I would like to start a discussion/debate over the subject of critical thinking.  Has it increased or decreased over time?

I myself am in my mid twenties and have observed that while my generation is more technologically literate than the previous, I believe they do not have basic life skills like the prior generations.  We claim to be intelligent, but I respectfully disagree.

Several generations ago people had valuable roles in society, families had stronger bonds, and people seemed to have been more at peace with each other.  Or was that an illusion and has nothing changed but rather been revealed?  With all the “critical thinking skills” we possess today, we cannot seem to obtain a sense of peace and order on the micro or macro level or modern society.  Or is this what peace is?

This leads to the questions of have we progressed at all?  If so where to, and to what end?  Is progress even the answer to our problems?  Because it seems to have no clear or definite vision for our future, other than that of a grey fog.

We as men are affected personally and impersonally by these questions, and I would like to here the thoughts and opinions of others.

I’m a 31 year old father who has recently returned to college for a career change. I feel like I have an excellent viewpoint to offer to this topic.

Obviously, since I am in a college environment, I’m surrounded by a large number of people younger than I by 10+ years, and I’m incredibly saddened by what I see every day. A prime example being that many of these younger “kids” seem to lack the ability to find something of their own accord, without Google, Bing or Wikipedia. I have been forced to take a communication course as a part of my general education program (which I must take to progress in my college program, a cash grab in my mind), we spent three weeks (12 hours class time) on how to effectively research a topic. In this course, we have been assigned to write a 750 word report on the ethics of our chosen field of employment. We have been given 3 weeks to write this report.

The very first question to be asked by a 19 year old girl, “Is it ok if it’s only 500 words?”
The second question asked by a 21 year old male, “I can’t seem to find any information on my subject, is it ok if I use Wikipedia?”
The third question by another youth, “Can we have a bit more time to work on this?”

Thus far in the course, (about 3/4 complete) I have a weighted grade of 97.76%, with the class average just slightly over 67%.

My mother, a professor at another college in a nearby city said it nicely to me the other day:

“Todays generation, although they think they are technologically adapt have become inept from the simplicity that they have become accustomed to. Having the world at their fingertips since childhood, they’ve lost the need to think independently because they can just type a few words into google to get the answer. If you ask a 19 year old what something means, they can readily provide you with the definition as given by Merriam-Webster – but ask them to apply that knowledge and you get a blank look”

Today’s kids ARE NOT more technologically literate then my generation (80’s kid). In order to use technology, we HAD to figure it out. We were required to learn beyond what we were taught as children in order to use a computer efficiently. I can pick up almost any style of computer, tablet or “smartphone” and within moments have a basic understanding of how to operate it. At least a dozen times since the beginning of September 2014, I’ve heard students say something like “Oh, I didn’t finish my assignment this morning because only Macs were available in the library, and I don’t know how to use them, can I have until tonight when I can do it on my computer?” And as a college professor, my dear mother has it worse.

The current education system is skewed. Rather than pushing children to reach their potential as was done when I was in school, they focus on the spirit of inclusion and “no child left behind” They praise mediocrity, and work at a speed comfortable to the slowest child in the class. Rather than striving to bring the best they can out of the child, to constantly improve their thinking skills and their ability to utilize them, the curriculum seeks to validate a child’s emotions and excuses for not meeting expectations. Every year, the public curriculum LOWERS it standards. This is not the way to educate children, regardless what the “experts” say.

Whatever happened to the adage “Practice makes perfect”?
Am I the only one who had to write out a misspelled word 50 times after a spelling test to ensure I never get it wrong again?
Am I the only one who failed a report because I didn’t bother to pay attention to the class trip to library where the librarian explained the Dewwy Decimal System?

I know I went off a bit of a tangent there OP, but the short answer to your question is that critical thinking has decreased with the increase in technology. While there are exceptions to the rule, most youth cannot be bothered to strive because the answer to their question doesn’t have to be figured out, only found with Google.

