Capstone Essay: No Finish Line

Abstract

During the past few weeks, our cohort has endeavored to study the topic of critical thinking. Together, we reviewed and discussed our definitions of critical thinking and applied considerations of critical thinking to contexts of social media, bias, advertising, and propaganda. Looking back, it seems we plotted our course to first discover the noble possibilities that critical thinking avails us, and then dedicated ourselves to understanding some of the favorite pitfalls that might rob us of those opportunities – so much so that this week, I began to ponder the topic of critical thinking as the beautiful frailty of the human mind. Working backward through our study, I will bring you to my newest ideas on critical thinking and share with you what those ideas mean for my work.

Treatment

In our most recent work together, the cohort team reviewed the strategies employed in advertising and propaganda. We learned techniques that intend to bypass or override rational decision making by appealing to deep psychological imprints, embedding an influence beneath cognition into the emotional or fight/flight centers of the brain’s neural network (Dretzin, Goodman, and Soenens, 2003).

During the previous week, we reviewed the influence of bias and prejudice, where we encountered the mind’s inclination for somewhat tilted thinking. We learned that “Categorizing information based on simple and easily accessible categories is a typical cognitive shortcut used by human beings to make quick decisions” (Simard, n.d.).

This shortcutting informs and misinforms our interpretation of the world around us. John Bargh of New York University explained, "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality. But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive” (qtd. in Paul, 1998).

This led us to the discovery that our most immediate thoughts and impressions might likely be affected by a number of forces which are not fully reason-centered. Furthermore, we learned it can be very difficult to become aware that one’s thinking is incomplete or unduly influenced (Paul, 1998). The mind’s miraculous efficiency is also capable of leading us greatly astray.

Our cohort established that as we participate in, or review, clinical research, we must constantly be aware of the misdirection inherent in impressioned thinking. A researcher’s background and belief inform every phase of study, from hypothesis formation to the interpretation of results (Sackett, 1979). Even raw data are subject to bias and interpretative flaws (Delcore & Mullooly, 2009).

Anthropologists Delcore and Mullooly suggested that in order to approach fuller, more complete thinking, we must engage one another, think in community. They claimed science “only works via social and cultural means, and that capricious insights and idiosyncrasies — personal, social, cultural — matter greatly in how the work of science gets done” (2009).

Critical thinking, like science, is a group activity. Without criticism and support of other thinkers, our own individual thinking may sometimes be too substantially limited and compromised to fully form. Controversy and dialogue are what evolve discovery and understanding (Lipps, 1999).

In week three of our study together, an exploration of social media, we read that Clay Shirky described this kind of inspired group interaction as the “hothouse environment of a collaborative circle” (2010, p. 104), noting that groups produce innovation and creativity that exceeds the capability of a lone contributor.

Social media is one important venue where our higher selves come to engage each other in this way, attracted by our own sense of generosity and by the invitation to togetherness (Shirky, 2010). This new and developing landscape provides one forum for reasoning that’s enhanced by our collective thinking. It builds upon the diversity of perspective that broadens and challenges the thinking that is sometimes too informed by our selves - our minds, directed by memory and culture, the layered functioning of the brain, tricks of cognition, and sometimes the insidious powers of discreet influence.  

And so we return to the place from which we began: the question of critical thinking. We learned from the materials that critical thinking, at a high level, involved the practical application of deliberation of premises, organization of thought, and an ability to recognize relevance and validity. Core skills included “observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and meta-cognition” (“Critical thinking,” 2011, “Skills,” para. 1).

We also warned ourselves to be aware that individuals who lack maturity and openness can fall prey to self-deception, rhetoric, fallacy, manipulation and may even be inclined to use the basic critical thinking competencies to perpetuate invalid or unsubstantiated argument (“Critical thinking,” 2011).

Our own definitions convey the promise and the pitfalls inherent in critical thinking, and that scholarship is broadened and strengthened in community. We need to check our gaps with one another, to question and grow from the limits of our first and solo thinking (so clumsy and misshapen), in order to think effectively and fully. The promise of critical thinking is fulfilled in humility and community.

