CRITICAL THINKING

WHAT DOES “CRITICAL THINKING” MEAN & WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

• Thinking "CRITICALLY" is not normally done in our everyday life. Usually people are on AUTO PILOT mode, so when you HEAR a fact, a rumour, a gossiper or even bits of information from advertisements advocating a new super food, people are rarely CRITICAL or few dare to question. It is easier and  more likely the average joe will just  passively accept information with little thought. 

• CRITICAL THINKING is pursued in higher education for individuals to LEARN to think of the PRO & CONS of any information presented. NOT TO JUST BELIEVE it because it is said by another person whoever that person may be e.g. from celebrity, news reporter, politician or a friend. 

Psychology's method of CRITICAL THINKING is more specific looking at the many SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to see if they ring any truth and if they do or don't, then to actively think of the REASONS WHY. CRITICAL THINKING is a mental TOOL to push your intellectual ability to think MORE ACTIVELY in an COMMON SENSE MANNER, and in general some people  will aimlessly never do this very well, but merely follow the same routine of never really thinking. Question is WHY DOES IT MATTER? 

Any undergraduate social scientist would learn firmly that >0.05 p-value is a significant result…. Beyond that point depends on what course you are on, what they teach you and how detailed the STATS are taught. Let’s say you knew all the statistical know-how from Effect Power to Co-Efficient etc, all the results, methods and everything superficially appears dandy, but you are asked to be CRITICAL! For that all so important higher mark!

Let us be CRITICAL = Do you have REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE or SUSPECT that these “STATISTICAL VAULES” that have been punched out from NOWHERE or the DATA gained are actually any proof of anything at all?

• When you BUY any SECOND HAND CAR from a dodgy car dealer, the VALUES and paperwork look perfect, the car may appear in good working order and when you drive off it should run smoothly under the government approved 12 month warranty.

• BUT IF YOU HAVE   EVER HEARD OF REAL LIFE: just because a company (reputable or not) adds a guarantee, it does not mean it always will e.g. the item that was advertised and presented on paper does not match up to your experience. A non-techie car person would not know the difference if they did not understand the mechanics of the car, or the average sales price for the age of the car etc. Therefore to save 1000’s you would LEARN! No one wants to be a punter.

• Being CRITICAL about PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES is to think MORE ACTIVELY e.g. be very thorough in your assessments to see if the PINK ELEPHANT is present [or] if a NEEDLE in the HAYSTACK EXISTS?

Put simply, you could think of RESEARCHERS, SCIENTISTS or PSYCHOLGISTS as arguably the initial SALES PERSON. They have [a PRODUCT] that might work [HYPOTHESIS]. 

They then form [a THEORY] of whatever they think is a REAL EXPERIMENTAL FINDING to explain something about the world. 

They want to SELL THIS IDEA to others for several reasons. Besides obviously helping to shape the society to being more knowledgeable, it also comes with other PRO’S from MONEY, PRESTIGE and of course MONEY.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER: WHY SHOULD YOU CARE???

• LEARN about LAWS when you have to go to court.

• LEARN about CARS when you buy a car.

• LEARN about GB/memory, resolution, pixels etc when you buy an IPhone!

• LEARN about HOUSES when you buy your first one!

• LEARN about STATS/METHODS in science when you are reading facts about life!

The SAME APPLIES FOR SCIENCE! 

Do not be a punter, so to speak, and think actively about what you are trying to do. Think as if when you are reading anything you are looking for the BEST PRICE for what you are getting, and in a scientific paper case the BEST EVIDENCE for what you are reading! For example: is the science behind the 5:2 diet, links between smoking & cancer, electronic blankets’ carcinogenetic effects, vaccinations’ impact on babies’ development etc etc. The list is endless on the different scientific reports saying something is safe and another is not. THEREFORE, LEARNING about STATS/METHODS in science when you are reading facts about life could save you 1000’s & impact your MIND, LIFE, BODY, and HEALTH.

Materialism is a funny feature that is currently thrived on in popular culture (e.g. news reports on people standing for hours outside a shop waiting for a sale - they are willingly crashing over each other just for a deal to buy that absolutely necessary ‘life changing’ TV!).  Some people can spend 1000’s of hard earned cash, energy and time on things that are superficial, from plastic surgery to expensive gadgets.  However, when it comes to feeding your brain or body from eating healthy, exercising and courses in mindfulness e.g. for personal growth, it appears less motivation thrives. 

(NB: I am not saying you cannot be superficial at times, but life is about balance and I am sure you know of some individuals who spend, worry and behave disproportionality in this new 21^st century world that advocates the materialistic popularity)…. Mini rant over.

LEARN about STATS/METHODS in science when you are reading facts about life! by Understanding the RANKING within the CRITICAL world of PSYCHOLOGY:

UNDERGRADUATE “Critical Thinking” RANK (e.g. the BARE BASICS of a TODDLER)

• SAMPLE SIZE e.g. too small & TYPE of POPULATION e.g. no generalizability

• TYPE 1 & TYPE 2 ERRORS e.g. false positive / false negative.

