Why So Many People Lack Critical Thinking Skills DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Peter
I think your video is great, and I agree that critical thinking is in general under applied; however, I am skeptical of your belief that critical thinking was once taught (or otherwise popular) and has been declining in recent years. I think that as education levels have increased, critical thinking has likely also increased within those populations of people who are educated (not just traditional education; people who take it upon themselves to learn). Additionally, I don't think that the average person has lost critical thinking ability to any significant extent. This increase in education of some groups, combined with the relative constancy of average people would lead to critical thinking levels staying approximately the same or going slightly up overall. I think a more likely explanation for the perceived decrease in critical thinking ability is the increase in availability of information (through the internet and other means), combined more recently with the echo chamber effect that online communities can create (people with similar beliefs tend to interact more), and confirmation bias from other sources (search) making lack of critical thinking more pronounced by exposing people to more unfounded beliefs and convincing looking -data- they don't have the skills to interpret.
Effectively, the increase in communication ability makes lack of critical thinking more apparent by giving people an easy source of bad beliefs and -evidence- in addition to a platform to share them on.
I think the education system if poor now, but I don't think that the ones in the past were significantly better at teaching critical thinking. I think that education has actually gotten better at teaching critical thinking to an extent as rote memorization and lecture style classes are slowly becoming less popular.
reply
I think your video is great, and I agree that critical thinking is in general under applied; however, I am skeptical of your belief that critical thinking was once taught (or otherwise popular) and has been declining in recent years. I think that as education levels have increased, critical thinking has likely also increased within those populations of people who are educated (not just traditional education; people who take it upon themselves to learn). Additionally, I don't think that the average person has lost critical thinking ability to any significant extent. This increase in education of some groups, combined with the relative constancy of average people would lead to critical thinking levels staying approximately the same or going slightly up overall. I think a more likely explanation for the perceived decrease in critical thinking ability is the increase in availability of information (through the internet and other means), combined more recently with the echo chamber effect that online communities can create (people with similar beliefs tend to interact more), and confirmation bias from other sources (search) making lack of critical thinking more pronounced by exposing people to more unfounded beliefs and convincing looking -data- they don't have the skills to interpret.
Effectively, the increase in communication ability makes lack of critical thinking more apparent by giving people an easy source of bad beliefs and -evidence- in addition to a platform to share them on.
I think the education system if poor now, but I don't think that the ones in the past were significantly better at teaching critical thinking. I think that education has actually gotten better at teaching critical thinking to an extent as rote memorization and lecture style classes are slowly becoming less popular.
reply
MicroClases
This field is a tricky, and very complex field. I think that the reasons you gave are not really the reasons that make people lack of critical thinking, and as a scientist I can tell that these points are somewhat technical and the definitions of things might be a little blurry, specially when we are talking about the extention and utility of mathematical evidence or anecdotal evidence. The root of the problem is the lack of confidence in the scientific system, not the method, the system.
The conspiracy theorists know that and they do research, sometimes even more than a common person, about the pro and cons, but they choose not to believe them. I think it has more to do with psicology than other things. If there are two car crashes in different parts of the city a conspirational mind will always find a secret reason. Ultimately, there is a problem in the conception of causation. Causes might be complex and multifactorial, sometimes caused by distant effects in time, and many people have problems dealing with distant and complex reasons. It is easier that the causation is closer to home, because from our experience, we are only familiar with everyday causes in our vicinity occurring to medium-sized objects, like persons, cars, etc. It is closer to home introducing a small group of people making the suffering of the world (CIA, reptilians, illuminati), than thinking about complex envirmental interactions, material deteroriation, etc. There is no coincidence in the conspiratorial mind, they will reject mere coincidence, and they will suspect a hidden plan from a small group.
reply
This field is a tricky, and very complex field. I think that the reasons you gave are not really the reasons that make people lack of critical thinking, and as a scientist I can tell that these points are somewhat technical and the definitions of things might be a little blurry, specially when we are talking about the extention and utility of mathematical evidence or anecdotal evidence. The root of the problem is the lack of confidence in the scientific system, not the method, the system.
The conspiracy theorists know that and they do research, sometimes even more than a common person, about the pro and cons, but they choose not to believe them. I think it has more to do with psicology than other things. If there are two car crashes in different parts of the city a conspirational mind will always find a secret reason. Ultimately, there is a problem in the conception of causation. Causes might be complex and multifactorial, sometimes caused by distant effects in time, and many people have problems dealing with distant and complex reasons. It is easier that the causation is closer to home, because from our experience, we are only familiar with everyday causes in our vicinity occurring to medium-sized objects, like persons, cars, etc. It is closer to home introducing a small group of people making the suffering of the world (CIA, reptilians, illuminati), than thinking about complex envirmental interactions, material deteroriation, etc. There is no coincidence in the conspiratorial mind, they will reject mere coincidence, and they will suspect a hidden plan from a small group.
reply
noam65
You are hilariously wrong about the UFO thing. See Dr Jacques Vallee, or nuclear physicist - now deceased - Stanton T Friedman, Thomas Jefferson, who was the first American official tofile a report. You might actually read the Condon report, skipping the nonsense that Condon used for an abstract, or you might read the New York Times articles that got the US Navy to attest to the veracity of videos taken from a tactical air group off the USS Nimitz, or maybe the congressional report that came out about how the matter needs more study. As for the psi side of things, I will only cite the Remote Viewer program that the CIA created and funded for 20 years, despite their protestations that there was nothing to it. See Dr Hal Puthoff, Dr. Charles Tart, and Joseph McMoneagle. I will leave you with the short story of Hugh Everett, a physicist who created the many worlds theory in quantum physics, whose life was ruined by the establishment, only recognized late in life, and his theory is now commonly taught in every university on the planet.
