Blog 3- Critical Thinking

Alec Fisher listed a number of different definitions of what defines critical thinking. Typically when we think of critical thinkers, an image of old men and women with their hands poised under their chins with furrowed brows. However, that is not always the case. Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow are also critical thinkers in their own right. Their type of critical thinking follows Fisher’s last definition that critical thinking is a “skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observances and communications, information, and argumentation” (Fisher and Scriven, 1997). Stewart and Maddow both actively analyze political headliners and relay their interpretation through satire. I feel that their form of critical thinking is much more difficult than old school methods of critical thinking. That is because not only do they need to understand the political jargon and what it implies, they also need to put it into laymen’s terms and connect it in a way that is humorous. Not everyone has the same type of humor, and for them to relate of a broad audience on material that not very many people can grasp is on a different level of critical thinking and its application.
The epithets that were hurled at congressmen John Lewis and Barney Frank are examples of fellow congressmen who were not thinking critically. Whoever decided it would be a good idea to throw around derogatory terms at their peers were not following one of Fisher’s rules for critical thinking—thinking about your thinking. Blurting out insults shows a lack of reflection of what you are talking about because it is an outburst rather than something methodical or analytical. It does not improve on the quality of their own thinking or anyone else’s thinking. In fact it depreciates it because of its immaturity it simply takes away from any kind of critical thinking credit you may have accumulated over your illustrious political career.

Blog 3: Intro into Critical Thinking

This reading reminds me of a practice MCAT essay prompt I used a while back. The first few pages of Critical Thinking were very descriptive on the origins of critical thinking and what it is used for. John Dewey describes critical thinking as the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1909, p.9). The paper then shows the evolution of the definition to the more widely used, “Critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Cf. Norris and Ennis, 1989). Alec Fischer dissected the roots of critical thinking and after reading his work, I would summarize it as the process by which sentience can absorb information and use it to argue or explain other ideas. Rachel Maddow, an openly gay talk show host on primetime, and Jon Stewart, the same but straight, are both comedians, actors, and political commentators.

The two of them bring news forth, mostly factual, with a spin to entertain and also put their bias in. This is extremely clever as they have to research, make it funny, and still convey some point. Although it is true that their statements require a lot of thinking on the writers’ part, it does not appear to me as direct evidence of critical thinking, that is the use of information and the careful consideration to use it to propel another argument forward. I find that most of their programming are short jokes satirizing on popular culture and other trending topics. I feel the same hunger for something to laugh at fuels the need to target someone or a party such as minorities like John Lewis and Barney Frank who are African-American and openly gay politicians, respectively. The two are most likely always targeted because they stand out and it does not take too much critical thinking to use these commonly looked down upon traits against them.