Conclusion

I have formed two take-aways from our journey together these last few weeks: 1) we do our best thinking in each other’s company, and 2) we are never done thinking.

Here’s what I mean.

1. There are so many opportunities for our own individual thinking to fail us that we need each other, or even just the potential of each other – the imagined contribution or appraisal of an other, to add considerations and perspectives to our own. Critical thinking is the process of broadening from our own initial impressions and ideas to reflect, rethink, reconsider, and reinvent the notions that guide our beliefs and sponsor our actions. Critical thinking observes “my first reaction is not complete,” and then it humbly asks for further input, checks, and considerations. This input is best when it comes from outside the self.   
2. Critical thinking is an ongoing evolution of ideas and perceptions. It needs the spirit of wonder and curiosity, openness to mystery, and tolerance of ambiguity in order to truly invite the reformations that companion the challenges and insights of others. Critical thinking understands “this thinking will never be complete.” My malformed and unfinished work comes together with yours and we build something new and good, and then run that process again. We will never have it perfectly right. There is no finish line.

This means a big shift in the way I perceive my work, my relevance. In the practice of forming submissions for the cohort twice weekly, I learned to just submit something, the best of what I have today. My ideas are as formed and unformed as anyone’s, but to pretend I don’t yet have something to say is fairly futile. There’s no point at which it will be “time” for me to begin contributing. What could I be waiting for? We’re all offering ourselves from a place of continuing development.

In my first submission, I suggested there was a conversation happening in a “somewhere out there” kind of reality, and that I had an inkling that perhaps I ought to be participating in it. Over the last few weeks, I’ve learned that having joined the Fielding community, I have entered the conversation and I am welcome to bring the best of what I have, today.

References

Critical thinking. (n.d.)  In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Delcore, H. and Mullooly, J. (2009, July 17). Data and Insight in Tension? Retrieved from http://theanthroguys.com/2009/07/17/data-and-insight-in-tension

Dretzin, R., Goodman, B., & Soenens,M. (Producers). (2003). Frontline: The persuaders[video]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/

Lipps, J.H. 1999. This is science! Pp. 3-16 in J. Scotchmoor and D.A. Springer (eds.). Evolution: Investigating the evidence. Paleontological Society Special Publication, vol. 9. Retrieved from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/jlipps/science.html

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne, (45).  Retrieved from  http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/ 

Paul, A.M. (1998). Where bias begins: The truth about stereotypes. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199805/where-bias-begins-the-truth-about-stereotypes

Sackett, D. L. (1979). “Bias in analytic research.” J Chron Dis, Vol 32, pp 51 – 63. Pergamon Press Ltd Great Britain. Retrieved from http://www.epidemiology.ch/history/PDF%20bg/Sackett%20DL%201979%20bias%20in%20analytic%20research.pdf

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York: Penguin Press.

Simard, C. (n.d.). “The prevalence of gender stereotyping and bias: An overview.” Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://anitaborg.org/files/the_prevalence_of_gender_stereotyping_and_bias.pdf

Evolutions in Advertising and Propaganda

Abstract

The influence of advertising and propaganda shapes our understanding, whispers to our drives, and beckons our behavior. Methods are both direct and indirect, at times appealing to our thoughtful, conscious minds, and at other times sidestepping the thinking process altogether to insinuate messages and urges deep beneath our conscious understanding. When we’re consumers, we’re truly guided by voices that are not our own.

Treatment

What is Thinking?

This is a question that has retained its vitality among scientists and philosophers, alike.

From a neurological perspective, and at a very high level, the gray matter of the brain can be described as a neural network comprised of billions of nerve cells. Neurons respond to stimuli with a series of electrochemical signaling passed between neurons at synapse points, carried by chemicals known as neurotransmitters – serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins. The nerve cells are separated into different regions of the brain and assigned different tasks. (Whybrow, 1997)

Acclaimed neuropsychiatrist Peter C. Whybrow, M.D., refers to the research of Paul D. MacLean, and his seminal work The Triune Brain in Evolution, as useful for mapping functional centers of the brain. These are the reptilian, limbic/ancient mammalian, and the cortex/new mammalian (1997).