It’s like water and electricity. They will always choose the path of least resistance.

*

From the start of my post to the asterisk, I typed 742 words in 22 minutes…
I find it just sad that youth today consider that a great deal of work.

The error that most people make when they use their brain to subjectively measure it’s own power, is to transpose the definitions of the words “knowledge” and “intelligence”. They figure that because they know stuff they must be smart, but give them an IQ test and they will be disappointed to find themselves in the mean. Anyone can cram their cranium with facts, this does not make you smart. Anyone can posit Yahoo a query and illicit an answer, this does not mean you are a genius.

I never went to college. I took a couple of courses at the local community college whilst I mentally flailed about trying to chose a path in life. It was disappointing. The educators were very knowledgeable, but outside their chosen avenue of study, they lack either the desire or the ability for critical thought. My compatriots in the classroom however, quickly noticed my brainpower and would actually attempt to harness it for their gain, especially the menial womenfolk.

The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life. He possess an incredible amount of knowledge and an intelligence that can juggle it all into potent insight. This is the man I look up to. All those academics with their degrees and faux intelligence can’t hold a candle to this man when it comes to mind games.

maillesmith:  How do you not know the kids were being lazy and were looking for an excuse to get out of work? How many times have you or I made up BS excuses to get out of work at their age?  The argument seems less about critical thinking and more about work ethic.

If technology is taking away from the critical thinking skills of the youth, is it the amount or the type of technology?

Vilenord:

“In my experience, most people believe that they possess an above average intelligence; by mathematical default this means that they do not. Critical thinking requires intelligence, a towering amount of it.”

You are under the assumption that intelligence can be quantified and if it cannot be quantified or measured than it is not intelligence.

The problem is that the argument that one can measure intelligence, would have to be an intelligent statement in itself, otherwise it would not be true.  You cannot reduce that statement to a quantity however.  You can measure it.  You can measure the number of words, or syllables, or even the number of concepts but you cannot reduce it to a quantity.

The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.

“Critical thinking requires intelligence, a towering amount of it.”

For arguments sake, let us say you are right about the above statement.  The next question would be what defines intelligence?.  If I desired to be a critical thinker and worked to obtain more intelligence what would it be?  Facts?  If that is the case than the person who knows the most facts is more likely to have critical thinking skills.  Savants would be most likely to have critical thinking skills, yet they do not possess enough to take care of themselves.

Do IQ tests even matter in determining critical thinking?

“This first intelligence test, referred to today as the Binet-Simon Scale, became the basis for the intelligence tests still in use today. However, Binet himself did not believe that his psychometric instruments could be used to measure a single, permanent and inborn level of intelligence (Kamin, 1995). Binet stressed the limitations of the test, suggesting that intelligence is far too broad a concept to quantify with a single number. Instead, he insisted that intelligence is influenced by a number of factors, changes over time and can only be compared among children with similar backgrounds (Siegler, 1992).”

http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/int-history.htm

However, you agree with me later in your paragraph  “Anyone can cram their cranium with facts, this does not make you smart. Anyone can posit Yahoo a query and illicit an answer, this does not mean you are a genius.”

“The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life.”

But

“The vast majority of people on this planet are not critical thinkers, they are emotional thinkers. This is a truism that I meet with great ire. It is not a facet of the modern age, but an unnerving fact of life that has persisted for all time.”

I am not familiar with logic because I never paid attention in class.  However this seems to be a loop.

Unless the passion gave him intelligence.  Or vice versa. Or both at the same.

This leads us to another question of whether or not passion is necessary for critical thinking.  Also do generations of today have the same passion as that of our ancestors?

Gentlemen I look forwarded to your responses, hopefully they will be heated, but if not that will be fine too.

