Undoubtedly, there are many concepts that are handled with some bias, depending on the environment, interest, mentality, or simply due to lack of information. In organizations and for example, we do not always agree on the meaning of quality, strategy or innovation. In the field of personal strengths, it would seem that sometimes we interpret in a particular way leadership, professional competence, integrity, informational skills, critical thinking… Let us dwell on critical thinking, whose need has also been highlighted in the forum of Davos.
Of course, there is much that experts (philosophers, psychologists, educators…) have written about this cardinal cognitive strength (it seems that sometimes with a certain academic style that alienates the reader from walking); It is a lot, yes, surely all very well thought out and timely, although it does not seem to have reached all of us because we often handle the concept with some imprecision. There are those who still associate the concept of critical thinking with the critical individual (attentive to denouncing mistakes, errors and culprits), and even criticism in general, favorable or unfavorable, that is, to examine, judge; Even among the apparently initiated, there seems to be a tendency at times to underline some aspect of the construct and perhaps to relativize or make others invisible.
The concern - the critical thinking movement - arose some five decades ago, as a consequence of the generalization of the need: the means of communication and information itself were multiplying, and the so-called era of knowledge was emerging (a time that forces us to know, and also to think properly about what we know). Indeed, critical thinking had to be encouraged as soon as possible, as well as informational skills; A critical attitude seemed inexcusable to handle well with so much information and of such unequal quality.
It would seem that the concept constructed contemplates thinking for ourselves with independence, maximum care, open-mindedness, good evaluative criteria, flexibility to reconsider positions, awareness of one's own conditions and of the mistakes made, in search, in short, of objectivity; aims to think properly documented, doubting and trying to ensure steps and inferences before reaching a solid conclusion; It involves thinking with a desire to adopt the best decisions or solutions, the result of a suitable insight into the challenges.
This critical thinker exhibits in his musings some intellectual virtues, such as humility, impartiality, perseverance, respect for the positions of others… It would seem that we are within the field of the cognitive and the attitudinal, but in very estimable levels by virtuous. Of course, critical thinking could sometimes lead us to see things differently from how others see them - in this way and by the way, we would display creative potential - but certainly our thinker, by dissenting, is content, prudent, oblivious to it. feeling of possessing the truth and reason.
Undoubtedly - obvious - there were already excellent thinkers in ancient civilizations, thinkers who questioned things and sought new solutions, new truths. That's right, but in our time we would all have to think more and better, with autonomy and rigor, in search of success, although aware of the possibility of error; We would have to do our best and attend to the different cogitational dimensions: conceptual, analytical, synthetic, connective, inferential, strategic, systemic, argumentative, inquisitive, prospective, creative thinking…
For documented, insightful, independent in thinking, it would not be easy to manipulate or deceive our critical thinker, an individual who does not believe everything he reads or hears, but wants to make sure, is documented and reaches his conclusions convinced; however, as described, he overcomes the temptation to impose his certainties on others. If he reaches them, his certainties are his, the result of the documentation handled and his reasoning, aware however that he is a fallible human being, perfectible in his criteria and his musings.
We have tried to briefly deploy the construct. It is already seen that a construction of so many pieces allows to emphasize some of them, with the risk, yes, of minimizing others. From the outset, thinking individuals are targeted. If “critical” can be warned to some, it could also happen with “thinker”. Perhaps we still remember that “you are not paid for thinking, but for working” (or that of Pío Baroja, that in our country “you are not paid for work but for submission”); Things have changed, but perhaps there are organizations, environments, environments whose leaders prefer follow-up to follow-up.
Thus, the critical thinker can be perceived as very given to thinking, as an intense, sharp, responsive thinker, and even a certain prevention can be incubated in this regard when - it will be understood that we are not trying to generalize - he is considered subordinate. Perhaps none of this fits in the so-called intelligent organizations, within the economy of knowledge; but we do target those environments (political, religious, professional…) in which leadership and manipulation could go hand in hand with some frequency.
It may seem like a bold simplification, but we would say that, as a worker, we see the critical thinker as the bearer of “human capital”, and that “human resource” sounds more like uncritical thinking. Obviously, the “human resources” thing is here to stay, and the most thoughtful and least thinking workers seem to be seen, all, as such resources. Regarding the condition of citizenship, politicians seem to take us all as highly manipulable (especially in electoral campaigns) and, regarding the condition of believers, a good part of the religious leaders seem to take for granted in their faithful uncritical thought, the assent to the clerical rhetoric, in the face of dogmas and slogans.
The critical thinker has also been perceived as a markedly skeptical individual, tending to deny everything that, let's put it this way, is not accepted by the establishment. Of course, well, it seems not to believe everything, but perhaps not so good about narrowing your mind to new possibilities. We know well that, throughout history, official science - skeptical authorities in each branch - has been making it very difficult for scientists who brought new answers, new truths; Here we can remember, for example quickly (and not always to speak of the astronomers of heliocentrism), the doctor Edward Jenner at the end of the 18th century and, in relation to the kinetic theory of gases and already in the 19th century, the also English John Herapath or the Scotsman John James Waterston.
Certainly we can tune in well with the constructed concept, but we also sometimes associate the critical thinker with criticality (favorable or unfavorable), with turning things around a lot and questioning them, or with a certain skepticism perhaps closer to refutation than to refutation. reasonable doubt (that is, perhaps more rigid in mind than flexible). Other times it seems that we are narrowing it down, reducing it to the cognitive aspect more related to the treatment of the information that comes to us or that we access.
So far the reflection. Well understood in breadth and depth, it seems necessary that we dedicate ourselves to the cultivation of critical thinking, for the benefit of our personal effectiveness: there seem to be no legitimate reservations about its need. Of course, the uncritical, credulous, submissive attitude takes away our dignity as human beings; Without critical thinking we cannot feel educated, mature, developed as people. Education systems would surely have to do more to develop critical thinking from childhood.
