CT (Critical Thinking) and politics

All of us who are interested in politics have a ring-side seat for viewing the CT skills of Obama and Hillary.

How well these two candidates perform one of the most important aspects of CT in the next several months will determine, to a large extent, which party will occupy the White House for the next four years. These two candidates face a daunting task; they must control their race for the White House in such a manner that it will not severely harm the winner’s opportunity to win the 2008 election.

Their struggle for supremacy between now and the convention could very well do significant harm to their party’s chance to win the WH. While they fight against one another John McCann can sit back and prepare for the finals; they must somehow not only compete with one another in a grueling fight but they must do it in a way that will not seem unseemly to the American people who will be carefully watching.

The daunting task these two must navigate in the next few months is to work together in dialogue so as to allow each to fight fiercely in the race while not doing harm to their party in the process. They must be expert at the task of dialogic.

Dialogue combined with dialectical reasoning is equal to dialogic.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis; in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. �Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.� Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.� Quotes from “Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life�


“On Dialogue� was written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London�.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue dialogically we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

Have you ever tried to dialogue dialogically?

Being able to listen objectively requires that you detach from your own identities without losing what is true to ones self. Anything that is real cannot be taken away, but what we teach our children and demonstrate in our own lives is to protect our personal ideals at any cost. In fact we spend more time doing this unconsciously by attacking what we do not like than we realize.
Personal beliefs like religion are a good example. What we believe, or what we establish ourselves as in relationship to others and the world often is created in doubt and expectation. Our experience is that our parents and society protect from fear of loss and attack from the instability of wavering beliefs systems and then pass this blindly on to others.

It takes a greater experience and a greater intelligence to guide the masses to their own greater experience of life.
It also takes a higher level of understanding and desire to give up ones own personal positions created from fear to be led by a greater principle than the ego currently chooses to establish as reality.

Many will agree that something has to be done. Few will actually do anything to change.

Government as it exists now, is far beyond the understanding of most herd animal thinking. The ones who think they can influence change from their living room don't know how far removed the government is from the ideals of the people, and then there are those who have given up and believe nothing changes regardless of what they do or how they get involved.
Either way the mindset is firmly locked in the foundation of us and them or me and you, of separation in beliefs that perpetuate themselves from house to house in the families that live in suburbia to the houses of church and politics.

We build a fence between us and our neighbors before we get to know them and sometimes we will never look to see what is on the other side of the fence


"There is no try," as Yoda said, "only do."

When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawn on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns. This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch it’s tail?

Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialogue.//

results for: dialogue

www.ComFit.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
di·a·logue /ˈdaɪəˌlɔg, -ˌlɒg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dahy-uh-lawg, -log] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb -logued, -logu·ing.
–noun
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement. (note: agreement or settlement is not necessarily a compromise of personal experience or belief)
4. a literary work in the form of a conversation: a dialogue of Plato.
–verb (used without object)
5. to carry on a dialogue; converse.
6. to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them.(This would be tantamount to resolving emotional attachment rather than to resolve the disagreement and force one to abandon their own thinking in favor of another without the experience to change the experience.)
–verb (used with object)
7. to put into the form of a dialogue.
Also, di·a·log.

[Origin: 1175–1225; ME < OF dïalogue, L dialogus < Gk diálogos. See dia-, -logue]

—Related forms
di·a·logu·er, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
di·a·logue or di·a·log (dī'ə-lôg', -l�g') Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A conversation between two or more people.
2.
1. Conversation between characters in a drama or narrative.
2. The lines or passages in a script that are intended to be spoken.
3. A literary work written in the form of a conversation: the dialogues of Plato.
4. Music A composition or passage for two or more parts, suggestive of conversational interplay.
5. An exchange of ideas or opinions: achieving constructive dialogue with all political elements.


v. di·a·logued or di·a·loged, di·a·logu·ing or di·a·log·ing, di·a·logues or di·a·logs

v. tr.
To express as or in a dialogue.

v. intr.

1. To converse in a dialogue.
2. Usage Problem To engage in an informal exchange of views.



[Middle English dialog, from Old French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, conversation, from dialegesthai, to discuss; see dialect.]

di'a·log'uer n.

Usage Note: In recent years the verb sense of dialogue meaning "to engage in an informal exchange of views" has been revived, particularly with reference to communication between parties in institutional or political contexts. Although Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle used it, this usage today is widely regarded as jargon or bureaucratese. Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with representatives of the community before hiring the new officers.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
dialogue
c.1225, "literary work consisting of a conversation between two or more people," from O.Fr. dialoge, from L. dialogus, from Gk. dialogos, related to dialogesthai "converse," from dia- "across" + legein "speak" (see lecture). Sense broadened to "a conversation" 1401. Mistaken belief that it can only mean "conversation between two persons" is from confusion of dia- and di-.


Generally speaking, often in the conversations that take place, Ideas can be exchanged and absorbed only at the rate in which one is able to absorb them. Often one is too quick to disengage because the other has not grasped what has been said by the other.
It can take several attempts to draw another to understanding of a point of view taking in consideration that viewpoints are often built of experience that take years to create.
One would have to have built within their system of beliefs the ability to remain innocent or without judgment and emotional attachment to experience before they themselves can come to the conversation without prejudice.

Often those who wish to Dialogue do not know the true meaning of detachment nor do they live it.

Our culture is structured on competition.

We debate rather than dialogue. Winning is number one and reasoning together is for the “girly man�. Training youngsters to be good soldiers is more important than educating them to become Critical Thinking citizens. In fact our concept of reasoning seldom examines the aspect of consciously seeking harmony. Speaking of harmony, we rap or roll rather than snuggle in poetic symphony.

