Egocentric thinking results from the unfortunate fact that humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others. They do not naturally appreciate the point of view of others nor the limitations in their own point of view. ...Instead of using intellectual standards in thinking, they often use self-centered psychological standards to determine what to believe and what to reject.
Most commonly used psychological standards in human thinking:
Innate egocentrism: "It is true because I believe it." I believe it even though I have never questioned the basis for many of my beliefs.
Innate sociocentrism: "It is true because we believe it." The dominant beliefs within the group to which I belong are true even though I have never questioned the basis for many of these beliefs.
Innate wish fulfillment: "It is true because I want to believe it." I believe what "feels good," what supports my other beliefs, what does not require me to change my thinking in a significant way, what does not require me to admit I have been wrong.
Innate self-validation: "It is true because I have always believed it." I have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that I have long held, even though I have not seriously considered the extents to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence.
Innate selfishness: "It is true because it is in my selfish interest to believe it." I hold fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money, or personal advantage even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.
Humans are naturally prone to assess thinking in keeping with the above criteria. ...[So] It is not surprising that our thinking is often flawed. We are truly the "self-deceived animal."
Universal Intellectual Standards
are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. Some of these standards are:
Clarity: Could you give me an example/an illustration? Could you elaborate further on that point?
For example, the question "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. A clearer question might be: "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"
Accuracy: Is it really true? How could we check that? The statement "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight" is clear but not accurate.
Precision: Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? The statement "Jack is overweight" is clear and accurate, but not precise. We don't know how overweight Jack is (one pound or 500 pounds).
Relevance: A statement can be clear, accurate and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. Students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. However, effort does not measure the quality of student learning, and effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.
Depth:How does your answer address the complexities in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial.
Breadth: Is there another way to look at this question? Do we need to consider another point of view?
Logic: Does this really make sense? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together in some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical."
Significance: Is this the central idea to focus on? Which of these facts are most important?
Fairness: Do I have any ested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?
Source:
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
www. criticalthinking.org
