Critical Thinking in Helping Professions

~Learner Goals~

1. Identify, recognize, and apply strategies that comprise critical thinking.

2. Recognize and describe factors that form flawed beliefs and lead to poor choices.

3. Describe the personal characteristics of a critical thinker.

4. Recognize the relationship between critical thinking and clinical practice.

What is Critical Thinking?

ask questions and don’t make assumptions

• Misconceptions: critical thinking is NOT argumentative, opposing, or destructive. Not tearing other people’s ideas down.

Critical Thinking: the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons and evidence rather than emotion or anecdote (Wade, Tavris, and Garry, 2014).

• Critical thinkers are able to look for flaws in arguments and to resist claims that have no support.

• Criticizing an argument is not the same as criticizing a person making it, and they are willing to engage in vigorous debate about the validity of an idea.

• Critical thinking is not merely negative thinking. Needing more information is not negative, questioning things is not negative.

• It includes the ability to be creative and constructive the ability to come up with alternative explanations for events think of implications of research findings and apply new knowledge to social and personal problems.

• Claim(s): a belief, a statement that something is true or a fact

  • In other words, a claim is related to something you are being asked to believe or do or you are asking others to believe or do

  • Hold weight on what to believe then what to do

• Objective: without bias, (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

  • In other words, something that can be verified. Example - I can see it, and you can see it, too

• Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

  • Something that can’t easily be verified. Example - I can see it or sense it, but you can’t

  • Emotion is a subjective experience.

In sum, the definition encourages us to examine statements that we are being asked to believe or do based on info that can be verified vs. info that cannot.

• Anecdote: (story) short account of an amusing, interesting, or telling incident or experience; sometimes with implications of superficiality or unreliability.

  • In other words, something that is easily understood and appealing but not necessarily accurate.

  • Example: let me tell you what happened…

• In sum, the definition encourages us to be cautious when presented with reasons based on a “good” story.

• Emotion: a strong instinctive feeling deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.

  “Affect” - refers to positive or negative feelings including:

  1. Emotion = in-the-moment, relatively brief, automatic response.

  2. Mood = diffuse feeling lingering over time.

  3. Attitude = Established feelings about someone or something.

• Question: is affect/emotion present in helping relationships?

Emotion:

The client produces an accurate /r/ sound during treatment: Happy positive feeling

Your client does not produce accurate /r/ sound: Less positive maybe disappointed feeling

Mood:

Your client completed 4 weeks of treatment: Be in a great mood

Your client wasn’t successful after 4 weeks of treatment: Not in a great mood

Attitude:

Clinic that is a good place to work: have a good feeling

Clinic that is not a fun place to work: Have dread going to work

• For a variety of reasons, helping relationships rarely occur in emotionally neutral situations.

• Thus, critical thinkers need to understand how emotion may play a role in their ability to interpret, evaluate, and make decisions, especially in a helping relationship.

• Often times feelings are telling you valuable information as well.

• Compassion: feelings of compassion and desire to help others are emotions that typically underlie most peoples’ reasons for choosing helping professions as a career.

• Emotions can be helpful because they correspond with real-world events.

• Beliefs and evaluations that support emotions often correspond to actual events in the world.

• Emotions can also hinder us because they sometimes cloud our judgment or skew our perception of a situation.

• And bias our evaluation in ways that might be incorrect.

• In other words, critical thinkers appreciate emotions may help or hinder decision-making.

• Thus, it is essential they develop emotional competence: (emotional competence)

• Emotional competence:

  • (1) Being aware of emotion and what triggered it

  • (2) Recognizing and understanding other’s emotions

  • (3) Using compassion to form relationships with others

  • (4) Understanding how emotions may be influencing one’s thinking

• Compassion vs Empathy: I acknowledge your situation and see your hurting here is how I can help. Not getting dragged down to feeling how they feel.

• In sum critical think in a helping relationship is not “bloodless, solemn, or dispassionate,” (Wade, 1995).

  • Rather it is understood that emotion may help or hinder thinking and should be evaluated when necessary

• Perhaps, the definition of critical thinking is telling us: (1) be careful not to let emotions hinder our decision-making or to rely on unverifiable information (2) Or let others persuade us to believe or do something based on emotional reasons alone

• In sum, our view of critical thinking includes: evaluating what others are asking us to believe or do, making decisions based on good reasons, especially when helping others, appreciating that helping relationships often involve feelings, such as compassion, and desire to make the best possible choices for people who need our help.

