Yesterday I wondered what a second rule of critical thinking might be. The first one was to identify the nature of the issue before you. Lee, a commenter, proposes one worth repeating:<\/p>\n
>I propose for the second rule:<\/p>\n
>\u201cHow does it fit with what I already know, or my presumptions?\u201d<\/p>\n
>But I do think that it is important to include a little introspection about \u201cwhy do I care?\u201d or \u201cWhy am I thinking about this\u201d because sometimes how one answers that question reveals a motive or bias that would influence ones thinking.<\/strong> It might be cause to \u201cthink twice\u201d. For example, in a discussion, podcast, article, if one reads something that sparks a reaction, is it a reaction that comes from (say) emotion, disagreement, or confusion? Politics and religion are two areas that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit the type of subject I\u2019m talking about. My reaction could be (say) anger, support, competition or completely self serving. Answering the question of \u201cwhy do I care\u201d might start one off on the right foot. <\/p>\n Well. He proposes more than one. I’ve put the one I’m drawn to in bold. So in addition I think to some basic identification of the issue before you, you also ought to have the self-awareness to discover your own orientation toward it. I think that makes a good deal of sense. Anyone have any examples of this he or she’d like to share?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yesterday I wondered what a second rule of critical thinking might be. The first one was to identify the nature of the issue before you. Lee, a commenter, proposes one worth repeating: >I propose for the second rule: >\u201cHow does it fit with what I already know, or my presumptions?\u201d >But I do think that … Continue reading Where am I?<\/span>