FINAL

critical thinking process

goal fair/open-minded active & informed skeptical independent

goal

objective thorough evaluation of info

dualism

authority is correct and should be deffered to

relativism

authority isnt always right. opinions are personal and relative to experiences, values, etc.

commitment

blindly opposing or following authority isnt realistic. Judgments must be made based on logic

why avoid critical thinking

takes additional effort afraid of opening pandora’s box not enjoyable requires focus no tangible result

when use critical thinking

consequences

fair & open minded

resistance to selective perception resistance to confirmation bias resistance to self-serving bias resistance to wishful thinking

active & Informed

resistance to mindlessness resistance to emotional hijacking resistance to impulsivity

Skeptical

resistance to on-shot thinking (satisficing) resistance to stereotypes resistance to illusory correlations resistance to insensitivity to sample size

Independence

resistance to conformity resistance to ethnocentrism resistance to anchoring & adjustment bias

memory effects

resistance to habitual override resistance to recency effect resistance to availability bias resistance to hindsight bias

innaccurate perceptions

resistance to over confidence bias resistance to illusion of con

claims

foundation of an argument -will enhance credibility -allows for dismantling argument -if a personal opinion argument is useless

claim

declarative statement used in such a way that its either true or false (not both)

not claim

why did you do that? (claim or not claim)

claim

there is a yellow marble on table (claim or not)

not

get out of here (claim or not)

claim

people shouldnt pay their income taxes, unless audited (claim or not)

claim

cheese is made from unicorn milk (claim or not)

arguments become stronger

clarity levels are max application width is limited (big claims are harder to grasp) recognized measurement is used advisory level is limited time reference is in past

claim characteristic \#1 (clarity level)

avoids ambiguity reviewing for possible misinterpretations providing definitions if necessary ex: “2021 uni grads reported to find job” reported by who

claim characteristic \#2 (narrow claims)

limited number of application targeted, specific application of content to a defined set

broad claims

wide application of content, large number of targets, causes generalizations

generalizations

caused by extremely broad claims (large number of targets, max application)

qualifiers of quantity

some, most, all, none

qualifiers of time

occasionally, sometimes, now and again, usually, always, never

qualifiers of certainty

i guess, i think, I know , I am absolutely certain

qualifiers of possibility

could, may, likely, possible

claim characteristic \#3 recognized measurement tool

impersonal standards\=objective personal standards\=subjective

objective claim

objective claims have ‘truth value’ validity determined with agree-upon method to determine if true or false in disagreement, someone can be proven wrong

subjective claim

no truth value no agree-upon method to determine if claim is true or false in a disagreement, both people can be right ex: my dog is adorable

claim characteristic \#4 advisory level

descriptive: descriptive explanation prescription: statement tells what to do (recommendations/advice)

claim characteristic \#5 time reference

look for past tense in a claim

identifying claims

separate info into easily identifiable claimsensure clarity by rephrasing

argument

attempt to convince someone that the conclusion supported by a reason ex: conclusion: (shes the best) reason: (because she works hard)

premises

rest of argument that includes reasons for believing conclusion is true

Assessing an argument

1. separate info into easily identifiable claims ensure clarity and understanding by rephrasing some claims if necessary. Be sure each can be understood in isolationreview info to determine main conclusionreview info for sub conclusionsconsider grouping like pieces of info togetherreview connections between each premise and conclusionbuild diagram by putting logical connections together in a single figure

doom loop

business starting out with questionable assumptions can make incorrect predictions, take inapproptiate actions, wind up with disappointing outcomes

assumption

belief that is accepted as true, even if it hasn’t been proven or justified

implicit assumption

and assumption we cannot see, and arn’t questioned

explicit assumption

assumptions that are present and can be seen

factors that impact probability of assuming

limited knowledge info focus on automatic thinking threat risk

capturing and testing assumptions

look to see if assumptions are a big deal or not pass info along to other projects

severity

impact if assumption is untrue

probability

probability of assumption being untrue

cost of resolution

assess what evidence they need for resolution find simplest lower-cost way of gathering that evidence