Why is Critical Thinking Relevant in Helping Professions?

1. In the future, I will need to manage and evaluate an expanding and evolving body of complex information that will come at me from different directions and sources.

   • Some of that information will come from sources that are trustworthy and some from sources that should be carefully judged for credibility

   • And critical thinking will help you evaluate the trustworthiness of these sources and the quality of that information

2. Because research shows smart, good-intentioned people make foolish decisions and hold false beliefs

   • Including physicians, psychologists, Wall Street investors, and scientists

   • Example 1: A common “false belief” held by physicians and non-physicians was that we use only 10% of our brains — WRONG! Speech production, for example, is essentially a “whole” brain/nervous system activity.

   • Example 2: Even our professionals have held “false beliefs” about the best treatment choices such as: facilitated communication and nonspeech oral motor exercises

   • Critical thinking has been shown to minimize the likelihood of developing false beliefs and making poor choices.

3. Because most future employers want you to have critical thinking skills.

4. Because the accuracy of your beliefs and your decision-making skills are central to the quality of the choices you make for helping others in clinical practice.

   • Evidence-based practice (EBP): client perspectives, clinical expertise, and evidence (external and internal).

   • And when we make decisions to help others, we would like our beliefs to be based on clinical reality.

   • Critical thinking helps to increase the likelihood that clinical beliefs are as accurate as possible

   • More accurate clinical beliefs increase the likelihood our decisions to help will lead to the desired outcome for our clients

5. Because the belief that critical thinking will emerge naturally from higher education is based more on wishful thinking than actual evidence.

   • More likely to learn critical thinking when:

   • Taught directly as a set of skills and values

   • Practiced within the specific knowledge area

6. Critical thinking is recommended as a general knowledge and skill for undergraduate education in CSD by ASHA.

7. Critical thinking is valued by UGA as an outcome of your university education, as identified by the comprehensive learner record.

In sum, critical thinking is important to you because it is:

• essential part of higher education

• Relevant to becoming a SLP or AuD

• A skill emphasized by employers

• Essential for increasing chances of making best choices for people you want to help

• Reducing chances you will unintentionally make poor choices

Chapter 1

Question 1:

• Experts, to what degree do we trust them? They sound like they know a lot, sound confident and certain, and may disagree with each other, but at the same time, it is important to listen and then make up your own mind.

• Listen to the other points of view because there may be something valuable there.

• Experts know a lot and have relevant experience on a particular topic

• Thus, listening to their views on that topic is worthwhile, especially when they provide supporting evidence.

• Their expertise rarely applies outside their topic area.

Question 2:

• Weak-sense thinker: critical thinking for selfish ends, defending own beliefs while tearing down other’s in order to promote their own views

• Strong-sense: Critical thinking to evaluate all claims including one’s own, protect against self-deception and conformity, and open to other’s views when well-founded.

• Strong-sense characteristics are:

  • more likely to protect against developing false beliefs

  • Thus making better choices for people seeking their help

  • weak-sense thinkers are more likely to be concerned about themselves than others

Question 3:

• Values are:

  • ideas we view as worthwhile, but not always stated and provide the basis for evaluating the behavior of others and ourselves.

Question 4:

Based on ASHA Code of Ethics — Based on 4 principles:

• Responsible for the welfare of your clients

  • Evaluate the effectiveness of your services

  • Protect confidentiality and security of your client’s records

  • Do not discriminate in service delivery on basis of race, gender, sexual, orientation, national origin, or religion.

• Maintain your professional competence

• Act with honesty and integrity

• Uphold dignity and autonomy of our professions

Chapter 13

Question 1:

• Obstacles to thinking

• Knowing they are there, doesn’t mean they disappear

• But can handle them if you slow down

Question 2:

• Daul-Process Theory describes system 1 and system 2 thinking in more detail.

• System 1 thinking - sometimes referred to as intuition - consists of habits, overlearned associations, and pattern recognition based on prior experience

  • Characteristics include: fast, no effort, no focus required, nondeliberate, working memory (what you have in your mind in the moment as your thinking things through) unnecessary, and may include automatic feelings such as “feeling of rightness” (i.e., “this feels right to me”)

• System 2 thinking - it is conscious and self-regulated.

