I don’t know about y’all, but if I grew up in a country that never has the news criticizing its leaders, I’d be very skepical and deduce that there is censorshop going on and the offical news could be exaggerated or entirely falsified. Do people in authoritarian countries actually just eat the propaganda? To what extent do they believe the propaganda?
This can be controversial, but my opinion is that religious education normally is the opposite of critical thinking. If you teach the kids to accept beliefs just based on faith, you’re killing critical thinking.
It’s not religion that’s the problem but ideology and lazy thinking in general. How many people in the political parties we oppose just accept the lies being fed to them with no critical thought or investigation?
My point is that religious education trains the kids to believe things without verifying facts, even unbelievable fables. I’m just trying to point a potential source of what we know is a big problem.
deleted by creator
True People saying “im from the government and here to help are the scariest words ever”. Aren’t really any different then people that drill a religious phrase into their kids.
Something like host over half of all Americans cannot read above a 5th grade level. Almost a third are functionally illiterate.
It’s not that they don’t have critical thinking skills. It’s that the entire lower-90% have been so badly nerfed that it is increasingly difficult for anyone in that cohort to get to a point where they can educate themselves without copious assistance.
And that’s exactly how Republicans prefer the population - uneducated, illiterate, ignorant and gullible. The better with which to scam them for their votes.
People focus their energies on getting through the day for the most part of their lives. It is very hard for people to muster the time and energy to paying attention to politics, let alone ideologically political propaganda.
The vast majority flat ignore it entirely and remain in an apolitical state. This is a primary function of propaganda: insulating people from political action or thought that might alter the status quo.
Seriously, if you are AWARE of propaganda, you are also aware that you have been influenced by it. Propaganda is pervasive in civilizations. It is simply manipulation. TV ads and guys trying to pick up chicks are everyday uses of propaganda.
I go on Reddit and come here and I nod along and I’m like yes, yes, and then I leave and sometimes it feels like coming up from being underwater. We are quite literally surrounded in propaganda. It has never been easier to disseminate opinions, especially when the majority of our communications (mine for sure) come via text on a screen. It is in every single facet of our lives.
And so I talk to my brother and he always tries to get me to think more, he’s a smart guy. He says things like “Who benefits the most” from whatever, opinion I’ve talked to him about, and so frequently it goes back to corporations. I don’t want to get overtly political, but personally the best way I try to think about things is linearly: this thing we are talking about, trace it to its logical end point and origin. And then feel helpless again.
The average person has lots of critical thinking.
It’s just not a life hack to truth. You can critical think yourself into any conclusion. The average person uses critical thinking to reinforce their biased instead of challenge them.
Sorry but that is wrong. You are using the textbook definition of confirmation bias.
Critical thinking “is the process of analyzing available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to make sound conclusions or informed choices. It involves recognizing underlying assumptions, providing justifications for ideas and actions, evaluating these justifications through comparisons with varying perspectives, and assessing their rationality and potential consequences.”
All of that can be done, badly. Which is how people do it. See the discourse around any popular drama, people have the skills, they just use them in service of their own pre conceived notions.
Then they arent using critical thinking skills, they just think they are. With proper use of critical thinking, the conclusion arises from the evidence, it doesnt confirm “pre conceived notions.”
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don’t agree with.
You can say “that’s not critical thinking” and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won’t have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
That’s not critical thinking at all. Critical thinking is process that questions assertions and sources, and approaches them objectively. If it is ultimately just confirming your own bias, you haven’t used critical thinking.
But what if i started with something true?
Example I was raised being told the earth was round. After watching some flat earth debates i did learn a lot about old experiments the show the earth is round. All critical thinking could do os just re confirm my starting belief
The Scientific Method includes a step in which you state your Hypothesis - an educated guess, based on information you already know. There is nothing wrong with that, because it means you are already familiar the established science.
The issue comes when the experiment uncovers unexpected data and/or conclusions. The proper scientific response is to adjust, or even reject, the hypothesis based on the new data. Someone with good Critical Thinking Skills would have no problem doing that, because a subjective approach, coming up with a truthful conclusion, supported by the data, is always the objective.
Unfortunately, too many people have a personal desire to make their original hypothesis the truth, either because of their ego, or because they have some sort of personal or economic investment in that hypothesis, etc. These are people who are only using the promise of Critical Thinking to add credibility to their conclusions, when in reality, they were always looking to confirm their own bias.
And sometimes the research DOES confirm your hypothesis. That’s not necessarily confirmation bias, as long as your hypothesis was always based on accepted scientific principles. Scientists often have a pretty good idea of the outcome of an experiment. A person looking for confirmation bias goes into an experiment hoping to prove their hypothesis correct, while a true scientist goes in hoping that something unexpected will happen, because that gives them something new and interesting to study.
This is a no true scottsman on critical thinking.