• GENDER DIFFERENCES e.g. biological, social and hormonal factors etc.

• LANGUAGE DIFFERNCES e.g. varying bilingual degrees.

• NEUROLOGICAL DIFFERENCES e.g. ADHD, ADD, ASD, Dyslexia etc

This is the so-called BREAD & BUTTER of being critical, but when you hit POST-GRADUATE level it becomes more like crumbs or the first baby steps expected: one can argue if you had more/less participants it would impact your results, but in reality all studies are limited in resources, finances and time when finding IDEAL test subjects. 

The world is a VERY DIVERSE place. Some people commonly speak 2 languages in one country fluently compared to another and there is always going to be life differences alongside cultural, therefore the degree of generalizability is a persistent issue. Plus the level of UNDIAGNOSED mental disorders, learning disorders and neurological disorders will always be another extraneous factor.

• At this stage we are literally clutching on to BREAD CRUMBS of CRITICAL TOOLS that undergraduates possess when it comes to ACTIVELY THINKING about what a lecturer, researcher or article says when it is proven that “Eat this new SUPERFOOD PILL and YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT as proven by our study”.

(Disclaimer: participants are from a sample of 10, all approved by the SUPERFOOD PILL company through rigorous testing to agree with the above statement. You or others may have varying results. We are not responsible for the misinterpretation or false advertisement by others who promote this product incorrectly).

Put simply, the UNDERGRADUATE “Critical Thinking”: BARE BASICS of a TODDLER is a very BROAD sense of what you feel is reasonable to suspect or believe about the data.

MSC/MA Graduate “Critical Thinking” Rank (Specifics of a Teen)

• Specific Criticisms of the SMALLER aspects that are less obvious that annoy you e.g. weakening your reasonable grounds to believe or suspect something is right or not with the data or information when a teen tells you that there is not pot in their room.

Put simply, the METHOD CARRIED OUT & EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN can always be questioned depending on the SUITABILITY of how you test, against the HYPOTHESIS or WHATEVER was apparently TESTED e.g.

• Scientists would not put a Samsung charger into an iPhone to see if the iPhone works, both chargers successfully do the same thing: to charge a phone. But the method is completely wrong. Therefore, any tests or studies advocating this iPhone does not work means it is possible that many other iPhones of the same make won’t work worldwide is actually a WRONG CONCLUSION with lots of DATA & STATS VALUE SUPPORTING IT. This means the data can produce false negatives and the world will have a frenzy in new papers, articles and debates about pseudo science misinterpretations of the actually facts.

• Put simply, it can be hard, but you need to think of REASONS WHY it is SUITABLE and BELIEVABLE that a TEST, METHOD and overall EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN were suitable to test whatever they are testing. If that is suitable and justified then a person, scientist and the world would have reasonable grounds to believe something from a study rings true. 

• JUST BE LOGICAL: it’s easy to understand different mobile phone chargers but when it comes to experimental design relating to a method and what is being tested you need to actively think: is it really suitable?

(NB: This adds unnecessary NOISE to your study. Aka a bunch of things you could have addressed before, that has made the data confusing to read clearly and scientists always aim for less noise and more clarity so to speak.)

How does an experiment - specifically the way it was carried out - SUPPORT giving REASONS to SUSPECT or BELIEVE that the hypothesis has grounds to support a Theoretical Idea? e.g. Eating MORE SUGAR has been proven to KILL BRAIN CELLS!

PhD “Critical Thinking” Rank (Aspiring GURU of science aka Young Psychologist)

• This involves being more picky about finding REASONS TO BELIEVE/SUSPECT the way the EXPERIEMENT was done by:

• Looking at the BASIC STAT TEST & ANALYSIS USED e.g. what alternative reasons, beyond just merely proving/disproving your hypothesis, does the data suggest if any? Put simply, sometimes you work hard on a puzzle, thinking you know the answer but cannot get the right result, until you experience a eureka moment making you realize you have been looking at it completely wrong. 

• Actively thinking out of the box for other ways the experiment could have been conducted or interpreting the results - most likely mentioned when experimental flaws are noted in the experimental design, discussing the feasibility and the REASONS WHY it would be better or perhaps not so and keeping the design.

e.g. You could say the LYNX SPRAY in our sample had less success with females dates compared to the control group who did not use LYNX. If the experimental study put the males who used the LYNX spray next to a male toilets and those who did not on another floor next to the female toilet then this an extraneous factor and possibly the sole reason for the FALSE NEGATIVE results that the LYNX spray does not work. 

• More realistically, it can be argued that an experiment found that students who obtained higher grades using materials on Ms Confuddled’s Blog Spot than the control group of normal student who used only library resources. 

• This could be due to several reasons: perhaps people who used the library barely used it and were less motivated in their studies; perhaps Ms Confuddled’s Blog Spot had interactive materials proven to improve memory abilities, rather than the content itself being any different from the library resources. 

• Or perhaps on Ms Confuddled’s Blog Spot it showed the questions and answers for last year’s exam answers that was not changed for the following year. 