  • Characteristics include: slow, effortful, focused, deliberate, working memory necessary, and may include conscious feelings, such as “unpleasantness” (i.e., “thinking is hard!”)

  • System 2 is more likely to be required for critical thinking.

• Systems 1 and 2 often interact with each other. System 1 throws out some answers, and then system 2 intervenes.

Question 3:

• Why am I thinking what I’m thinking?

Question 4:

• Why are stereotypes bad?

• Broad characterizations about a person based on group membership

• Efficient mental shortcuts, but can be unfair

• This is an example of system 1 or 2

Question 5:

• What stereotypes does the public have about communication disorders?

Question 6:

• The halo effect — see someone with bias that they might be better than they are

• Overgeneralize from one personal characteristic — positive or negative — to entire person

• This is system one thinking

Question 7:

“When we change our minds in light of superior argument, we deserve to be proud that we have resisted the temptation to remain true to long-held beliefs. Such a change of mind deserves to be seen as reflecting a rare strength.” - Francis Bacon

• Possibly most challenging bias for critical thinkers to overcome

• This is sometimes referred to as “Myside Bias” (this is what I believe, it must be true)

Question 8:

• The curse of knowledge: forget what it was like when we did not know what we now know

• What you know now about anatomy of speech, and hearing is much more sophisticated than most people, including your future clients and sometimes we forget that they don’t know this like we do

Question 9:

• Wishful thinking — optimism

• We interpret information according to what we want to believe rather than what it really means esp. because what we want to believe makes us feel good and what it really means probably won’t

• Result: we may mistakenly believe one thing when the reality is something else

• System 1

Question 10:

• The outcomes we “wish” for when we make our treatment decisions may be based on what we want to believe will happen rather than what the evidence suggests will happen

• Caution wish & hope are not the same

  • hope implies a desired outcome that is possible or likely

  • Example: our hope that this client will improve is informed by plausible reasons (this treatment usually works)

  • Wish implies a desired outcome that is impossible or unlikely

  • Example: your wish that this client will improve is informed by unrealistic reasons ( this treatment rarely works but it will make me feel good if it does)

• In sum, B & K are asking us to appreciate that:

  • System 1 or fast thinking works well, especially when we have lots of prior experience; but may mislead as suggested by speed bumps: stereotypes and halo effect

  • System 2 or slow thinking, especially when it includes critical thinking, may help us manage those speed bumps

  • However even critical thinkers may find challenges overcoming:

    • Belief perseverance because it requires us to accept that sometimes we may be wrong

    • Wishful thinking because it requires us to accept that our desires may not always match reality.

Chapter 2

Question 1:

• Issue: question or controversy under consideration

• In other words, an event that requires system 2 thinking and doesn’t have a ready answer such as a problem that needs to be solved, and ideally will encourage you to think critically

Question 2:

• Descriptive: Questions about the accuracy of information

• In other words, questions related to the credibility of facts that are relevant to CSD

Question 3:

• Examples of descriptive issues - GLP

• What type of communication disorder does a client have

• What treatment approach is the most effective for managing this communication disorder

Question 4:

• Prescriptive issue: (Good or bad, right or wrong) questions about how we should behave or act

• In other words, questions related to standards of conduct or ethics concerning CSD professionals.

• What should we do about clinicians who charge for services they never administered?

• What should clinicians do when their client is unjustly denied services?

Question 5:

• Conclusion: what an author wants you to believe or wants you to do

• Who is an “author”? Authors of book, magazine, web page, podcast, blog, journal article. Also someone on social media or television. Peopel in your life, significant others, etc. Fellow helping professionals. And you! — when you make a claim

• In other words, anyone who makes a claim

Question 6:

• In sum B & K are asking us to appreciate that when beginning to evaluate an argument or claim, make sure you understand the:

• Question or controversy under consideration = issue and what you are being asked to believe or do based on that issue = conclusion

Chapter 3

Question 1:

• The basis for believing or supporting a conclusion

Question 2:

• Essential for evaluating the credibility of the conclusion and encourages openness to other views

Question 3:

• Argument = conclusion + reasons

• Unfortunately B & K left out the “issue”

• Issue & Conclusion + Reasons

In sum, B & K want us to understand that reasons are essential for evaluating an argument because they are meant to support the conclusion and provide a basis for determining the accuracy or credibility of the conclusion

• Reasons will likely influence whether or not we will accept the conclusion

• Where did those reasons come from will be important for us to “think” about later

What does “bias” mean?

1. Tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly (doens’t matter for this class)

2. Strong interest in something or ability to do something (little more associated)

3. Quality that makes something likely to happen or that makes someone likely to think or behave in a particular way (this is definition we will use in this class)

   • For our purposes, “bias” is similar to an affective attitude — positive or negative feelings about someone or something that will influence how you think or behave.

   • In sum, “bias” can have negative connotations or meaning but not always.

Chapter 4

What words or phrases are ambiguous?

Question 1:

• Do you understand the meaning of keywords/phrases?

  • if not, then you may not understand the argument

• Because keywords/phrases will probably influence if you will accept a conclusion

  • Most likely find them in reasons or conclusions

Question 2:

• Examples

Question 3:

• Stuttering vs. Disfluency

• Deaf vs. Hearing Impairment/Hard of Hearing

• Speech vs. Language

Question 4:

• Assume you and author share same meaning

  • ask: what do you mean?

• Assume one definition only for term

  • ask: does word have other possible meanings?

In sum, B & K are asking us to appreciate that not everyone shares same meaning of words or phrases, thus when you can, it is important to doublecheck author’s intended meaning

For helping professionals, this is important because our understanding of CSD words may not be the same as the general public’s

Chapter 5

Question 1:

1. What assumptions needed for reasons to support conclusion.

   • Example: Clinician providing these reasons is honest

2. What assumptions needed for reasons to be true

   • Example: This language assessment provides accurate information as a reason for this diagnosis

Question 2:

• Value assumption: an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context

• Keep in mind that a value is a principle or standard of behavior relevant for believing a claim

• Example: An honest clinician’s claim is likely more believable than a dishonest clinician’s.

Question 3:

• Background = a person’s education, experience, and social circumstances (Oxford English Dictionary).

• The author’s background will likely say something about their values

• But be careful because group membership doesn’t always mean a person shares those group values, although odds are they share some or most of them

• Context does matter

Question 4:

• ASHA Code of Ethics — Based on 4 Principles (abridged)

  1. Responsible for the welfare of your clients

  2. Maintain your professional competence

  3. Act with honesty and integrity

  4. Uphold dignity and autonomy of our professions

Question 5:

• Their standards of conduct or professional values will be consistent and not in conflict, with the ASHA code of Ethics in the context of a helping relationship

Question 6:

• Conflict of interest: situations where clinicians or researchers have conflicting interests or obligations that may influence their objectivity

• Focus: Does a clinician or researcher have a conflict of interest?

• Conflict arises when one role — being a clinician or researcher — is overly influenced by one of their other roles — e.g., financial or personal (Kazdin, 2015)

• Why is conflict of interest a potential value conflict:

  • because we worry that financial or personal gain may negatively influence a practitiione’s clinical objectivity or a researcher’s scientific objectivity

  • and this might impact the credibility of their claim

Question 7:

• How do we know if a clinician has a conflict of interest:

• We probably won’t know unless they tells us or something about their background or behavior suggests it

• Fortunately, conflict of interest is taken so seriously that clinicians are required to disclose if they have outside, related business or financial interests, influencing their decisions, such as:

  • Personal partnerships with businesses whose products they might suggest their clients purchase

  • Examples: Hearing aids and AAC Devices

  • AI — trying to train AI if a child miss pronounces a sound, but they are developing products that will be marketable

• Must disclose possible conflicts of interest - ASHA

• Ethically required to tell us

• Researchers are also required to disclose if they have a conflict of interest in:

  • Published journal articles

  • Conference/webinar presentations

• You shouldn’t have to guess about conflicts of interest

Thus, our focus when we look for value assumptions will be on conflict of interest, and this means:

• If a clinician or researcher:

  • Openly discloses a conflict of interest or openly discloses no conflict of interest then we can evaluate the credibility of their reasons in view of that information.

• What does each type of disclosure suggest to us:

  • IF they declare a conflict of interest, then we know their claim may be biased in favor of personal gain, but we appreciate that they told us.

  • IF they declare no conflict of interest, then we know their claim is less likely biased in favor of personal gain.

  • IF they declare no conflict of interest, and there actually is one and we find out then we strongly suspect their claim is biased in favor of personal gain.

