Week 4 Notes: Critical Thinking, STEEPLE Analysis, and Misinformation Context

Week 4: Week 4 asynchronous activities and lecture

  • The instructor’s plan: lecture on several topics that would normally be covered in class, followed by a series of activities students must complete after watching the lecture.
  • There is a new assignment in the Discussions section which will count as attendance for the week.
  • The lecture is currently being recorded; Status shows as pending until the recording is finished.
  • After watching the lecture, students will:
    • complete a Stein (steeple) analysis task;
    • read about a case;
    • answer questions;
    • comment on two classmates’ posts to provide insight.
  • Objective: help students start to dive deeper into the case and develop critical thinking.

Critical thinking and assumptions in argumentation

  • The instructor relates this to GRE preparation and prior teaching at USC to build critical thinking skills.

  • Key theme: we often have to make assumptions because we won’t have complete information (gaps in data, like in spreadsheets or formulas).

  • Assumptions are necessary but must be scrutinized: not all assumptions are equal, and unexamined assumptions can lead to bad decisions.

  • Important point: making assumptions is not forbidden; it’s about being aware of what you’re assuming and whether those assumptions are fair.

  • If we cannot make a decision with imperfect information, we may need to identify what information is missing to increase confidence in our conclusion.

  • The slide illustrates that assumptions are a core component of good argumentation, and that failing to challenge assumptions can lead to poor decisions.

  • Common everyday examples: we assume the sun will rise tomorrow; we assume there will be food tomorrow; assuming the impossible would paralyze us. The balance is to acknowledge assumptions while seeking needed information to reduce uncertainty.

  • The instructor presents a structured exercise to practice analyzing arguments by breaking down a passage into:

    • Conclusion
    • Premises
    • Assumptions
    • Flaws

  • Note: This is not about labeling information as true or false; it’s about evaluating whether the conclusion is well-supported given the premises and the quality of the assumptions.

Example 1: Jazz club investment scenario (Monroe)

  • Scenario: You are the city government of Monroe or a bank and must decide whether to fund a new jazz club (the C Note).

  • Passage summary (key claims):

    • The nearest jazz club is 65extmiles65 ext{ miles} away → local market would be all to itself.
    • Jazz is extremely popular in Monroe; the annual jazz festival drew over 100,000 attendees.
    • Several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe and a popular radio program, Jazz Nightly, airs weeknights at 7extPM7 ext{ PM}.
    • A national study indicates the typical jazz fan spends about 1,000ext/year1{,}000 ext{/year} on jazz entertainment.
    • Conclusion stated: opening a jazz club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise.

  • The student’s task: identify the conclusion, premises, and the assumptions behind them, and then discuss potential flaws.

  • Premises (as identified in class discussion):
    1) Local market would be uncontested because the nearest club is 65extmiles65 ext{ miles} away.
    2) High local interest in jazz evidenced by a large annual festival (
    ext{over }10^5 ext{ attendees}

    )
    3) Presence of well-known jazz musicians in the area implies local legitimacy and potential for performances.
    4) A popular local radio program indicates a strong jazz audience.
    5) The average jazz fan spends ext{around }$1{,}000$$ per year on jazz entertainment.

  • Assumptions (critical points to challenge):

    • Local population size and demographics supporting sufficient patronage.
    • Festival attendance represents the local customer base, not just visitors.
    • The presence of musicians translates into ticket sales and club traffic.
    • The festival attendance and radio popularity will translate into consistent, year-round club patronage.
    • The income from a fixed number of fans will scale to the club’s profitability.

  • Flaws and questions to ask (illustrative):

    • If the local population isn’t large enough, even with limited competition, the club may still fail.
    • The festival attendees could be from out of town; their numbers don’t guarantee local demand.
    • The assumption that musicians’ presence guarantees audience interest; still need venue capacity, pricing, competition, and operating costs.
    • The $1{,}000/year per fan figure assumes a certain audience loyalty and spending pattern that may not hold for a club with different pricing or location factors.
    • A more robust conclusion would require more data (population size, income, tourism, seasonality, etc.).

  • Takeaway: Before proposing the investment, more information and due diligence are needed to verify the profitability assumption.

  • Example 2: Supercorp relocation case (Corporateville vs Middlesbrough)

    • Passage:
    • Recent surge in homeowners in Corporateville implies it’s a superior place to live (vs a non-urban Middlesbrough).
    • Corporateville has lower taxes, making it cheaper to live/work there.
    • Therefore, Supercorp made the right decision moving HQ to Corporateville.
    • Analytical points:
    • Premises include: growing homeowner population; urban vs. non-urban classification; tax differences.
    • Conclusion relies on assuming that more homeowners equate to a better business environment and that lower taxes correspond to better outcomes for HQ location.
    • Assumptions and potential flaws:
    • It’s not guaranteed that population growth alone signals a desirable business climate; factors like infrastructure, talent pool, real estate costs, and quality of life matter.
    • Methodology of the homeowner survey and who was surveyed (demographics, sample size) affects interpretation.
    • The link between lower taxes and safety of work is not direct; taxes influence costs but not necessarily safety directly.
    • Other costs and benefits (e.g., services, fees, public goods) may offset tax savings.

