CRITICAL THINKING

Hello, people, I'm creating this thread about Critical Thinking. I'm looking for good books that teach critical thinking, I think in our modern world the capacity for good thinking skills is lacking, and with the rise of AI slop and social media we are loosing our capacity to discern the truth and reality of our world, too many conspiracy theories, bullshiters and grifters around.

You don't learn critical thinking from books, you learn it by repeatedly discovering you're wrong and labeling the cause of your discomfort correctly… Until not clinging to what wasn't proven becomes instinctive.

>>11767 >we are loosing our capacity to discern the truth and reality of our world, too many conspiracy theories, bullshiters and grifters around This is a perspective. Anyways, there are some good books on critical thinking. I like to recommend people pick up Mortimer Adler's How to Read A Book, The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph, then Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. They're good starting points for understanding the metaphysics and mechanics of what you are after. >>11768 This post is a great example of not having critical thinking. Notice how he jumps to conclusions, makes inane statements, etc. Let's take a look, shall we? Oh, before I start - What I am doing, by the way, OP, is called "steelmanning" - It is how you repair the flaws in an argument before you analyze it critically. It's the antonym of strawmanning. You'll want to check out something called the "principle of chairty" as well in this. But anyways. >you learn it by repeatedly discovering you're wrong and labeling the cause of your discomfort correctly This is absolutely how you generally improve at something. - But let's really talk about this: How do we find out how we are wrong? Are we sure that we are wrong? Are we sure that the outcome that was correct not just the outcome that we thought is what it should be? It's an interesting thing, to suspect the answer but not the question as well. Those questions are great, we are thinking CRITICALLY about what this lainon had said. Now, we can admit that he is right in this specific line, right? Because you see - Discomfort can sometimes flag things for you, such as motivation / threat / etc. That doesn't mean discomfort is always the best way to deal with anything, but it does give you an opportunity to really open up what is going on. Everything else in what he has to say is lacking. >The False dichotomy about books Critical thinking is a skillset (logic; probabilistic reasoning; causal inference; experimental design; argument analysis; etc. etc.). Much of this must be learned explicitly before practice can be productive. Experience without concepts is just a pile of anecdotes. >Being wrong vs learning from it. Being wrong is common; learning from it is rare. Without the necessary scaffolding (i.e. definitions of fallacies, base rates, causal graphs, etc. etc.), error just burns in bad habits. >Unreliable feedback In many domains you don’t get clean “right vs wrong” signals, there is a lot of noise. We actually have a term for the type of feedback like this: survivorship bias. >labeling the cause of your discomfort correctly And I loved that line. Oh I loved it so much. It raises the question, doesn't it: HOW DO WE DO THAT? How in the actual fuarrrk are you even supposed to know what is the "CORRECTLY" labeled cause? It's not always obvious, and if it is: You should be able to explain both what it is and why it is! >Using feelings to determine truth Yeah. Thats a problem. Many solid updates feel bad; many seductive errors feel great. >Until not clinging to what wasn't proven becomes instinctive stop larping as a skeptic, and you aren't even larping as the good kind! critical thinking is structured reasoning, not just "being open minded." You need to clarify claims, quantify uncertainty, map out the args! I'll stop here. good luck, everyone!

>>11767 Read marx and read on Self Crit. I would recommend it. I think lady Izdahar has some great videos on it

>>11771 Marx? Karl Marx? Why he's relevant to critical thinking itself?

>>11774 Because they want to seem smart

>>11774 Ah yes, the guy who spent his entire life using a critique is not someone who should be read when learning about critical thinking. Let me recollect that his guy (with his pal) criticized, >Hegel >Mill >Ricardo >entire 1st International >Engels >Stirner >Bauer >Feuerbach >Schelling >Szeliga >Proudhon >Bakunin >Duhring >few more I am forgetting Those were pretty good critiques too. Marx's method of critique was to get to the kernel of his opponent argument, show that it's nonsensical or is contradictory, then work out that contradiction in order to see "the correct version". Of course, if one sees the guy as a "red hitler", where Das Kapital is not the treatise on why "2 yards of linen = 20 coats", but call to creating a Lebensraum, then the humor is lost on them. Some of his writing I adore, precisely because of the venom they drip with, >M. Proudhon has the misfortune of being particularly misunderstood in Europe. In France, he has the right to be a bad economist, because he is reputed to be a good German philosopher. In Germany, he has the right to be a bad philosopher, because he is reputed to be one of the ablest of French economists. Being both a German and an economist at the same time, we desire to protest against this double error.

>>11770 Awesome post. Thanks :) Actually the first time I hear of the term "Steelmanning", but not the first time I see the execution of it, Albeit not often. Learned something new. >>11774 >Why he's relevant Because self-criticism, or autocritique, is about reviewing your views, admit failures when observed and to talk about them to come to a better understanding. While it doesn't sound like a leftist concept and (surely, i hope) is not reserved in leftist spaces, It is important in Marxist-lenism and something Marx and Mao, especially, talks about. The reason for the mention of Marx. As for Marx himself, his reputation and legacy is defined because of the way he critiqued other philosophers/thinkers and drove home his ideas. Plus, because of the nature of his works, he is a gateway to many other philosophers through his critiques, which >>11777 outlines. The point, in the end, is not to agree/submit to his ideas, but to understand them and form your own thesis, may it mirror his views or not. You can still take the way he dissects ideas and try to implement the methodology to your own. developing your critical thinking, I think, (very opinionated part of this post denoted from the "I" here.) needs building a world view through reading the subject you want to analyze to then come to your own, well informed and sound conclusion from the best of your abilities at the time. When the time comes, autocritique will come into play to challenge your views to review and, if needed, come with a new view with the new information you will acquire in the future.