Question 8:

• Descriptive assumptions: unstated belief about way world is was or will be, ones beliefs about factual information

Question 9:

• Need to know what information logically connects the reasons to the conclusion

Question 10 (a):

• Our answers

Question 10 (b):

• Our answers

Dissecting Research

• Results: the researcher’s reasons

• Discussion: how these results may support the conclusion

• Method: how results were obtained where we look for their reasons

Finding descriptive assumptions:

• Results from diagnostic assessments are the clinician’s reasons for concluding what a person’s problem may be

• Quantity and quality of research evidence on managing communication disorder will likely influence the clinician’s reasons for selecting a treatment

• look at the the methods or clinical procedures section

• Disclosure statement in published research:

  • For ASHA: found at the bottom of first page of article in print form.

  • Authors info and affiliations

  • Likely at the end of the discussion before the references

Descriptive Assumptions:

• When researchers provides reasons for supporting their conclusions, we need to look at how those reasons were obtained

• Like most research studies: results section of a study provides the researches’ reasons

• Discussion: section of a study describes how these results may support the researchs’ conclusion

• We need to ask: How were the results obtained so we can determine if they are credible support for the conclusion

• Method section of a study describes how the results were obtained so this is where we look for heir descriptive assumptions

• When clinicians provides reasons for supporting their conclusions we need to look at how those reasons were obtained

  • Like most clinical situations results from diagnostic assessments are the clinician’s reasons for concluding what a person’s problem may be

  • and quantity and quality of research evidence on managing a communication disorder will likely influence the clinician’s reasons for selecting a treatment

  • We need to ask: how good are the assessments for arriving at a diagnosis

  • And how convincing is the research evidence for selecting a treatment.

• Critical thinking essential components:

  1. Thinking skills (asking the right questions): Interpretation, evaluation, and metacognition

  2. Thinking dispositions (Epistemic values):

     • Epistemic = related to what you know and reasons you believe you know it

     • Open-mindedness: wiling to consider alternative views, especially when supported by good reasons

     • Reflective thinking: willing to learn from past experiences and consider the quality of evidence

  3. Knowledge of cognitive biases (Speed bumps):

     • Ways our thinking sometimes goes wrong

• (1) Interpretation, (2) Evaluation, and (3) Metacognition

• Interpretation: (goal) How much do you understand about the issue that will be the focus of your thinking

  • What are the issue and conclusion?

  • What are the reasons?

  • What words or phrases are ambiguous?

  • What are the assumptions?

• Evaluation: (goal) How acceptable you believe conclusion is in view of quality of reasons provided to support it.

  • What are the assumptions?

  • Fallacies in the reasoning?

  • How good is the evidence?

  • Are their rival causes?

  • Are the stats deceptive?

  • What significant information is missing?

  • What are reasonable conclusions are possible?

• Metacognition: (goal) monitor and evaluate your thinking during interpretation and evaluation of argument

  • Monitor your progress

  • Check your biases and assumptions

  • use strategic thinking

How can our thinking go wrong?

• We prefer “stories” to “statistics”

• Story examples:

  • anecdotes - “in my experience” as told by others

  • Newspaper/magazine stories

  • Books - memoirs

  • Personal websites/YouTube

  • some podcasts/blogs

  • testimonials

  • movies/television - “based on true story”

  • personal experience - “your own stories”

• Examples of statistics (evidence):

  • Scientific journal articles

  • Clinical research

  • Conference presentations

  • CSD textbooks

  • some blogs/podcasts

  • internet presentations of scientific research

• Why do we prefer stories to statistics?

  • stories have attention-grabbing characteristics:

  • personal - related to someone real

  • vivid - make a clear impression

  • emotional - evoke feelings

• Stories are easy to relate to personal thus making them seem credible

• Stories tap into system 1 thinking because they are easily relatable

• We fail to appreciate: stories have potential limitations such as:

  • SOme details of story emphasized

  • other details left out or de-emphasized

• May contain distortions to:

  • make the story more entertaining

  • serve self-interest of the author

  • seem more credible

• Bottom line: stories may seem more credible than they actually are

• Wendell Johnson: one of the 1st PhDs in our profession in USA

  • Widely respected and admired during his time

  • Published early research describing stuttering

  • His theory was very influential from 1940s - 1980s, but no longer viewed as credible

  • Johnson never mentioned Tudor study in his many journal articles chapters and books

The “Monster Study”

• Silverman: former student but after Tudor study

  • First person to describe Tudor’s master’s thesis including selected quotes form her thesis

• claimed others associated with Johnson at the time called it the “monster” study

• claimed Tudor’s study directly supported Johnson’s theory though Johnson never mentioned or published it

• Later after full details of Tudor study published it was clear Silverman left out information contradicting his claim.