Critical thinking involves looking at actual evidence, and not just one side of a claim, in your case the debunkers' side. Thanks for addressing it, but you fell a little short.
reply
You are hilariously wrong about the UFO thing. See Dr Jacques Vallee, or nuclear physicist - now deceased - Stanton T Friedman, Thomas Jefferson, who was the first American official tofile a report. You might actually read the Condon report, skipping the nonsense that Condon used for an abstract, or you might read the New York Times articles that got the US Navy to attest to the veracity of videos taken from a tactical air group off the USS Nimitz, or maybe the congressional report that came out about how the matter needs more study. As for the psi side of things, I will only cite the Remote Viewer program that the CIA created and funded for 20 years, despite their protestations that there was nothing to it. See Dr Hal Puthoff, Dr. Charles Tart, and Joseph McMoneagle. I will leave you with the short story of Hugh Everett, a physicist who created the many worlds theory in quantum physics, whose life was ruined by the establishment, only recognized late in life, and his theory is now commonly taught in every university on the planet.
Critical thinking involves looking at actual evidence, and not just one side of a claim, in your case the debunkers' side. Thanks for addressing it, but you fell a little short.
reply
ZugZug
-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- is a claim about claims does not define what is -extraordinary-. That it affects potentially all claims (if a person is willing to stretch what is -extraordinary-) means it itself is extraordinary and needs suitably -extraordinary- evidence declaring that only -extraordinary- evidence is sufficient.
Further, the above is a claim. Occam's Razor (Law of Parsimony) is a pragmatic approach to determining between two theories with the same prediction. Claims are not the same as methods to pick between two theories. One is a part of a theory, the other picks between theories. Please, DT, be a little more careful in the terms and arguments you use because there are numerous people that will listen to what you say and not do their due diligence in checking the details.
For example, Occam's Razor is not about -the simplest explanation is usually the best one-, it's about choosing the theory that has the same prediction but fewer required assumptions. The -most simple- theory might have more assumptions.
reply
-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- is a claim about claims does not define what is -extraordinary-. That it affects potentially all claims (if a person is willing to stretch what is -extraordinary-) means it itself is extraordinary and needs suitably -extraordinary- evidence declaring that only -extraordinary- evidence is sufficient.
Further, the above is a claim. Occam's Razor (Law of Parsimony) is a pragmatic approach to determining between two theories with the same prediction. Claims are not the same as methods to pick between two theories. One is a part of a theory, the other picks between theories. Please, DT, be a little more careful in the terms and arguments you use because there are numerous people that will listen to what you say and not do their due diligence in checking the details.
For example, Occam's Razor is not about -the simplest explanation is usually the best one-, it's about choosing the theory that has the same prediction but fewer required assumptions. The -most simple- theory might have more assumptions.
reply
Patricia
We do teach our kids critical thinking, it's just that teachers don't understand that is what they are teaching.
Instead we get -When will we use this in the real world- followed by confused teachers or a flat out -you won't-.
Math teaches how to recognize a problem and match a solution to it.
Science teaches how to apply the scientific method to things. And hopefully a joy of how complex and beautiful our world and universe is.
History teaches how to research and study.
English teaches us how to express the things we know, and understand when others express the same.
The model is definitely outdated; but that is what the original framework of education was meant to do. A teacher who does not understand this and explain to children they are learning a process of understanding the world rather than facts and figures is a failure.
-How will I use this in the real world?-
-This exact thing? You probably won't. It is just an example used to teach you how to think, understand the world, and share your understanding.-
reply
We do teach our kids critical thinking, it's just that teachers don't understand that is what they are teaching.
Instead we get -When will we use this in the real world- followed by confused teachers or a flat out -you won't-.
Math teaches how to recognize a problem and match a solution to it.
Science teaches how to apply the scientific method to things. And hopefully a joy of how complex and beautiful our world and universe is.
History teaches how to research and study.
English teaches us how to express the things we know, and understand when others express the same.
The model is definitely outdated; but that is what the original framework of education was meant to do. A teacher who does not understand this and explain to children they are learning a process of understanding the world rather than facts and figures is a failure.
