Critical Thinking and Writing

You know I had realized that I am not really as good at critical as a thought. I know in high school I had to use the internet mostly to answer the questions to an assignment. Sometimes I didn't read the material but when I actually did read the material they assign to me, I am mot sure if I actually understand it. Also, my essays tend to be poorly written or just plain inaccurate to warrant a good grade. I improved as I progressed through my schooling but compared to most people, I am not very organized and my points aren't really clear. I am not good at critical thinking and I wonder if it is really important to writing?

Well in general it is a good idea to question whether something can be done differently and what would be a good way to put it into action.

For example, the Blithe Spirit trope. It is through critical thinking that I identify some possible deconstruction of that tropes. For example, what if the Blithe Spirit has subtle flaws or prejudices in his or her plan/style. If someone were to question the Blithe Spirit on those flaws, that character would come off as a supporter of the establishment against which the Blithe Spirit struggles despite the good intentions.

edited 8th Apr '14 9:48:50 PM by Worlder

I guess it would but does critical thinking also mean that the person doing the analysis also has to ask questions that they didn't even consider? I know when I had to do a reading assignment in school, they asked me questions that I never thought to ask. I am not particularity articulate or organized enough to write a whole blog on this but I do know you need to be organized to do so.

Not sure if this would help, or even if this is the sort of thing you are referring to, but let's look at The Bible as an example. Putting aside your religious beliefs, after Moses and the Israelites fled Egypt and set up camp there were a list of rules and laws, everything from sleeping arrangements to the rules in regards to animals, generally anyone who did not follow these rules would surely be put to death.

Without making this a religious debate what do you take from what is said? Archer suggests that it is open to interpretation. Taking this into account were these rulings for the Israelites or do they apply to all Christians, if not everyone in the world? If the second are those who see the passage and take this as marching orders against those who defy these laws right? Or was Jesus right in saying to follow your religion as much as the law of the land allows, hence no killing?

That might help in terms of critical thinking.

edited 10th Apr '14 2:14:17 AM by tsstevens

To be honest religious thinking aside, I suppose the Laws were there to distinguish the Israelites from the other tribes of the region. A large majority of the laws were fair for its day as what happened to them might have been much worse. Not many Christians agree on what laws to follow especially the laws on sacrifices and women but they did serve as foundation on Western thinking and morality. Most western laws had been influenced by the Hebrews and the Greeks as they set the foundations necessary for future political and moral philosophy.

Also, does reading and research help with critical thinking? Sometimes when I write, my mind is at a complete blank as I know what to write and yet the words don't come out. This doesn't always happen but sometimes the words are just not there for me.

Absolutely. For example you might look at something such as the use of lethal force by police and look at the spate of shootings in Victoria, Australia, where it jumped 300% in the span of a few years. At first glance it may seem like police there are trigger happy and you could understand if not agree with the idea of the armed robbery squad being a police hit team. But if you do the research then you would see that this was a reaction to police being specifically targeted, Russell and Hoddle Street, bombs placed at police headquarters with further bombs intended to kill the attending emergency services. In light of that you might understand the other point of view as well, if not agree with Vic Pol becoming more aggressive.

Or take Dead Island. There are quite a few instances where research shows the full story and how it casts things in a different light. I don't want to reveal spoilers but a small one, John Morgan recounts in one of his diary entries the army bombing a village, he reacts like a Collingwood supporter when the Magpies are losing. Yet he does not know just how bad the situation is the way you most likely would if only from the trailers or hearing about the game, so again you might understand the military's actions if not agree with them.

In short, Once More, with Clarity, Shown Their Work and averting Did Not Do The Research, the more you can do it the more critical thinking you can do. Try and get both sides of the story.

Critical thinking is an essential skill in today's world. People bombard us with claims all the time- or we find ourselves wanting to persuade people to adopt our point of view on some issue that is important to us- there are specific skills one can learn to improve one's thinking and ability to persuasively communicate. Thinking what questions to ask is indeed a very important part of it.

I recommend starting with the "Critical Thinking Rubric" developed by Washington State University. It's quick and easy to remember:

1. Identify the basics of the topic
2. Analyze the material
3. Address different perspectives
4. Examine contexts
5. Identify own position
6. Conclusion

A somewhat more extensive approach is here. He goes over some basic rubrics for different types of essays and provides other links to follow.

Follow up with this site here. That page not only has some useful advice to get you started, but it's part of a larger site that focuses on teaching critical thinking to students. "Becoming a critic of your own thinking" will probably be the first essay you want to read.

Have fun.

There are various fallacies that demonstrate poor critical thinking which can sink a story, at least in my opinion.

For example, ad hominem is when you attack the person instead of their argument. Imagine a story where the heroine plans to destroy a bridge to stop bandits from swarming her village, but she abandons the plan because her local nemesis thought of it as well... she decides that since he is evil, any plan he agrees with must be a bad plan. If the story treats this as a clever decision on her part which saves the day, it is a bad story because the plot is illogical. The plot is illogical in this case because of the writer's poor critical thinking.

If you improve your critical thinking, then your stories may be stronger simply because you can more easily avoid illogical narratives.

edited 12th Apr '14 3:57:03 AM by editerguy