  • Takeaway: Before accepting the conclusion, seek more data on population quality, sample methodology, and additional costs/benefits.

  • Overall skill emphasized: critique through breaking down conclusions, premises, assumptions, and identifying flaws; consider alternative explanations and need for additional data.

STEEPLE analysis: concept and illustrative example

  • What STEEPLE/steeple analysis aims to do: analyze a situation from multiple angles to avoid a narrow interpretation and facilitate objective analysis.

  • Common components (categories):

    • Social
    • Technological
    • Economic
    • Environmental
    • Political
    • Legal
    • Ethical

  • Example discussion: iPhone product lines

    • New iPhone development prompts questions about:
    • Social attitudes and user lifestyles affecting demand.
    • How technology (hardware/software) meets emerging needs.
    • Economic considerations (pricing, costs, market share, profitability).
    • Environmental concerns (supply chain, sustainability).
    • Political and legal considerations (tariffs, trade policy, import/export regulations).
    • A concrete point raised: tariffs can affect component costs and supply chain decisions, including environmental goals tied to production.
    • The Siri example underscores the value of asking questions even about unknowns to avoid being blindsided by future developments.

  • Practical takeaway: use STEEPLE to generate a broad set of questions before making a decision.

  • Note on approach to the exercise:

    • Do not simply cut-and-paste a generic STEEPLE list.
    • Create questions tailored to the specific scenario at hand (e.g., a district considering tablets for students) and consider cross-cutting impacts across categories.

Student assignment: tailored STEEPLE questions for the tablet district scenario

  • Updated scenario used for the assignment:
    • A large school district is considering replacing traditional textbooks with tablets for every student in grades 6–12.
    • The district hopes to improve learning outcomes and reduce long-term textbook costs.
  • Task: identify the conclusions, premises, and assumptions, and discuss the STEEPLE questions specific to this scenario.
  • Example categories of questions to consider (not exhaustive):
    • Economic/Cost—What is the total cost of ownership? What is the ROI? What are replacement/maintenance costs, licensing, and digital equity implications?
    • Technological—What devices, platforms, and apps will be used? How will content be delivered and updated? What about network infrastructure and device maintenance?
    • Social—How will tablets affect students, teachers, and families? What are safety, privacy, and digital literacy considerations? How will equity be addressed (access at home, beyond school)?
    • Environmental—What is the environmental impact of device production, use, and eventual disposal?
    • Political/Legal—What policies govern device use, data privacy, and district governance? Are there procurement regulations to follow?
    • Ethical—What are considerations around student data rights, surveillance, and consent?
  • Guidelines:
    • Create questions that are specific to this district/tablet scenario.
    • Do not provide ready-made answers; focus on generating the kinds of questions that would drive due diligence and a robust decision.
  • Preview of next case: the Diana Uribe case (Colombia peace process) will be discussed in depth next; students should anticipate stakeholder analysis and information integrity considerations in that case.

Context on misinformation, post-truth, and the Diana Uribe case

  • General context of misinformation and post-truth (early-mid 2010s onward):

    • 2016 marked growing awareness of fake news, algorithm-driven information flows, and distrust in experts.
    • Mechanisms discussed include:
    • Weaponization of misinformation for social engineering and political impact.
    • Confirmation bias as information processing bias.
    • Distrust of experts and reliance on personally appealing sources.
    • Algorithmic amplification of sensational content.
    • Consequences highlighted include polarization, erosion of objective verification, and real-world events influenced by misinformation (e.g., Pizzagate, January 6th events).

  • Ethical questions raised about platform responsibilities and information integrity.

  • Case context: Diana Uribe and the Colombian peace process

    • Background: Colombia had a long armed conflict with FARC spanning decades; a peace accord was negotiated and a plebiscite (national referendum) was held to approve the agreement.
    • Timeline and context: negotiations from 2012 to 2016, culminating in a plebiscite in 2016. The environment included political contention, misinformation, and emotional stakes around the peace deal.
    • Diana Uribe, a well-known journalist, faced a targeted misinformation attempt: a fake text message circulated before the plebiscite alleging that she opposed the peace process (which she did not).
    • Distribution channels matter: WhatsApp (private messaging) vs. Facebook (public-facing) affect reach, speed, and perceived credibility.

  • Questions for analysis:

    • How do different stakeholders (journalists, platforms, political actors, the public) respond to misinformation?
    • What ethical obligations do platforms and authorities have to counter false information while preserving free expression?
    • How do we assess the impact of misinformation on public opinion and democratic processes?

  • Takeaway: The case illustrates the intersection of media integrity, information ecosystems, and real-world political consequences; students should consider stakeholder roles and ethical considerations in addressing misinformation.

  • Suggested class activity following this material:

    • Identify the stakeholders in the Diana Uribe case and discuss what each stakeholder could do to mitigate misinformation and restore trust.
    • Prepare talking points on how to fix the information ecosystem in such scenarios and what responsibilities different actors bear.

What to prepare for the next session

  • The instructor will guide students to identify the diverse stakeholders in the Diana Uribe case and to discuss strategies to address the information mess.
  • Students should be ready to present stakeholder analyses, potential policy approaches, and concrete steps to reduce misinformation and its harms.