Please do not act as if you or your generation has somehow produced exclusively great thinkers, philoshophers or some exclusive club of people that have “got it right”, the same way neither my generation, or the generation before you or the generation before that has. You can’t teach or breed or force brilliance and intellegence, you can only get so close before there is a breakoff point.

The problem isn’t that we have access to such massive amounts of information from a young age, if anything it is much better. Or do you argue that we need to be slapped, thrown into the wilderness on our own and re-discover and re-invent everything just because thats somehow better or more efficient? Because that’s idiotic.  No, problem is that we are not driven to actually remember what we research, because we are not required to. The teachers only care for us to be able to recall some information for a limited amount of time, that is to say, until right after we pass a test. And this isn’t just some sick perversion of the modern climate. The education system worldwide was never set up to produce people with great knowledge, skills and reasoning. The same way the whole idea of putting kids into a crammed classroom with a single teacher was never a carefully scientifically thought of way of bringing across knowledge. It just exists because hundreds of years ago it was the most cost effective way of doing it and ti has stuck along, the same way the education system doesn’t exist to guide young folk to brilliance. It’s purpose is to manufracture thousands upon thousands of “Passable” work horses for the flawed economic system. Horses that will only know enough to serve a purpose, but never enough to actually notice that they have been played like idiots.

There are young folk now, i would like to argue myself included, as there were before that actually do not look up something on Google just to put it into a paper and then discard it.  There still are massive amounts of us that actually have interest in gaining knowledge and preserving it, that have the drive and passion to question and be questioned, and to question that what has been questioned and even question that what has been accepted. Personally, i would have never gained even half of my knowledge base and skills if all i ever did was sit in a classroom and relay on a schoolbook and a teacher to bestow knowledge upon me. Then there is also the fact that you should accept that looking something up on Wiki, Gooogle or wherever is about 1000% more efficient than having to scour trough a Encylopedia, one that for all intends and purposes might be 20 years out of date.

And another point: Do you seriously think that everyone has the capability of being a thinker, a philoshopher, a writer, a scientist or some other form of accepted “higher being”? Because the answer to that is No. It always was, it always will be. There will always be thinkers and writers and scientists and philosophers but there also always will be more simple folk. Folk that might be a bit slow, blind to certain ascepts or simply not capable of giving a s~~~. . And throwing them an old Encylopedia or shutting them into a classroom won’t change that.

You are under the assumption that intelligence can be quantified and if it cannot be quantified or measured than it is not intelligence.

The problem is that the argument that one can measure intelligence, would have to be an intelligent statement in itself, otherwise it would not be true. You cannot reduce that statement to a quantity however. You can measure it. You can measure the number of words, or syllables, or even the number of concepts but you cannot reduce it to a quantity.

The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.

I do believe intelligence can be quantified. When I use the word intelligence, I am meaning a capacity for abstract thought. Metal puzzles, anagrams, sets of numbers, logic problems, etc. All these tasks can be undertaken and timed to arrive at a quantifiable level of intelligence. “By mathematical default” was my shorthand for explaining that if most people believe they are above average, then they are not. They would simply become the new average.

If you argue that mathematics is not a means to truth, then you might as well argue that there is no such thing as truth. There is an ongoing, age old debate over whether mathematics is a creation of the human mind or if it is the law of reality and we are simply transcribing it. Either way you fancy it, mathematics is the truth of reality as best as we can know it, and if that truth isn’t enough for you…….then you will forever yearn and never rest easy. A miserable and avoidable fate if you ask me.

“The smartest man I met there was an instructor in the machining program. He is the stereotypical old master tradesman who opted for a simple life of pursuing his passion and therefore never “working” a day in his life.”

But

“The vast majority of people on this planet are not critical thinkers, they are emotional thinkers. This is a truism that I meet with great ire. It is not a facet of the modern age, but an unnerving fact of life that has persisted for all time.”

I am not familiar with logic because I never paid attention in class. However this seems to be a loop.

Unless the passion gave him intelligence. Or vice versa. Or both at the same.