logical fallacies

stawman false cause slippery slope personal attack moving the goal post appeal to hypcrisy appeal to common sense appeal to authority composition/division no true scotsman black/white begging question texas sharpshooter

strawman

misrepresenting someone’s argument to make is easier to attack ex: bill says he’s a mean jerk to not agree with him

false cause

presuming a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other ex: points to number of deaths next to numbers of temp rising

slippery slope

asserting that if we allow A to happen Z will happen to so A shouldnt happen ex: my toast burned to itll be a bad day

ad hominem

attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument ex: why would you believe her she isn’t married

special pleading

moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false ex: ed said he was psychic but when tested wrong he said it was because he needed more sleep that day

loaded question

asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty ex: steve and tim liked sally. when sally was near steve asked tim why hes always smelling?

gambler’s fallacy

believing that runs occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins

inferences: guidelines

collect clues avoid jumping to conclusions with first clue recognize safety of jumps strategically collect info to increase safety be transparent about safety level

conditional statement

statement that can be writtne in if-then form ex: if batteries are dead remote wont work

decision tree

branches split into mutually exclusive options end result provides a visual representation of all of the combinations

necessary

absolute required in order to fulfull condition. additional things may need to be considered as well. ex: it is necessary to get all the questions correct to get 100

sufficient

condition guarantees an outcome, there my be other conditions that will result in that outcome also getting all answers correct on a test sufficient to get 100

common decision trees in business

alternatives with business options business protocols expected values

deductive reasoning

act of backing up a generalized statement with specific scenarios general statement→particular conclusion

inductive reasoning

invent pattern for backing up with scenarios

values

qualities or standards of behavior help form principles qualities not as stern as principles

principle

rules or beliefs governing one’s behavior based on one’s values rules stern and unyielding

slippery slope

principles as generalized statements ex: lying is wrong

arguments including principles: caution

appeal to hypocrisy slippery slope

inductive reasoning

inventing theory first

fluid intelligence

ability to reason

pattern recognition

sensing→segmentation→feature extraction→classification→post processing

big date

volume variety velocity veracity\#

stawman

misrepresenting someone’s argument to

subjective

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

ex: his views are highly subjective

descriptive

statement that describes something, can be visualized with the 5 senses

objective

statement that can be proven true or false (ex: Everest is the worlds tallest mountain)

narrow

straight to the point. specific to one particular subject and is more limited than broader terms. (ex: I like dogs because they bark)

historical claim

stated in past tense (were, then, was)

prescriptive

claims that state what should be done for a desirable outcome to occur. (ex: everyone should be treated equal)

ambiguous

claims that are unclear and can be taken multiple ways

neither historical or predictive

claims that use present tense terms such as (am, is)

predictive

future tense

(will, wont, going to)

elements of a strong claim

clear, narrow, objective, descriptive, historical,

straight forward meaning

self serving bias

when individual is quick to take credit for success and blame external factors

ex: she was quick to claim event was success, doesn’t consider external factors that may have contributed to results

ambiguity

something that has more than 1 meaning

bandwagon

goes with what is popular

types of thinking

critical and creative

creative thinking

generative divergent lateral possibility suspended judgment diffuse subjective an answer right brain

creativity

ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns and relationships to create meaningful new ideas; originality or imagination

episodic memory

form of memory that allows someone to recall events of personal import

creativity: skill gap

expertise/knowledge creativity skills motivation
qualities of a creative person

creative problem solving

objective finding fact finding problem finding idea finding solution finding acceptance finding

objective finding

scan environment→comparisons→ experiences/desireable performance levels/benchmarking identify objectives→SWOT/identify concerns

fact finding

establish facts relating to problem→ scan documents, reports, attend meetings/ask who? what? when? why?

laddering

use question why? to move up and how? to move down

progressive abstractions

use to develop new problem definition (in what way might we)

why method

why one should do whatever problem states

goal orientation

what are the needs, obstacles, and constraints

boundary examination

highlight key words/phrases. Identify important connotations

5ws and H

who what when where why how to gain info

gain-loss bias

when people focus more on loss instead of gaining