I suspect the competitive mode of being is very important for our survival. However, I think that this competitive mode will make it difficult for our civilization to survive another two hundred years.

When we couple this strong competitive mode with a strong technological expertise and a weak communicative rationality we are flirting with Armageddon.

Epistemology is the study or perhaps more appropriately the science of what we can know and how we can know it. If a person does not have some fundamental knowledge of this ‘science’ then that person cannot dialog satisfactorily.

When we are campaigning we are competing, when we are dialoging we are seeking to harmonize a mutual goal. Our attitude that is required in debate is significantly different from our attitude in dialogue.

Debate is driven by the same attitude as game theory dictates but dialogue must have a different attitude. The big difference might be illuminated by my sentence in the OP "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

I just want to make one slight adjustment in my sentence to read as follows: "Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other."

I put emphasis on wish to point out that I am speaking of intention rather than performance. I agree that none of us can accomplish fully this wish but I think that we must have a strong intention to accomplish these feats even though no human can accomplish completely the wish.

The attitude of debate cannot be taken into dialogue without destroying the possibility of dialogue.

This meaning of dialogue I have gleaned from my study of Critical Thinking. CT is relatively new to Americans. Our schools and colleges have only begun to teach our young people how to think rather than teaching them what to think. I am trying to intoduce this new concept of thinking.

The concept is not new, it is as old as Spirituality. It is what Buddha called the "middle way." Using judgment based on truth or resonance rather than pride, or belief. Resonance based on what is present in the moment and what is present in all moments.

The Tibetan Buddhist monks have a daily practice of listening. They have two people in a room, one sits and listens and the other throws all emotion and thought at the other. In this way the monks become used to listening to another express without becoming affected by what affects another in personal belief and stress, and to freely express without judging what is expressed.
The pair switch places and each day they use a different partner so not to adjust themselves to friendship with the partner and make light of the exercise.

Your right about schools teaching competitiveness, they teach it as a matter of success. It is fear of failure that motivates the competitive action and belief in success to the active negligence that man has for each other.
It is the training we have in avoiding emotions that cause us to react to anothers emotions, which then takes conversation or expression into the beliefs that define or separate expression into debate, dialogue and attack.
We're taught to not feel our emotions in front of another and as such are uncomfortable when another expresses themselves with any emotion.
Parents tell their children not to cry because they feel uncomfortable when they cry.
In public places like the restaurant or the movies, they try to distract them with either objects of desire or threats to make them stop. By the time they can think they believe feeling and expressing emotions is bad and so they repress this necessary energetic of the nervous system.
Emotions are form of energy, energy can either be channeled in useful ways or repressed or stuffed. If they are repressed they become explosive under the pressure of judgment and fear.
This makes human behavior both co-dependent and dysfunctional. The need to dialogue without emotional attachment now becomes a protective measure rather than a natural function of a whole and emotionally adjusted nervous system.
When one reacts emotionally because they have habitually repressed their emotions, a conversation is often judged as non-productive and irrelevant, both sides withdraw because they have lost their point of reference in topic and are now focused on the emotions which are bad. Rules then are set to remove emotional feeling from conversation so to protect each one from feeling uncomfortable.

Conversation is judged negatively for emotional content and positively for its intellectual content. The human body functions best when the mind and the body are working together rather than to shut down the body and isolate the mind.

Until one becomes cognizant of the emotional body the intellect can only partially function because all energies that are felt in conversation are a distraction.
The detachment from judgment that is reactive is by gradually immersing ones self back into the natural environment of self expression. Just as one gradually immerses themselves in a tub of hot water to get used to the difference in temperature one has to gradually re-introduce themselves to human emotions so that when they are expressed they are not reactive.
Only then can true compassion evolve.

Making good judgments is an important and complex matter. There are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. To make better judgments requires many kinds of knowledge, skills, and character traits all working together.

Our schools and colleges are beginning to teach these things but it is an effort that is just beginning and it is a difficult one to accomplish.

Just to give you an idea of what CT is about I have copied the following info from the Internet:

This info was taken from workbooks for classes K-12. This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.


A. Affective Strategies
S-1 thinking independently
Thru
S-9 developing confidence in reason

B. Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities
S-10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications
Thru
S-26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

C. Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills
S-27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice
Thru
S-35 exploring implications and consequences

S-1 Thinking Independently

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking, thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and reject beliefs that are irrational.

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we want (or think we want).

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

S-4 Exploring Thoughts Underlying Feelings and Feelings Underlying Thoughts

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and Suspending Judgment

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints. The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good Faith or Integrity

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought and analyzed experience.

S-8 Developing Intellectual Perseverance

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is, we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them. Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having confidence in reason.

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding Oversimplifications

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems and experiences.

S-11 Comparing Analogous Situations: Transferring Insights to New Contexts

Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations, and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

S-12 Developing One's Perspective: Creating or Exploring Beliefs, Arguments, or Theories

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to "divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions, or Beliefs

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we must understand it clearly.

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the Meanings of Words or Phrases

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

And so on

============================================================

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged Facts

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or insulting.

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a like manner.

S-35 Exploring Implications and Consequences

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.

{This list is found in the following handbooks: Critical Thinking Handbook: k-3, Critical Thinking Handbook: 4-6, Critical Thinking Handbook: 6-9, Critical Thinking Handbook: High School.}

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/env...ree/sa3crit.htm

Contradiction:
Child is told by Parents to listen and believe what parent says, and is conditioned before school to believe everything parents think is true.
Teacher: learn to think for yourself by questioning authority, what you think you know may be corrupt.