>>11780 Yeah, I believe that in general commies are good source for >how to criticize your opponent according to some framework I'd also meekly suggest, that "Renegade Kautsky" by Lenin is also a great introduction, because it captures the spirit of "imperialist left" during the WW1 and was so influential that Kautsky did 180 from being "the chosen one" to greatest villan. You don't get to turn one of most beloved figures of the movement into the evil one without clearly presenting your case and critically analyzing what the figure in question did wrong.

Any books recommendations about critical thinking?

>>11770 ...the human mind just naturally has the ability to see that A follows from B, or that it doesn't. People with damaged brains might not have it, but even for them, studying the working of the mind is pointless since they literally can't study. If you place the mind in an unproductive environment, it might refuse to search for the answer. But as long as you don't cling to what isn't proven, it won't lie. So, this clinging tendency is the foundation of being wrong, and pointing at it whenever we experience mental discomfort is how we train our mind to never do it. As for what environment counts as productive, anyone who managed to go through school should already have a general idea of it.

>>11782 I'm out of my field and honestly I just looked them up, but Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemann seem to have favorable reviews, but at the caveat of the content being very dry and technical. from what i read, the author based their research on new techniques and research papers. I imagine that maybe it was written with the purpose of aiming the book to an audience that is somewhat knowledgable on the topic. I also hear about Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World". I've heard of the guy before, some astronomer. I'm a little cautious about it because it leans more in Skepticism and it is a book that influenced the skeptic movement. Nevertheless, it is also recommended alot, so there must be value from this book, even if dated according to some people. (the book originally published in 1995) If any lainons have their own opinions on the books i'd like to hear it. Thinking fast and slow seems interesting to me, but I know I'll never get around it in a bit with my current reading list

There are no shortcuts for obtaining the ability for critical thinking, I'm afraid. There is not a single book which will change the way you think. Instead, I would really recommend you obtain a decent classical/liberal arts education first. Start by learning about the topics of the Trivium (Logic, Grammar, Rhetoric), read classical literature and poetry. This is your foundation. I would be worried about jumping into modern "critical thinking" methods without having a good grasp on the classical Trivium. Book recommendation: "The Trivium - Miriam Joseph"

Thinking Critically 10e 2010 Chaffee

>>11782

play a lot of chess and read plato + aristotle at age 14- 18. it worked for me lol.

Can someone explain the logic of the "please make a better post" spam filter here

You can't develop your critical thinking skills from books alone. Reading will help. Especially reading from a wide variety of genres and styles. Read fiction, non-fiction, history, religious text, philosophy, poetry, etc. You should read things that don't agree with and hold a biased against. You can use your reading to expose yourself to as many perspectives and thought-patterns as possible. But this practice also needs to continue in your conversations with people in daily life. Genuinely question people and how they think/feel about things. Be willing to listen to them, whether you initially agree with them or not. Hear their side, and then come to your conclusion on whatever you're talking about. Don't be afraid to admit that you were wrong or had your mind changed. That kind of behavior lacks integrity. And definitely don't just parrot soykaf you read online.

study cognitive biases, those are the basic research that every critical thinking book relies on developing a kind of meta view could also help. try to see which emotions you have and ask yourself why you have those. dont be a slave to strong emotions

>>11815 >Don't be afraid to admit that you were wrong or had your mind changed. This is the most important part imo. Ofc, it does not mean to concede on every point that is challenged, but if one was successfully challenged and genuinely altered, you must take the opportunity to question it further and reinforce your view. It can be embarrassing, but it will only ground your believes for the better.

>>11814 https://www.openweb.com/blog/openweb-improves-community-health-with-real-time-feedback-powered-by-jigsaws-perspective-api/

Probably the best college textbook on critical thinking out there. I recommend getting a physical copy, something about paper books slow down the pace of reading, and I understand the subtleties of it better.

>>11768 >You don't learn critical thinking from books OP has been answered. You can not be taught to not do what you are told. Open your mind, go argue with people who disagree with you and critical thinking will come on it's own. Critical thinking is having no respect for your own ideas.

Just read a lot. That's all that's really to it. I prefer reading philosophy, but reading hard fiction is good too (Joyce, Faulkner, Beckett, Henry James, Pynchon, etc). For philosophy, start with Plato (trial and death of Socrates collection is a great starting place). Would also recommend Freud (Mourning & Melancholia, Totem & Taboo, and Beyond the Pleasure Principle are good starting places). I also love Montaigne, Walter Benjamin, Wittgenstein, Heidegger. You don't particularly need any background to read any of this stuff to be honest, just a dictionary. Philosophy podcasts are fun too (Partially Examined Life, Why Theory, Machinic Unconscious Happy Hour).

>>11767 infographic words so the body is not too short or empty

It's very simple in theory, with only 3 lists. You understand critical thinking if and only if you understand all 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

>>11767 Nice book that gives actionable advice on how to rid yourself of cognitive biases and see things in terms of probability rather than right and wrong.

It would be interesting to read *Deep Thinking* to develop deep concentration skills. This is all the more important in a society where attention is fragmented.