Critical Thought And Questioning

Both are necessary for growth...

All right guys, this post is out of order. It was supposed to go out prior to last week’s, but I sent the second part first. Sorry about that.

It seems that this should go without saying, that there is a difference between what you learn, and what is true. This should go without saying because humans aren’t all-knowing, and we are trying to figure out our world. We are not downloaded into a construct that allows us to simply understand the world with absolute clarity.

You would also think that it goes without saying that questioning is a good thing. Not to assume that because something is said to be true, that it necessarily is. This is how human knowledge moves forward and how some of our best advancements come about.

It should also be that if there is incorrect information in what we as humans are educated with, such as a textbook, that these things would be addressed, and corrected, to the best of our ability. The world is everchanging, and we are but students at the steps of the Universe attempting to find our place in it.

Something that we are subject to, by the nature of our being, is that we do not have enough time to learn everything. Humans are very shortlived, and existence is complex beyond any one person’s understanding. We rely on specialists to explain complex things to us, and because of this, these specialists are given a great deal of leeway to be the custodians of their given specialization.

This has allowed us windows into different topics and the ability to learn about things that otherwise we wouldn’t have the time to delve into. Survival takes a good amount of time, and once you choose your own specialty, you won’t have much time for others. We have to trust what we are told, because we do not have the time or ability to absorb all the information that surrounds us.

When a person specializes in something there tends to be a mentality shift. There is a certain robe of authority that comes with this position, and people often won’t challenge someone that is seen as an expert. This wasn’t something that was very much in the public eye for a very long time because the internet wasn’t a thing, and there wasn’t a mass reach for differing, lesser-accepted opinions on the topics at hand. The information offered was left relatively unchallenged except in academic circles, and there the amount of clout you have seems to matter more than whether or not your ideas have merit.

Things have changed. There is a vast amount of information available to the general public, education abilities that didn’t exist even ten years ago, and access to knowledge that was usually reserved for those that had the ability to pay for higher education. This created a mentality that higher education had a great deal of value. Those without it were looked down on, even if the only reason that a person didn’t achieve that in their lifetime was the cost involved in going to University.

Many times in my life I have met people that truly believe that they are better because they have a degree. I find this notion laughable, but that is my opinion. The smartest people I have ever known have called out higher education for what it is, which is a scam meant to drain young people of their independence and rope them into a lifetime of debt through student loans with predatory interest rates.

However, that doesn’t change the perception of what higher education means to many people. It is still seen as a step up in life (it isn’t nearly ever), and it is seen as a testament to a person’s superior knowledge, when in reality all they have done is be in an environment that has told them what to think, and specifically denied them the lessons in how to think.

The result of this is the recitation of information without a singular critical thought about what is regurgitated as fact. As they move through their chosen career field, and everyone is working from the same body of decided knowledge, there is nowhere for that field to go. There is no advancement because there are no new ideas, and there is no one willing to challenge the old ideas.

You can find this in many so-called high education fields. Psychology, of course, is one of them. If you have followed my writing for any length of time you have seen the numerous examples of “experts” that have their alphabet soup in order, but couldn’t critically think their way out of a paper bag, type in very long sentences in very bold caps telling me that I have no idea what I’m talking about, but can’t have a discussion with me about facts.

Instead, despite their education bonafides, they resort to personal attacks which, to me at least, informs me that they can’t have the discussion because they can’t even consider the information that I am presenting. They weren’t taught to. This is a real problem, and psychology is by no means the only place where this is occurring. It is in many different professions, and it is creating a world that will never advance.

I have been trying to think as to why this sort of environment exists. It should be that if you have chosen a particular field of study you would realize that you will always be a student, never a master of that field. You won’t live long enough to be a master, though you may be very good at it. A single human does not know everything, and the moment that their ideas cannot be challenged because they are an “expert” I am of the opinion that title should be something they are stripped of.

How stunted are we as a species because there are too many egos standing in the way of advancement? How many “experts” have their wrong information repeated over and over as facts, despite there being reasonable challenges that have been posed to them, but are dismissed because it doesn’t fit a narrative? I would venture that this is not only a common problem, but it is likely the rule, not the exception.