• Dyer: Riveting two-part story, detailed look at lives of Johnson, Tudor, and the study orphans

  • Mary Tudor interviewed she believed her study had caused stuttering in orphans

  • Very emotional story

  • Received international media attention

• The Tudor study became so controversial that the Dyer story prompted researchers to look closely at Tudor’s thesis to see what it actually said.

• Ambrose and Yairi (2002) critically reviewed U of Iowa Library copy of Tudor thesis

  • Described study in detail and they concluded study did not support Johnson’s theory

  • Addressed ethical issue of orphans as subjects

  • In 1930’s orphans often subjects in studies

  • Study never possible today

• In sum the “Johnson” story as presented:

  • Appeared relatable and credible

  • supported Johnson’s ideas and many believed Tudor’s study cause orphans to stutter

  • But the story was wrong

  • Result: Story led many to believe one thing when the reality was something else

• Why are we less likely to prefer statistics?

  • Impersonal - people often reduced to numbers, no “human touch”

  • Emotionless, abstract, dry, and boring

  • Intimidating - technical jargon

  • Transparent - no “surprises”

  • Statistics depend on system 2 thinking. They require working memory, time, and effort

  • We fail to appreciate that they are likely more credible

  • Objective - designed to minimize bias

  • representative - “lots” of participants

  • Quantitative - statistical tests

  • Vetted by experts - peer-reviewed

• The bottom line is they are more likely a valid source of information

• In sum the genetic story as presented: was intimidating, abstract, and dry, but supported genetic predisposition to stutter and was replicated in other studies

  • today we believe stuttering has biological foundations

• Result: we’ve moved towards biological factors and away from environmental factors as explanations for stuttering and this has meant we are less likely to blame the parents or primary caretakers for its onset

• In toto: Natural to believe that “stories” are more credible than “statistics” because stories are easier to relate to and connect with than statistics

• But we fail to appreciate stories may be limited and unrepresentative

• Whereas statistics may be more credible and complete

• therefore, critical thinkers need to be “story skeptics”

• In other words, okay to question rather than accept stories at “face calue”

• Evidence suggests they are more likely to rely on colleague’s recommendations

• Given how powerful “stories” can connect and persuade

• Perhaps they can be combined with “statistics”

• To influence others in helping relationships

Practice Assignment 1:

Question 1:

• Our biases

Question 2:

• Specific issue: are college women more attracted to men who may or may not like them, as compared to the ones that like them the most or average

• General issue: reciprocal

Question 3:

• Conclusion:

  • Women

B & K Chapter 6:

• Deceieves you into thinking reason is valid support for conclusion when it is not\

• So easy to use sometimes we do not realize we’re using them

• Fallacy: Deception, guile, trickery; a deception; a false statement, a lie

1. Ad hominem “against the person”: if qualities of person making argument are unacceptable then argument must be unacceptable.

   a. Pro hominem “for person”: if the qualities of person making argument are acceptable then argument must be acceptable.

2. Narrative fallacy: because a story appears to explain the facts, we believe it is accurate when it probably is not. “We prefer stories to statistics”.

3. Slippery Slope: take this action and it will start inevitable chain reaction that will lead to an unwelcome ending.

4. Searching for the perfect solution: partial solutions are considered invalid or worthless.

5. Appeal to popularity: if a lot of people claimed to believe something then must be credible

6. Appeal to questionable authority: if someone with authority says it, then it must be credible, except in reality, authority expertise is not relevant to claim

7. Appeal to emotion: if it arouses emotions (sadness, anger, happy, fear, etc.) then it must be credible

8. Straw man: Misrepresent person’s point of view so that it is easier to knock it down

9. Either-Or: present only two choices, when there are many.

10. Explaining by naming: by calling it something it appears to have explained it as well

11. Planning fallacy: underestimate amount of time to get project completed despite the fact that you should know better by now.

