My first degree was in Classics, 30 years ago, and I was taught that the building blocks of critical thinking were, with an open mind, reading the strongest pro argument for a position, and the best con argument etc, and then negotiating the arguments raised to come to a nuanced standpoint. This is still how I approach academia today, and probably why I hold sceptical/maverick perspectives.
What I see nowadays, is the presentation of the right way to think, trashing of contesting perspectives, and the cancelling of anyone with an unapproved viewpoint. To the point that I'm shocked if I come across a professional that tolerates a perspective they don't endorse. Ironically for my teenage anarche feminist self, the left seems less capable of negotiating and respecting diverse perspectives than the right.
Critically thinking psychiatry, from my perspective, would start by interrogating its foundations and presenting the pros and cons for itself, rather than presenting itself as yet another absolute truth. It looks like they another groupthink exercise that relegates the difficult part to the title, never to sully the rest of the enterprise.
Edward de Bono dealt with this years ago by introducing simple perceptual tools to replace lectures in philosophy. Notably, he did it in a way that was accessible to everyone, including young children, rather than being limited to old codgers with enormous vocabularies.
The first of the tools is called PMI and starts the thinker on the path of "reading the strongest pro argument for a position, and the best con argument etc". There are many other tools available...
Great stuff. Some good nuances but the final thoughts of this essay delivered to me the greatest punch (let's hope it's a cocktail not a boxing swing).
"And that’s the crucial point about critical thinking, it actually starts with a look in the mirror. It’s not a case of “What are they doing wrong?” because that’s easy; it starts with “What am I doing wrong?” which is a lot more difficult."
My first degree was in Classics, 30 years ago, and I was taught that the building blocks of critical thinking were, with an open mind, reading the strongest pro argument for a position, and the best con argument etc, and then negotiating the arguments raised to come to a nuanced standpoint. This is still how I approach academia today, and probably why I hold sceptical/maverick perspectives.
What I see nowadays, is the presentation of the right way to think, trashing of contesting perspectives, and the cancelling of anyone with an unapproved viewpoint. To the point that I'm shocked if I come across a professional that tolerates a perspective they don't endorse. Ironically for my teenage anarche feminist self, the left seems less capable of negotiating and respecting diverse perspectives than the right.
Critically thinking psychiatry, from my perspective, would start by interrogating its foundations and presenting the pros and cons for itself, rather than presenting itself as yet another absolute truth. It looks like they another groupthink exercise that relegates the difficult part to the title, never to sully the rest of the enterprise.
Edward de Bono dealt with this years ago by introducing simple perceptual tools to replace lectures in philosophy. Notably, he did it in a way that was accessible to everyone, including young children, rather than being limited to old codgers with enormous vocabularies.
The first of the tools is called PMI and starts the thinker on the path of "reading the strongest pro argument for a position, and the best con argument etc". There are many other tools available...
https://www.debono.com/de-bono-thinking-lessons-1/1.-pmi-lesson-workcard
Great stuff. Some good nuances but the final thoughts of this essay delivered to me the greatest punch (let's hope it's a cocktail not a boxing swing).
Great piece.
"And that’s the crucial point about critical thinking, it actually starts with a look in the mirror. It’s not a case of “What are they doing wrong?” because that’s easy; it starts with “What am I doing wrong?” which is a lot more difficult."
Yes. Mainstream psychiatrists sorely lack critical thinking skills.
Good to see the whole history of psychiatry again, in Nazi Germany, Russia, etc