The reptilian brain represents the center for biological and fight/flight urges, while the limbic and cortex brains are affiliated with emotion and higher-order cognition, respectively (Sacks, 2006). These assignments can be loosely mapped to the physical regions of the brain:  reptilian brain linked to the amygdala, limbic to the hippocampus, and neocortex to the frontal lobe, as seen here.

(Boyd, 2010)

Ultimately, thinking is the neurologic activity that we use to interpret, consider, and organize our physical responses to the objects and experiences of our lives. “Thinking allows beings to make sense of or model the world in different ways, and to represent or interpret it in ways that are significant to them, or which accord with their needs, attachments, objectives, plans, commitments, ends and desires” (“Thinking,” 2011.).

In the realm of advertising and propaganda, however, thinking is intended to be either subdued or simply bypassed altogether.

Direct Influence

Of the two approach methods, direct influence is more closely tied to the thinking process. These are appeals which engage reasoning functions, the cortex. Frequently, this approach uses communication that is misleading or deceptive for the purpose of remolding our thinking.

Techniques include propaganda, such as name calling, false analogies, celebrity testimonial, and glittering generalities. This method also uses faulty logic such as either/or fallacy, correlation as causality, over simplification, circular reasoning, evasion, and generalizing from a specific. Other tactics include errors of attack and of weak reference - employing threat, force, or baseless appeals to social motivations. (Cuesta College, 2003)


A terrific example of this kind of skewed appeal to reasoning is Rupert Murdoch’s FOX News. In this clip, we see use of a number of the techniques listed above. Most damningly, though, we see the memorandums to pundits which determine what opinions to express as well as specific phrases and terms to be used to express them (Greenwald, 2006).

Indirect Influence

Indirect techniques are the ones that target the limbic and reptilian centers of the brain. They tend to exploit the ways our subconscious minds associate the objects and images of the world with our passions, fears, and longing.

These methods are not intended to only offer product information, but instead subtly insert themselves into our emotional and subconscious minds, to direct our buying behavior from beneath our reasoning centers. Clotaire Rapaille, renowned market researcher, specifically addresses the lower level functioning of the reptilian brain. As he says, "The reptilian always wins” (qtd. in Sacks, 2006).

In his work, Rapaille investigates the associations we have with certain words, our deep psychological “imprint,” made the first time we understand the word (qtd. in Dretzin, Goodman, and Soenens, 2003). Rapaille believes researching our connections to these words uncovers “an unconscious code in the brain” that links all the way down to our most primal drives and urges. The idea is that marketing and product design built to match this code will pull consumers via unconscious and innate drives, simply bypassing rationality for impulse driven action (Dretzin, et al, 2003).

Similarly, political consultant Frank Luntz uses market research focus groups to observe subject responses to certain words, polling for positive response and also tracking body language and affect. He’s been highly successful, guiding the Republican party to use the friendlier sounding “tax relief” rather than the suggestive knife-brandishing of “tax cuts,” for example. (Dretzin, et al, 2003)

Luntz was responsible for the stunning turnaround in public opinion that resulted from changing the prevalent language from “Estate Tax” to “Death Tax” (Dretzin, et al, 2003). When challenged about the integrity of his tactics, Luntz replied, “It's the same tax, but nobody really knows what an estate is, but they certainly know what it means to be taxed when you die. I'd argue that is a clarification, it's not an obfuscation” (qtd in Dretzin, et al, 2003).

Technology continues to introduce even more advanced systems for influencing the motivations of an audience. Neuromarketing uses biomedical instruments to measure subjects’ neurological response to products and messages at both conscious and unconscious levels by monitoring brain activity, muscle movement, eye tracking, and biophysical indicators (MindLab, 2011).

In their research, MindLab analysts have found that the success or failure of a product or service is often guided by influences far outside of reason and rationality. Their work suggests that conscious thinking doesn’t primarily drive decision making, such that even factors as “seemingly unimportant as changes in font can, on occasions, have profound effects on consumer responses at a subconscious level” (MindLab, 2011).

Conclusion

Beyond thinking, those engaged in the high art (and science!) of advertising and propaganda are interested in outcomes: revenue, votes, loyalty, and action. They’re interested in the most effective, efficient means for inducing positive response.