This leads us to another question of whether or not passion is necessary for critical thinking. Also do generations of today have the same passion as that of our ancestors?

His passion is machining. Machining is a mathematical endeavor and emotions should be left at the door. I brought his presence to the discussion simply to point out that the most intelligent people I know are also the most basic, easy going people. What I mean by emotional thinker is, someone who cannot contain their emotions long enough to see past the moment. Someone who must act immediately when angered or in love. I’ve heard people use the phrase “emotional intelligence” before, but what is that? Someone who has a great deal of empathy? There is nothing wrong with being a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but if you are consistently finding yourself in trouble because of your impulsiveness, then I would classify you as an emotional thinker.

I’ve been told I have no soul, that I’m just a machine masquerading as a human, but I don’t buy it. I live my life with facts and reason at the forefront because I believe that intelligence is the greatest power we hold over the animal kingdom. Fear is an emotion, and animals have fear. 1+1=2 and there is no Devil’s advocate for that.

Yeah I ain’t going nowhere!

A dog doesn’t entertain a thought (or pick up an item), explore every facet of it, question every detail, tear it apart, exhaust every mathematical possibility… and then put it back down to either accept it, or reject it. Not too many humans do that either. This doesn’t even require much intelligence – only an inquisitive mind and the will to explore it. Someone could be extremely intelligent and lack all willingness to even accept a basic truth. We see this every day.

This is a good point. This is what I’ve always referred to as “faux intelligence.” I’m thinking of one particular guy I know. He displays all the usual signs of intelligence, a quick wit, a keen eye for detail, a love of knowledge, an awareness of logic…..but he is blinded by his own aura and believes he was born an ancient soul adorned with sacred blessings and guided by the divine. So in my eyes, he is smart enough to understand what logic is, but he isn’t smart enough to employ it. He believes that subjective experiences have a greater weight in determining reality than objective evidence does and I’ve literally crushed him with the power of logic, but he comes up smiling every time. I guess, for some people, for whatever reason, reality is just forever beyond their grasp.

There are certainly some people out there who possess the intellectual capacity for critical/abstract thought and simply chose not to employ it. I don’t mean to imply that a person of average intelligence is stupid or incapable, they simply aren’t as capable as me. I’ll add here that this is my SUBJECTIVE experience and being such, it could be incorrect. I would be surprised though if you didn’t hold the same sentiment about yourself Keymaster.

And yes, the idea is what matters. The flourishes I add are almost entirely for my own enjoyment, though it puts me at a disadvantage when talking with non-native speakers.

 “Not too many humans do that either. This doesn’t even require much intelligence – only an inquisitive mind and the will to explore it. Someone could be extremely intelligent and lack all willingness to even accept a basic truth. We see this every day.”

This is a common thing among people.  One observes on thing but choses to accept or believe another.  Is there some evidence tying emotional and logical development together?  What would qualify as that evidence?

“The difference between us and the womanfolk (who are apparently “smarter than men”) is really quite apparent: where one woman asks a question she should already know the answer to… the other never even asked herself the QUESTION.”

Although more common amongst women, I know that many “men” do this too.

“Where a generation makes a VISIBLE difference here is not in IQ, intelligence, or comprehension but in LAZINESS.

That’s what I was getting at. That’s what’s missing.

My 5 year old nice looked up at her father as said “Im bored”. I wanted to f~~~ing smack that kid. Not because she knew exactly how to operate a remote control before her 3rd birthday…. but because she had no f~~~ing IMAGINATION. No WILL to entertain herself.”

This ties into a point that Maillesmithe and Vilenord inadvertently brought up.  Will, desire, passion, or whatever it may be seems to be a factor in the acquisition of critical thinking skills.

“I always thought / believed math was a discovery and not an “invention” or a human creation.”

Why does it have to be either?  Who has discovered something without first inventing something to discover?  Example: Columbus and ship.  Who has first invented something without a discovery?  Example:  Fire->metal working-> Columbus ship.