12. Glittering generality: Positively charged words create halo effect.

13. Red herring: add information that is sufficiently distracting that one loses track of the original argument.

14. Begging the question: conclusion is already assumed to be true in the reasons

Post Spring Break

How our thinking can go wrong pt. 2

• When asked “Are you good-hearted?”

  • What comes to mind first? Most of us automatically search our memories for positive or supporting examples and evidence

  • And when we find it, what do we do? Share, then we Stop!

  • Whereas, automatic search for negative or contradictory examples and evidence is less likely because it requires more deliberate effort.

  • Our tendency to search for positive evidence only is known as “confirmation bias” or “myside bias”

• Thus, the most fundamental bias that influences all of us, including helping professionals, is confirmation bias, and to make it easier to remember we will from it as follows → (1) we prefer “stories” to “statistics” (2) we seek to confirm not question beliefs.

• When we look for evidence to support our beliefs:

  • Natural for us to look for positive or supporting evidence. first then stop when we find it

  • But unnatural to look for negative evidence thus we often fail to look for it

  • Yet we fail to consider: negative evidence provides more complete and balanced picture than positive evidence alone

  • Negative evidence often informative or provides more balanced view

• But there is a dark side to confirmation bias

  • related to what might happen when we do encounter negative evidence

  • What might happen if we encounter negative evidence:

    1. Ignore it

    2. Down play it

    3. Distort it in our favor

TED Talk – Kathryn Schulz

• The dark side of confirmation bias also reflects a larger concern: We don’t like being wrong.

1. It doesn’t feel like anything. It feels like being right! It feels like you are on solid ground.

2. (1) Error blindness: we have no internal cues telling us we are wrong. (2) Cultural message: we are raised to believe “being wrong” means we are lazy, irresponsible dimwits (2a) the only way to succeed is to never make any mistakes. But what if we’re wrong about that! (3)

3. You are ignorant and thus need to be informed. You are an idiot because even when informed you still don’t get it. Oh you get it but still won’t agree with what I believe therefore you must be evil.

4. Examples

In sum, Schulz is asking us to appreciate that

• Our desire to always be right

• combined with our fear of being wrong

• meaning we often fail to recognize the value of being wrong

• And as a result we might close our minds to other view other possibilities

In toto: we seek to confirm not question our beliefs because natural for us to seek evidence to support our beliefs rather than look for evidence that questions them and when faced with negative evidence we might ignore, downplay, or distort it in our favor failing to consider we might be wrong. Thus missing an opportunity to calibrate our beliefs to the way the world really is than what we wish it would be.

• Confirmation bias affects us as clinicians:

  • Examine evidence fairly and with open mind

  • claim our personal experience trumps empirical evidence

• Nonspeech motor oral exercises:

  • whistling, blowing, smile-pucker, tongue wagging, cheek puffing

• But reviews of evidence raise serious concerns

  1. Theory is unsound

     • Brain “blowing” doesn’t equal brain “speaking”

     • Little muscle strength needed for speech

  2. Positive evidence provided by developers only, otherwise evidence is weak non-supportive

  3. Insufficient evidence to support use in clinic

Final thought: How might we counter confirmation bias?

1. Generate and consider counterarguments:

   • If you are certain about treatment choice:

     • Ask: what are the reasons for using it

     • Then ask: what are the reasons for not using it

2. Set aside personal beliefs on issue and consider quality of argument:

   • If you are biased in favor of treatment choice look at it in terms of quality of evidence

Observation is an important skill for audiologists and speech-lang pathologists

• Example 1: “The Gorilla Video” suggests that our intuition about our observation skills maybe wrong

  • If you were told you were to see the gorilla before hand, 90% of students said yes, they believed they would see it.

  • But in reality about half of us would miss the gorilla in the room

  • Simon and Chabris (1999) conducted the original Gorilla video study:

  • Based on 192 participants they found 46% failed to notice gorilla (or woman with umbrella)

  • Why? Inattentional blindness for unexpected events

  • We mistakenly believe our brains preserve and include all details from visual scene in front of us, reality: it does not!

  • Maybe the reason we miss the gorilla because our eyes never see it?

    • To find out memmert (2006) tracked participants’ eye movements while watching the same Gorilla video

    • Based on 21 participants he found 60% did not remember the Gorillla and the group wo did not say they saw the Gorilla looked directly at it for a full second, no different than the group who saw it.

  • Why doesn’t the gorilla enter our conscious awareness?