• Finally, if you are going to say something usefully negative about another person’s study, then it is best to highlight everything bad you notice when it comes to being CRITICAL. 

• However, if you’re calling someone out, then you best be ready to suggest an alternative e.g. THE STUDY IS CRAP END OF, versus, YOUR STUDY was LIMITED BECAUSE … and IT COULD BE IMPROVED BY … and this would make it BETTER BECAUSE OF x,y,z. 

• At this RANK a student should be CRITICAL. So, if you think a study is GREAT or BAD then EXPLAIN WHY with FACTS, LOGIC and REAL ANSWERS. 
• 
  

"Do NOT waffle, shout and justify illogical conclusions with a mere confident tone and carefully selected words, numbers or subjective values as per politicians during QUESTION TIME!" (You tube it - after 10 minutes you will understand how some, not all, can do this… uhem).

(NB: some people or groups of individuals do this type of communication very often e.g. self justifying a completely illogical idea for their actions or decisions. If you have never been taught the common sense mental tools to think more actively/critically, or perhaps prefer to live in ignorance and just babble about something then it is your choice. Not everyone chooses to act truthfully or logically when facts are placed in front of them for many reasons e.g. self preservation is a strong emotion for some.)

Researcher “Critical Thinking” Rank (a GURU of science: Qualified Researcher):

This involves everything we have mentioned & Actively LOOKING at the STATISTICAL TEST, not just the experimental design!

• At this point, if I was a really talented CON SCIENTIST and wanted to FOOL the people of the world with my STUDY that LYNX does in fact GUARANTEE an ANGEL will fall down, then I WOULD tackle, be subjectively selective and not say the WHOLE TRUTH about my STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. WHY? Because individuals who are less knowledgeable in this area are easier to manipulate (n/a: to researchers or academic lecturers).

• For instance, psychologists CANNOT DO ALL POSSIBLE STAT TESTS, some of which are not suitable to measure the HYPOTHESIS of their experiment, and then they select and only publish the RESULTS that best support their HYPOTHESIS in the hope to make it appear to be a more valid THEORY. 

• A simple example would be: an ANOVA statistical test disproves the study’s aims repeatedly; however, a selective correlational analysis suggests a significant link repeatedly, supporting the study’s aims.  Hence the scientists prove a FALSE POSITIVE that LYNX works by publishing and only using correlational data.

To actively be sure if the STATISTICAL TEST USED alongside the METHODOLOGY are SUITABLE to measure WHATEVER the scientists aim to measure, there isn’t a SET FORMAT. It will VARY depending on the AIM, GOAL and INTENTION of the study.

• Being CRITICAL about PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES is to think MORE ACTIVELY e.g. be very thorough in your assessments to see if the PINK ELEPHANT is present [or] if a NEEDLE in the HAYSTACK EXISTS? 

Look at the STATISTICAL NOTES e.g. SPSS MADE SIMPLE to start building a foundation on understanding the STAT VALUES looked at when being CRITICAL. 

IN SUM

Each RESEARCHER will have DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS for their research e.g. help others, personal intellectual interest, wanting to make a historic difference, and, of course, to make a fat load of cash.

• Academic research tends to have a high level of integrity as it’s more motivated by intellectual pursuits for the truth e.g. lecturers in universities (n/a to those promoting their own academic books, but, in general, they are the best content for passing the courses they shape). 

• However, in the world of drug consumerism, product pushing science, reaching targets alongside governmental polices or anything that can be made into £££££, you should be more switched on, you should be MORE CRITICAL and if you choose not be then carry on mindlessly haggling the price of your next renewal for your mobile phone package etc etc.  

• Put simply, when you read a scientific article that advocates something e.g. Exposure to VIOLENT VIDEOGAMES causes CHILDREN to do MAD THINGS: this change in life style would have great financial implications for someone e.g. companies that makes the games! 

• This change from science is in essence NOT free; one way or another someone loses out and another gains. So who do you believe with so many conflicting studies? Other proven theories may lead to something that must be purchased or implemented in our lives to better ourselves, then it is like another product e.g. MINDFULNESS MEDITATION.

• BEING CRITICAL means that instead of looking at the simple ingredient on the package and descriptions or even just the journal article abstract whether published in the new scientist or the DAILY MAIL. 

• The only way to get the REAL ANSWERS to suggest if something rings true is by looking at the worldwide journals to gain a general scientific consensus, but then the consensus could also be wrong e.g. ALL FATS are BAD for the HEART in the past, but not so now, therefore so the next step would be….. 

 

• After all we all believed historically that the WORLD was FLAT at one time, that the COCAINE ingredients in COCA-COLA was acceptable, that females who were burned at the stake were witches, that Clinton did not have sexual relations with that female and that ELVIS is dead.

 

PUT SIMPLY: 

Be CRITICAL like a GURU SCIENTIST and don’t be taken for a punter. Just because something is published to appear glossy and with fancy words, with prestigious titles or even if it is some part of a government approved scheme…. you should be ACTIVELY QUESTIONING the reasons why you SUDDENLY BELIEVE beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT that some fancy scientific finding is true aka BE ACTIVELY CRITICAL.