What if the argument over mathematics is not a question of either/or but rather both/and?  What if mathematics comes from the heart’s desire for order?

“I know an extremely bright female. Easily in the top 5 of all the people I’ve ever met. Her understanding of the lexicon is SICK. I’ve never seen her equal in that regard. Her silver tongue is unbelievable. In her presence, I once used a made-up word. She told me I can’t use it. It’s not a real word. It doesn’t exist. I had to explain we are not bound by the lexicon and can add to it – any word we like. That’s how all the words in the lexicon came into existence in the first place.

This simple thought hadn’t even occurred to her and it was impossible to refute.

So, not too bright after all.”

I disagree, she is still bright (if you can measure intelligence).  She just has never given thought to a subject/made a mistake/etc.  Which applies again to this argument about critical thinking.  What limits critical thinking?

Yuri:

“The education system worldwide was never set up to produce people with great knowledge, skills and reasoning. The same way the whole idea of putting kids into a crammed classroom with a single teacher was never a carefully scientifically thought of way of bringing across knowledge. It just exists because hundreds of years ago it was the most cost effective way of doing it and ti has stuck along, the same way the education system doesn’t exist to guide young folk to brilliance.”

If I am correct, the origin of the modern education system was out of Prussia as a way to help prepare youths for military service.  If that is correct, than by its very nature the modern education system is design to control critical thinking to some extent.  Now whether that is a good or bad thing is up to argument.  On one hand it can be used to weed out BS.  On the other it can protect original thinking etc.  As to its use today, I think most of us would agree its for the negative since it limits all ideas to one side.

 “There still are massive amounts of us that actually have interest in gaining knowledge and preserving it, that have the drive and passion to question and be questioned, and to question that what has been questioned and even question that what has been accepted. Personally, i would have never gained even half of my knowledge base and skills if all i ever did was sit in a classroom and relay on a schoolbook and a teacher to bestow knowledge upon me.”

This goes back to Maillesmithe’s, Vilenord’s, and Keymaster intentional and unintentional point of the necessity of will/desire/passion/etc. in acquiring critical thinking skills.

“And another point: Do you seriously think that everyone has the capability of being a thinker, a philoshopher, a writer, a scientist or some other form of accepted “higher being”? Because the answer to that is No. It always was, it always will be. There will always be thinkers and writers and scientists and philosophers but there also always will be more simple folk.”

The problem with western thought, sometimes, is that is labels people as thinkers, writers, scientists, etc. rather than looking at thinkers, writers, scientists as people.  What simple folk hasn’t had a philosophical or scientific thought at one point of time or another?  Does the potential to do these things make them any different than the men that do?

Are thinkers, writers, scientists really higher beings than the animals they observe?  Because one can without a doubt see they share the same fate: that of seeking to fulfill their desires and then being crowned with death for their efforts.

Vilenord:

“The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is that mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.”

I miswrote this but you seem to catch the point anyhow.  It should have said “The problem, and I am assuming you are saying this, is mathematics is an original truth in itself.  Mathematics in itself cannot hold truth because the whole argument about mathematics being a means to truth is not mathematical.”  Any confusion is my fault.

“I do believe intelligence can be quantified. When I use the word intelligence, I am meaning a capacity for abstract thought. Metal puzzles, anagrams, sets of numbers, logic problems, etc. All these tasks can be undertaken and timed to arrive at a quantifiable level of intelligence.”

Again my point is this.  You state that intelligence can be quantified but use “tests” that in themselves are not always quantities (ex: puzzles, logic problems.)  The whole argument for the ability for intelligence to be quantified is limited by the argument itself.  No quantities or use of mathematics were used to argue mathematics as a sort of primal/original truth.  Rather words were used, leading one to the question of mathematics be similar to a tool rather than an end within itself.

