Making Better Decisions: Critical Thinking, Part 1
Outline:
- Proper Information
-
- Dealing with the volume of information
- Dealing with the veracity of information
- Inaccurate information
- Omitted information
- External bias
- Internal cognitive bias
This treatise is meant to be a brief survey on how to make better decisions by means of critical thinking. The word “critical” here is used not in the sense of harsh or condemning, nor of an evaluation of the power structures of decision-making; but rather in the context of being more reflective, more deliberative, and more rational. One might consider it as a search for truth in order to decide and act responsibly.
The structure of this treatise as composed of four major sections: the first being how to obtain proper information, and the second being an examination of the veracity, or truthfulness of information. Both will be discussed in this issue. The third, “proper deliberation” and the fourth, “proper motivation” will be addressed in the next issue of Making Better Decisions: Part 3, Critical Thinking II.
- Proper Information
- Dealing with the volume of information
Our first challenge is to obtain the true and appropriate information for making good decisions. This has become a particularly difficult task in today’s world as one is so bombarded by the flood of information striking our daily consciousness. It has been estimated that the average American teen spends at least 9 hours on media sources per day; and the average American adult 11 hours, consuming 100,000 words or 34 GB of information every day. What makes these statistics particularly interesting is the fact that our brain only has the capacity to process and store a limited amount of information within a specific time period. For example, in conversation, it has been determined that a person can only process a maximum of 120 bits of information per second, which is the equivalent of speaking with two additional persons simultaneously.[1] Anything more than that is filtered out. Is it any wonder that we don’t remember the groceries while watching a football game with the music playing in the background? Now forgetfulness has a legitimate excuse!
The neuropsychology of this is fascinating. Studies performed with MRIs of the brain regarding attention, informational filtering, memory, mental organization, and mental discrimination suggest that the brain has the ability to filter out relatively trivial information when in the presence of more urgent or more important information. But if the brain is presented too much information, it experiences what is known as “information overload,” leading to neural fatigue, processing dysfunction, and even difficulties making effectual decisions regarding high priority issues.[2]
One can readily see how this plays out in the everyday scholastic functioning of our youth. Many legitimate studies now confirm that the high use of digital media is associated with not only a digital addiction, but also a reduced performance in students’ immediate academic tasks. One can reasonably surmise that it is because of this information overload created by continually consuming trivial bits of stimuli that compromises the brain’s ability to engage in the higher priority tasks of academic learning and making good decisions. A point worth emphasizing is that although the human brain has been shown to be capable of perceiving huge amounts of data per minute or per hour, its ability to effectively process that information, (that is to effectively organize and store information in a manner easily retrievable) can become not only limited, but significantly impaired. As such, information recall and memory may also be greatly impaired.
Even in this short discussion, it should be clear that the excessive exposure to digital media, and trivial information in general, can have a markedly detrimental impact on the brain’s ability to process in a manner required to prioritize higher level tasks and to maintain effective data recall and memory.
So, what should one do to manage the volume of information flooding into one’s consciousness? The lesson is this… not to excessively engage with digital information in a casual manner. Intentionally limit it. Confine its use to that which is necessary. Treat it with respect and use it for the information that you require, desire to know, or need to convey. But use caution in using it indiscriminately to occupy your mind or to entertain yourself. It’s like eating junk food. It might satisfy you briefly, but your hunger soon returns. And it gives you no nutrition for growth and health. How many times do we find ourselves surfing the net and discover that we are looking at the same articles that we just looked at several minutes ago? Or how many times have we found ourselves intending to just browse the news, to then soon finding ourselves reading a mindless article on research whether the whipping of a dinosaur’s tail could have caused sonic booms! Info of negligible value and doubtful veracity fill our days and is only a couple clicks away. It’s like the architect Frank Lloyd Wright is attributed with once quipping about television, describing it as “bubblegum for the brain.”
2. Dealing with the veracity or truthfulness of the information:
Dealing with the volume of information is not one’s only challenge. Perhaps an even more difficult one is that of dealing with the veracity or truthfulness of information. We all know this is happening all the time, and it is really difficult to sort out. It consists of two aspects of false information: one is false information that is presented; and the other is false information by means of omission, either accidentally or intentionally. No better examples of this situation are demonstrated than that of social media externally, and personal bias, internally. Both require the exercise of vigilance and discernment in one’s search for truthful information.
Inaccurate information is ubiquitous. Some is readily apparent; while other examples are much more subtle, and often intentionally contrived. Others are part of one’s individual personality, often unrealized.
External Bias:
Social media and the marketing industry function through the process of persuasion…often presenting inaccurate external information to convince one of an idea or value of a product. At the sacrifice of truth, the art of persuasion was first developed by the Greek Sophists, who were itinerate teachers who would go from city-state to city-state teaching the citizens and politicians how to convincingly present their ideas to others. They were not well liked by either Plato or Aristotle who felt the Sophists were unethical. Relativist in nature, the Sophists of Greece had little aspiration for defining or promulgating the “truth.” Rather, their efforts in teaching were centered upon how best to persuade others to a desired outcome. Contrary to Aristotle’s later tenets, the means of persuasion and justness of the result were of little consideration to Sophists.
In contradistinction to the Sophists, in his work Rhetorica, Aristotle outlines what he considered the legitimate use of verbal methods of persuasion:[3]
There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions – that is, to name and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited. (Rhetorica Bk. 1 Ch. 2. 1356: 20-25)
Contemporary consideration of rhetoric often still uses Aristotle’s three tenets; but also assert a fourth element, Kairos meaning the “opportune time,” corresponding to the four Greek concepts of: 1) Logos (reason), 2) Ethos (credibility), 3) Pathos (emotion), and 4) Kairos (opportune time).