The way we view people that have specialties under their belts shouldn’t be as though they are God-like in their knowledge. Instead, what we should evaluate is their ideas and if they are consistently reasonable provided all the information available. This really presents a problem, however. Unfortunately, “experts” often cover for one another. It seems that there are a couple of reasons for this.

1. One expert has based a large portion of their work on the foundational work of another expert. If that first expert was wrong, then all of their research, conclusions, and assertions are wrong as well, and that is a career-ender.

2. Ego. There is no interest in challenging anything. Being the “expert” in people’s minds far outweighs their interest in the truth. Maybe this was always the case, or maybe they came to this conclusion after gaining notoriety and respect in their field, but either way, it is a hindrance, not something to be proud of.

3. A sense of safety. Humans desperately want to understand the world in which we live, and not knowing something is apparently quite scary. This vexes me, but I feel no fear, so it isn’t something that I can really grasp. Once someone believes that they know something, that knowledge acts as a stabilizing feature for a largely unknowable world. A person, especially someone that has spent their lives specializing in something, can see that as what they can depend on as real, and therefore aren’t willing to accept that the truth has eluded them.

I think that the safety issue might play more into this than I would have previously given it credit. I was speaking to a neurotypical friend, and she is the one that postulated this notion of permanence and stability being a driver behind the unwillingness to question what is thought of as decided fact. I would have given more credence to the notion of ego and concern about career death prior to that one, but she rightly pointed out, without the ability to fear the unknown, it is not something that I can comprehend in terms of its power in the lives of most humans.

I can understand that humans are a very small species, living a very temporary existence, on a very small rock whipping itself round and round in a furious frenzy. It is a concept that I can appreciate, but I cannot share. It used to be, and perhaps this was more for show than it was actual practice, that we taught children how to think. There is value in critical thinking, and there is value in being able to reconsider your position on something even if you are a specialist. If what you know is wrong, what can you learn with new information?

As more people have access to more information, new thoughts, new observations, new challenges arise, but many people are outright dismissed from the discussion because they lack that degree that dictates who gets to speak on any given matter. Even when they make arguments that should be intriguing and warrant exploration, it seems that even considering them is an insult to the ruling class of the educated. I feel that it is important to remember what higher education is, and what it is not.

It is not proof that you are smart.

It is not proof that you know what you are talking about. There are exceptions to this, such as a structural engineering degree tends to have the “proof is in the pudding” exception attached to it, as it will be quickly evident if all their buildings fall down.

It is not proof that you are better.

It is not proof that the quality of your education was even minimally good.

It is proof that you can show up consistently.

That you can memorize and repeat what is told to you well enough to earn a high mark.

It is proof that you test well.

That’s it. There is no requirement to prove that you can think well, or challenge information. It doesn’t even teach you to challenge authority any longer, which is a very negative thing for society. Humans do not live well under dictate. They do for a while, perhaps, but it tends to fall apart when the citizens get fed up.

When you can question, when you know how to question, you are able to think for yourself. Being able to think for yourself, having a curious mind, and leaving ego out of the equation benefit the places those qualities are applied. Being stuck in a mindset is what creates stagnation and laziness. It is so easy to be an expert if all that requires of you is to simply state a thing, and your reputation guarantees that thing will be accepted as a non-negotiable fact. If no one will challenge you, then it doesn’t seem as though anyone has the will or ability to ask questions. If you cannot accept a challenge without taking it as a personal attack that must be silenced at all costs, then it seems that you also lack the ability to think, or at the very least the will to do so.

Critical thinking should be that this is a core value in anyone’s pursuit of knowledge, and in anyone’s chosen career. It is through challenges that we find things that we didn’t even know that we were looking for. Remind yourself when you learn something that, as valuable as the information is, that it may not be all there is to it. It may be incomplete, it may incorrect, and it may be an outright lie that is still standing as generally accepted fact because someone is more concerned with protecting their legacy and what makes them feel safe than they are in sharing in the mutual education of our species.