-How will I use this in the real world?-
-This exact thing? You probably won't. It is just an example used to teach you how to think, understand the world, and share your understanding.-
reply
B10knight
I did very much appreciate this video, those things definitely needed to be said. I will say though, that at the beginning I was mildly skeptical at the fact that the term 'the media' was used, considering it has been used as a anti-Semitic dog whistle. But that being said, I was quickly relieved to find out that, that is not what this video is about. It really is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists(many of whom have alt-right political beliefs and tend to be anti-Semitic) have made it so that one has to make sure that one isn't listening to alt-right dog whistles. After all, many of these conspiracy theorists do believe these things in order to push their extreme right political agenda. I don't mean to get too political all I am saying is that there is a trend of many of these conspiracy theorists being far right wing. I am not against either side of the political spectrum, I am against extremism, and these conspiracy theories due tend to push extremism.
reply
I did very much appreciate this video, those things definitely needed to be said. I will say though, that at the beginning I was mildly skeptical at the fact that the term 'the media' was used, considering it has been used as a anti-Semitic dog whistle. But that being said, I was quickly relieved to find out that, that is not what this video is about. It really is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists(many of whom have alt-right political beliefs and tend to be anti-Semitic) have made it so that one has to make sure that one isn't listening to alt-right dog whistles. After all, many of these conspiracy theorists do believe these things in order to push their extreme right political agenda. I don't mean to get too political all I am saying is that there is a trend of many of these conspiracy theorists being far right wing. I am not against either side of the political spectrum, I am against extremism, and these conspiracy theories due tend to push extremism.
reply
Boris
Coronavirus being leaked from a Wuhan biotech lab was a conspiracy theory last year.
This year, it turns out that the -fact- about it being transferred from bats to pangolins to humans was a lie, and that we don't actually know whether it came from animals or a biotech lab or anything else.
The WHO report discrediting the lab leak hypothesis was just put in there without any evidence or research to back it up, likely to appease China.
Critical thinking is important - trusting the media and experts is not the solution. Immediately discrediting anyone contradicting the -official- facts does not count as critical thinking.
reply
Coronavirus being leaked from a Wuhan biotech lab was a conspiracy theory last year.
This year, it turns out that the -fact- about it being transferred from bats to pangolins to humans was a lie, and that we don't actually know whether it came from animals or a biotech lab or anything else.
The WHO report discrediting the lab leak hypothesis was just put in there without any evidence or research to back it up, likely to appease China.
Critical thinking is important - trusting the media and experts is not the solution. Immediately discrediting anyone contradicting the -official- facts does not count as critical thinking.
reply
Teemu
There's a fine line with -conspiracy theorists- and real conspiracies. You'd really to be an idiot to believe the mainstream media story about assassination of JFK, for instance. Governments use the term -conspiracy theorist- loosely to label anyone they view as a threat basically a lunatic who no one should listen to. NSA spying operations were considered baseless -conspiracy theories- until Edward Snowden revealed them as well. They also managed to brainwash majority into thinking Julian Assange is on Putin's pay roll... Never underestimate the power of mainstream media propaganda.
reply
There's a fine line with -conspiracy theorists- and real conspiracies. You'd really to be an idiot to believe the mainstream media story about assassination of JFK, for instance. Governments use the term -conspiracy theorist- loosely to label anyone they view as a threat basically a lunatic who no one should listen to. NSA spying operations were considered baseless -conspiracy theories- until Edward Snowden revealed them as well. They also managed to brainwash majority into thinking Julian Assange is on Putin's pay roll... Never underestimate the power of mainstream media propaganda.
reply
killistan
This is one of those... is it better to believe something that isn't true, or to not believe something that is true? I think nature kind of solves this problem for us: some of us are too willing to believe stuff, and some of us are too skeptical. On average, we're sort of right. What REALLY annoys me is when the skeptical side tries to censor the overly-accepting side. This ensures both sides will become entrenched, and we get nowhere.
Btw you've seen the navy ufo footage right? Sure they might be drones but, I'd not get too attached to the idea that ufos don't exist.
reply
This is one of those... is it better to believe something that isn't true, or to not believe something that is true? I think nature kind of solves this problem for us: some of us are too willing to believe stuff, and some of us are too skeptical. On average, we're sort of right. What REALLY annoys me is when the skeptical side tries to censor the overly-accepting side. This ensures both sides will become entrenched, and we get nowhere.
Btw you've seen the navy ufo footage right? Sure they might be drones but, I'd not get too attached to the idea that ufos don't exist.
reply
Uncommon
I have to disagree with your opinion on vaccines, but that's what critical thinking is all about isn't it? We gather information and gain knowledge to make our own logical choice. That is what critical thinking means. As much as I can respect an opinion, it was a little disheartening when you claimed the one dude was full of misinformation. Maybe he was, however, it came across to me as a little odd. Either way, I respect the fact that you were willing to put your opinion out there and encourage critical thinking. It is most definitely increasingly important.
reply
I have to disagree with your opinion on vaccines, but that's what critical thinking is all about isn't it? We gather information and gain knowledge to make our own logical choice. That is what critical thinking means. As much as I can respect an opinion, it was a little disheartening when you claimed the one dude was full of misinformation. Maybe he was, however, it came across to me as a little odd. Either way, I respect the fact that you were willing to put your opinion out there and encourage critical thinking. It is most definitely increasingly important.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