Direct methods and techniques offer a specific argument or assertion. Often, these can be found to be faulty or unproven.  Those on the receiving end have claims they can investigate or points they can consider – or not; they may also choose to be passive recipients of the message. 


Indirect methods signal impulses, starting connections that travel the neural network deep beneath the centers of reason and logic, pulling at our limbic responses and reptilian urges. They may bypass our thinking processes, but it's important to note, they don't disable them. As with direct methods, recipients must still choose to consider choices - or not.

Methods for extending both types of influence are increasingly pervasive, sophisticated, and nuanced (Dretzin, et al, 2003). In one way, with techniques as effective and subtle as those which use the indirect method, it would be reasonable to evaluate if advancement of study in this area might represent a dangerous imposition on our free will. 

I will take a more optimistic outlook, though, to posit that perhaps these studies reflect an evolution in our understanding of how to communicate with one another. The ability to convey deep impressions is one we’ve always had, but haven't completely understood. I marvel at these advancements: the insight to the working of the mind, new knowledge of how to relay message on multiple levels. I'm intrigued and excited by the prospect of new power and opportunity for all forms of creative expression, and am looking forward to learning more as the evolution continues.

References

Boyd, R. (2010). Triune brain summary [image]. Retrieved from http://www.energeticsinstitute.com.au/page/triune_brain.html

Cuesta College (2003). Recognizing propaganda techniques and errors of faulty logic. Retrieved from http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm

Dretzin, R., Goodman, B., & Soenens,M. (Producers). (2003). Frontline: The persuaders [video]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/

Greenwald, R. (Producer). Brave New Films (Poster) (2006, May 3). OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism – trailer [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39FnpuMRfo

MindLab International, LTD. (n.d.) Neuromarketing at MindLab International. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.themindlab.org/ml_Neuromarketing_at_Mindlab_International.pdf

Sacks, D. (2006, April 1). Crack this code. Fast Company. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/104/rapaille.html

Thought (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

Whybrow, P. C. (1997) A mood apart: The thinker’s guide to emotion and its disorders. HarperPerennial, New York. 

Bias on the Web

Abstract

Bias is ubiquitous. This is especially pertinent as the web increasingly serves as a student’s primary source of information and guidance (November, 2007), and because ease of internet publishing has spread the preponderance of invalid claims (“Evaluating web sites,” n.d.; “Evaluating web sites,” 2009). Trustworthy scholarship necessitates that we substantiate our claims with solid references. To be credible, we must be diligent about the bias and stereotype in the materials that inform our positions, but also the bias inherent in our own personal perspective.

Treatment

Definition

A definition from Johns Hopkins University, adapted from the Logic of Medicine, describes bias as “any process at any stage of inference which tends to produce results or conclusions that differ systematically from the truth” (Sackett, 1979).  When pursuing truth or constructive and realistic understanding, bias interferes.

Prevalence

While we may believe ourselves to be devoted to truth seeking, or see ourselves as objective, rational beings, we are also all subject to the influence of bias and stereotype. “Categorizing information based on simple and easily accessible categories is a typical cognitive shortcut used by human beings to make quick decisions. The simple act of separating people in groups is enough to trigger inter-group discrimination” (Simard, n.d.).

Some manifestations of bias are easier to detect than others. While explicit bias is quickly identifiable, implicit bias can be more difficult to detect. "Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," says John Bargh, Ph.D., of New York University. He adds, "We have to rely on our memories and our awareness of what we're doing to have a connection to reality. But when it comes to automatic processing, those cues can be deceptive” (qtd. in Paul, 1998).

Because recognition of bias can be immediate but can also be elusive, its influence is ever poised to slip out of our awareness, and out of our control (Paul, 1998).

Remedy

Three strategies of critical thinking can help us avoid the pitfalls of bias and stereotype:

• Apply principles of scientific thinking or evidential reasoning. “All claims, whether scientific or not, should be subjected to these rules in order to ensure that all possibilities are considered fairly” (Lipps, 1999).