“By mathematical default” was my shorthand for explaining that if most people believe they are above average, then they are not. They would simply become the new average.”

My apologies for any confusion, but although you point about averages is correct the argument was against the premise that intelligence can be measured in the first place.  If we kept the premise that intelligence can be measured, then you would be correct.  However, if the argument was made that intelligence cannot be measured, then the above is nil.

“If you argue that mathematics is not a means to truth, then you might as well argue that there is no such thing as truth.”

If mathematics is a means to truth, that means that it is a means (pardon the pun) and not an original truth.  The answer is already in the statement. It is “a means to” leads mathematics to something outside itself.  It is my observation that mathematics is more of a tool, similar to a hammer, except it is abstract.  It helps mold the world to our will.  Does that mean we make the hammer the sole creative force? No, it is a tool.

“There is an ongoing, age old debate over whether mathematics is a creation of the human mind or if it is the law of reality and we are simply transcribing it.”

“Either way you fancy it, mathematics is the truth of reality as best as we can know it, and if that truth isn’t enough for you…….then you will forever yearn and never rest easy. A miserable and avoidable fate if you ask me.”

This statement ties the importance of emotion to mathematics, contrary to how you previously stated the importance of the two being separate (assuming I interpreted what you said correctly)  If mathematics could have saved us from despair, it would have or at least give some evidence it might.  If their was evidence that it might, then that evidence may be prone to subjectiveness due to its interpretation.

“His passion is machining. Machining is a mathematical endeavor and emotions should be left at the door.”

Then what is passion if not some form of emotion or will?  Can it be quantified?  If so then you would have to place values on a number of factors for an algorithm to prove it.  And those values would fundamentally have to be subjective to the beliefs, emotions, will of who created the algorithm.

 “What I mean by emotional thinker is, someone who cannot contain their emotions long enough to see past the moment. Someone who must act immediately when angered or in love. I’ve heard people use the phrase “emotional intelligence” before, but what is that? Someone who has a great deal of empathy? There is nothing wrong with being a spur-of-the-moment kind of guy, but if you are consistently finding yourself in trouble because of your impulsiveness, then I would classify you as an emotional thinker.”

If the emotions only last for a brief moment then how real are they? Are deep seeded emotions not emotions because they don’t act impulsively?  Does time determine whether an emotion is an emotion or not?  Does speed (fast/slow) determine whether or not something exists? Impulse and emotion are to separate things.  Love or hate is different than the desire for sex or food. Empathy and impulse are too separate things.

This leads me to another question, one that might have to be entered as a separate category:  The importance of language, how and what has changed it over time?  Has it lost or gained value?

Although the argument about mathematics and its relationship to critical thinking has some solid points, it has one fatal flaw.  The flaw is that mathematics was not used during the entire argument about mathematics.  One might state that 1+1=2 as an example of truth, but rather it proves that existence as definite properties.  Me saying truth is truth or red is red also proves definite properties.

 “I live my life with facts and reason at the forefront because I believe that intelligence is the greatest power we hold over the animal kingdom.

Much of intelligence only brought us to seek the same things as animals do food, sex, shelter.  And they have that too.  We share the same fate as they do to some extent.  What power do we really have, or mathematics has, if both are either subject to or are used for food, sex, shelter?  Animals have comfortably reached these things without mathematics.  We use mathematics for the same things.  How are we different in that respect than an otter who uses a rock on a clam to obtain its meat?

“Fear is an emotion, and animals have fear.”

The only thing mathematics has proven as a tool is how deeply rooted fear is within the human being.  It does so to the point of being a rival truth in the human condition.

“1+1=2 and there is no Devil’s advocate for that.”

Does 2 always lead us to 1+1?

My point is, and hopefully it is clear this time, is that mathematics seems to fit the functions of a tool rather than an ends or original truth in itself.  It helps with critical thinking but critical thinking is not subject to it nor is mathematics subject to critical thinking.