Of a more contemporary note is an often-referenced work by Robert Cialdini, entitled Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. While the Greeks approached the use of persuasive speech from a philosophical perspective, Cialdini approaches the psychological methods of influencing others. He discusses six primary principles:[4]
- Reciprocity – People are obliged to give something back in exchange for receiving something. Have you ever attended a “free” wine tasting, only to return home with $50 of wine that you probably would not have purchased otherwise? Or a $1 bill in the mail soliciting a larger donation to a cause?
- Scarcity – People want more of something if they feel that it is, or will become difficult to obtain. One only has to consider the extra purchases at the local grocery before an anticipated heavy snow storm or hurricane. Or, when considering an online order, the warning that “there are only 2 left in stock, and 10 other persons have recently viewed this site.”
- Authority – People tend to follow the advice or example of those persons viewed as reliable authorities in their field. To this I might add those who are not authorities at all, but are well-known and admired. (Think television stars advertising arthritis cream.)
- Consistency – People have a desire to be consistent in their behavior with their previous attitudes and beliefs. Promos, “You have ordered this in the past, would you like to arrange a regular order?”
- Liking – People are easier convinced to follow a choice or course of action that they like or enjoy.
- Consensus – People tend to look to others, or to the “crowd” when uncertain about a choice or action (“Group think”). How many unflattering designs have been purchased because of the latest fad or fashion?
These methods of persuasion are commonly recognized within the areas of advertising and marketing of merchandise. Most of us have an awareness that this process of persuasion is ever-present in today’s purchases. We have only to look at the many appeals to purchase the healthiest cereal, the most fashionable clothing, the coolest car to which we are so vulnerable.
Omitted information: This is a tricky one. How does one know what one does not know? When things are taken out of context or the circumstances are only partially conveyed, it shifts one’s impression of what is actually true or not. Unfortunately, this requires some extra work by each of us in doing some investigation to be sure that we have all of the information and complete information rather than accepting information at first offerings or at first glance. Nonetheless, this can eliminate a lot of huge misunderstandings and misconceptions if we work hard to identify all of the information that’s germane to the circumstance of note. News reporters and politicians love to do this. It’s their favorite device in shaping our opinions and attitudes conducive to their narratives.
Internal cognitive bias: There is also the false information we tell ourselves; oftentimes unintentionally, but nonetheless just as damaging to making good decisions.
For some, the act of “just thinking about it” is sufficient for the act of reasoning. Despite the temptation to regard basic human consideration as sufficiently reliable in and of itself, scientific studies reveal that human reflection is inherently biased. Dr. Steven Gimbel describes an experiment by Solomon Asch (1907-1996) in which he asked each of 7 subjects to examine and identify three lines drawn of varied lengths. Six of the subjects were previously instructed to purposefully identify the wrong line as being the longest. In 12 out of 18 instances, the last person, the seventh person, also identified the wrong line. When asked afterwards, the last and unsuspecting person stated that he or she thought it was the incorrect line but didn’t want to “stand out.” In 1971, Irving Janis coined the term “groupthink” to describe the process by which persons sacrifice independent critical thinking in order to adopt a consensus concept, belief, or action.
Another interesting series of experiments were performed by Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) in which he demonstrated “backfilling justification,” a process by which one acts first, then later, the brain attempts to justify that action as reasonable, irrespective of any pre-act considerations.
Dr. Gimbel outlines some additional ways one’s cognitive biases are formed. There is what is known as:
Hyperbolic discounting: This is the bias that one expresses by choosing less of something now, even when more is guaranteed later. Even though they are guaranteed now, future benefits are clouded by the emotion of uncertainty in such a manner that less benefit is presently chosen. Immediate gratification reigns over the beneficial promises of tomorrow.
Irrational escalation occurs when a person has invested a great deal of time and energy in a project, and becomes so personally attached or invested in that effort, that he or she minimizes the risk or value of pursuing it further…even at an inordinate risk. Two similar biases are those of a positive outcome bias in which one believes that they are more likely to succeed in an action than is actually true; and that of an overconfidence bias in which a person possesses an irrational belief in the success of their random choices in general. Think of gambling’s false optimism. Success lies at the next pull of the slot machine or the next hand of cards.
Halo effect: This is when false authority or significance is given another person on the basis of their fame or notoriety, regardless of any genuine expertise in that particular issue. Think of celebrities advertising financial offers. Do most celebrities really have any expertise in finance?
Dunning – Kruger effect: The more ignorant regarding a condition we are, the more confident we are; resulting in overestimating our abilities.
Confirmation bias is when one searches out and places confidence in only those ideas and actions which confirm and reinforce prior held beliefs and convictions, at the exclusion of contrary facts or values. One sees this a lot in one’s political and religious persuasions.
These biases and others, each person takes into their decision-making process in varying degrees. They affect how one views the value and success of the consequences of a belief or action. They shape one’s attitudes. To be aware of these biases is the first step in critical thinking. Yet, there is also the additional problem of how thought is presented and properly arranged in a manner that leads to a sound conclusion. That is the work of informal logic.
[1] M. & Nakamura Csikszentmihalyi, J. Effortless Attention in Everyday Life: A Systematic Phenomenology. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless Attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010), pp.179-189.
[2] D.J. Levitin, The Organized Mind (New York: Dutton, 2014), pp. 5-6.
[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Rhetorica.
4 Robert Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Bibliography:
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics: (Bk. V: Ch. 7). Nicomachean Ethics.
Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Copleston, S.J. Frederick. Volume 1: Greece and Rome. A History of Philosophy. Westminster, Maryland : The Newman Press, 1985.