(Lipps, 1999)

However, there’s an additional caution. In research, bias can exert its influence at any phase of discovery. Background and belief inform: researcher hypotheses, initial fact gathering, study preparation, method formation, data analysis, and interpretation of results to form a conclusion (Sackett, 1979).

How many times have we heard the claim, “data speaks for itself”?  In fact, as professors of anthropology, Delcore and Mullooly, have pointed out: “Data never speaks for itself, it always requires an act of interpretation (yes, even statistics are mute until we give them meaning!)” (2009). 

The duo also point out that science “only works via social and cultural means, and that capricious insights and idiosyncrasies — personal, social, cultural — matter greatly in how the work of science gets done” (Delcore & Mullooly, 2009). 

This statement underscores the importance of the next strategy.

• Check source and authority. We substantiate and validate our thinking against resources available to us. Because our search for information often begins on the internet, it’s important to apply standards and practices helpful to the collection of reference material. These include source validations such as cross referencing and validating information (November, 2007), as well as checking the publisher, author, purpose, timeliness, and accessibility of facts from the site (“Evaluating web sites,” n.d.; November, 2007; “Evaluating web sites,” 2009). Closer review of the referenced authority includes: evaluation of credentials, affiliations, motivations, as well as whether their work is subject to peer review, the consistency of their reasoning, and the level of respect offered to them by their field (Lipps, 1999).

• Accept and expect controversy. Science is a social enterprise (Lipps, 1999), done in community. Research and scholarship, like science, rely on shared effort in exploration (Delcore & Mullooly, 2009). Lipps describes that science is advanced by controversy, explaining that “Because science is actually a group activity, each scientist builds on the work of others through criticism and support, and then contributes ideas to be used or criticized by those who follow” (1999).

Ideas and theories grow through disagreement, question, and debate. It’s the dialogue, the lively banter of scholarship, that progresses our next efforts and should be welcome… perhaps even provoked.

Conclusion

Some bias is blatant, marked by hostility, logical fallacy, omissions of evidence, or other immediately apparent prejudice. Other forms are more subtle and seductive, wooing us with claims of bias-free, fact-based clarity, even while implicitly guided by masked objectives and invalidating lapses in reasoning. As scholars, we need to remain diligent about any material we use, and maybe even vigilant when using sources from the web.

This point is crucial. Research and theoretical exploration happen in a social context. If we were to become purveyors of bias, whether inadvertently or intentionally, we not only discredit ourselves and diminish our own merit as academic contributors, but we also risk disservice to our field. This is a harm I would rather not inflict and invite us all to be cautious to avoid.

References

Delcore, H. and Mullooly, J. (2009, July 17). Data and Insight in Tension? Retrieved from http://theanthroguys.com/2009/07/17/data-and-insight-in-tension

Lipps, J.H. 1999. This is science! Pp. 3-16 in J. Scotchmoor and D.A. Springer (eds.). Evolution: Investigating the evidence. Paleontological Society Special Publication, vol. 9. Retrieved from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/jlipps/science.html

November, A. (n.d.) “Find the publisher of a website.”  Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://novemberlearning.com/resources/information-literacy-resources/v-find-the-publisher-of-a-website/ 

November, Alan (2007, December 6). Who owns the websites your kids access? [video]. Retrieved from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLS_rlwnwI 

Paul, A.M. (1998). Where bias begins: The truth about stereotypes. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199805/where-bias-begins-the-truth-about-stereotypes

Purdue University Libraries. (n.d.) “Evaluating web sites.” Retrieved from http://www.lib.purdue.edu/rguides/studentinstruction/evaluation/evaluatingwebsites.html

Sackett, D. L. (1979). “Bias in analytic research.” J Chron Dis, Vol 32, pp 51 – 63. Pergamon Press Ltd Great Britain. Retrieved from http://www.epidemiology.ch/history/PDF%20bg/Sackett%20DL%201979%20bias%20in%20analytic%20research.pdf

Simard, C. (n.d.). “The prevalence of gender stereotyping and bias: An overview.” Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://anitaborg.org/files/the_prevalence_of_gender_stereotyping_and_bias.pdf

University of Maryland University Libraries. (2009, September). “Evaluating web sites.” Retrieved from http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/evaluate.html/