I’m going to copy my reply to Barney above.
We have all sorts of evidence for conflicting conclusions. Most of us do not have the time or resources get a lock on which evidence is truly trustworthy.
If you talk to a flat earther, or a dedicated follower of the oppossing political team, you will see they understand faulty sources, chains of logic, and deductive reasoning, they just only apply them in support of their position.
You can teach a person about bias in research or media and they will use that knowledge to discredit positions they don’t agree with.
You can say “that’s not critical thinking” and on one hand I agree, but teaching more thourough critical thinking skills won’t have the result we want: for people to make evidence based decisions about their life and society.
In my experience, Getting people to change their minds requires engaging their emotions. Decisions are made on the basis or shame, fear, anger, and more rarely, love, hope, and empathy.
The evidence needs to be there to support the emotion, but nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
nobody ever changes their behavior on the strength of the evidence alone.
Simply not true, at all. People change behavior based on evidence all the time.
Critical Thinking requires a totally objective perspective, and emotion has no place in it.
I haven’t thought about it like that, but now that you’ve made me, it makes a lot of sense.
It’s bleak, but if you want to persuade a large number of people to think differently, you don’t challenge their worldview, you create new biases that they will then defend in their own.
See: trump’s constant repetition of blatant lies.
Propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to convince people, but can instead attack the peoples ability to differentiate truth and lie by sowing mistrust about the most mundane and conventional things. When people stop believing their own eyes or following logic, they become easier to manipulate. A bit like gas-lighting, where you sort of turn the critical thinking against them, but on a large scale.
Decision fatigue is a real thing. Ask anyone who sat through three tests in one day; even if you have studied the material, it’s hard to focus after a while. It’s easy to fill our day with minutia that distracts us from the impostant issues.
It’s so nice of you to tell us what would you do and how you’d behave in an hypothetical situation that you have never been nurtured and raised on, and how good you’d do facing it under your current morals and mental framework that may or may not be available during that situation
Good times, critical thinking was had by all
I find way too many people talking about “common sense” as if that was even a thing. It frustrates me to no end.
“common sense”
A set of assumptions(usually false) acquired before age 12.
I’m wondering how you are measuring “common sense” that arrives at “usually false.” Are you ignoring obviously common sense things, like “the sky is up” – since that’s just common sense?
If you are in North America and you draw a line straight up, will you reach the sky in Australia?
Well I didn’t say the sky isn’t also down. (Begrudging upvote.)
You know, you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
I respect your technical smartass response to my technical smartass check attempt.
The thing about propaganda that’s often overlooked is the fact that it isn’t just about controlling what people think - it’s about controlling what people think other people think.
Completely agree.
People are tribal - they tend to conform to what the group thinks and does. We’re also primed with strong us vs. them tendencies, that is you want your team to win whatever happens.
As you say, if you believe that (for example) your friends and neighbours think democrats are radical socialists out to destroy American life, it would be highly dangerous to vote democrat let alone be on team democrat.
Many of the United States have removed teaching critical thinking from their curriculum.
Do you believe in religion? Do you believe in any home remedies? Do you eat the same foods you grew up with?
It’s a very rare person that questions literally everything and logically analyzes why they think what they think.
As someone who has always done this, this has been a very hard lesson to learn. It doesn’t make sense to me how you can go through life and NOT do that. Like… Fuck dude… I just feel like everyone is so fucking DUMB. Like I don’t want to be narcissistic and shit but Jesus people … Maybe try a little!!!
eat the same foods as you grew up with
That’s unfair. Food has a subjective component, so naturally most people who enjoyed their childhoods will rate the foods of their youth higher than others might.
I more meant the choice to be an omnivore or vegetarian or vegan or carnivore. Most people don’t question why they do what they do.
Questioning beliefs takes a lot of time and courage. Very few people do it.
If you believe you’re the only one feeling this way you’re likely to doubt yourself. If it’s dangerous to voice how you feel, you won’t hear that others share this skepticism.
Do people in authoritarian countries actually just eat the propaganda?
They surely do in the USia, why wouldn’t they do it in other countries. It is only takes to convince third of a population but it has to be the loud third to maintain power in a modern “Democracy”
I was idly thinking about this the other day, how absolutely lonely it must be in say North Korea, where if you’re caught by the regime to be thinking the wrong thing you’ll get killed. I’d know its bullshit, but I’d be terrified of speaking out or asking questions, incase the person I’m speaking to is an agent of the state, or will suspect me of being an agent and inform the authorities incase I’m testing them.
It must be awful not knowing who’s a secret police, who’s a gullible rube for buying the propaganda and who’s just hiding behind forced conformity.
I don’t think many of them will believe the propaganda, but I bet the ones who do will be the happiest. Or least miserable I guess.
I thought you were talking about the US a moment there
