion on a subject from the media, no thinking about it, or examination of the sources, or motivation, or anything.

This is why I think Beck is a bit over the edge. I do not watch the guy.

I guess I am of the opinion, that if you have an opinion on something, you better be able to back it up with something more

Then once you have the back up it becomes a fact.

[NeonSamurai]

Or at least a theory with some evidence there are very few actual "facts"

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Therein lies the problem a lot of people do NOT trust the likes of Pelosi and Reed and certainly do not feel their representatives actually represent the people rather that they represent special interests and their own cushy positions.

I would disagree with you and would offer as evidence that the citizens of the 9th District in California and the citizens of Arizona do trust their representatives as shown by the same citizens choosing to keep reelecting them into office.

With Senators and Congresshumans being reelected at rates exceeding 90%, it appears that people like "their" representative, but don't like "those" representatives. Well guess what. The representative of the 9th district of California is only representing the citizens of the 9th district of California. If I, in the 10th District of Virginia don't like the representative of the 9th district of California. ....who cares. She is not my representative!

The fact that I, as a citizen of Virginia, don't like the Senator from Nevada is totally unimportant. The Senator from Nevada really does not care what I think, being a citizen of Virginia. And the same can be said for any other member of congress.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in.

On many matters, you can get access to the source information through the various government libraries (both online and off-line)

If a citizen really wants to know what a specific bill contains, they can get a copy of the bill and read it for themselves instead of relying on some commentator to give their interpretation of it.... but that takes effort and many people are unwilling to put forth the effort and will much prefer being fed the sound-byte answer.