Sir, what is the impact of Emotional intelligience on critical thinking ? how does expressions affect and influence our judgement.
Example: American meets African (Black), who is more competent, intelligent and creative. but the first thought about African is he is black. (Think about pre-conceived notions about black people).
why do we say CT is never negative, beause there are a few conspiracy makers, not majority of the peopl and they rule the rest of the people. CT is negative here. When the defense analysts make stragaties in war against enemies, it is negative.When Bank robber rob a bank, it is neagative.
ReplyDelete@Sarmad: Intelligence in general is quite obviously linked to our model of CT, as an obvious (given) assumption. Without some measure of intelligence it is not possible to think critically.
ReplyDeleteEI is one of the recognized forms of intelligences but is very hazy in its interpretations. It essentially has a cognitive nature to it, in that it means that one has the ability to manage ones (and others’) emotions. Look up (search) Howard Gardner: “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,” for a list of the types of intelligences & what these mean. However, for a quick/high level understanding, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences; if you want to read this book, then let me know).
EI indeed impacts our CT abilities and dispositions. But EI is not the same thing as just (and ‘unchecked’) emotions, inherent motivations, feelings, etc. It’s the ‘positive’ / (cognitive management) of these emotions which (I think) constitutes EI. I sense that there is generally an erroneous notion that emotions are defaulted at bad, that these ‘always’ lend itself it to biased judgment. I don’t think so. I think context/milieu/environment is very important in the ‘handling’ of emotions vis a vis CT.
My unproven contention is that Pakistanis / Asians generally have or could have high EI as opposed to the more (ostensibly) cognitive & rational societies of the West. From a CT perspective, and from the specific context of our model (cognitive), it is understood to carry more risk (of misuse, of being unchecked) than as an advantage or opportunity to enhance ones CT abilities & skills. It’s important to recognize its existence by filtering it through the elements of thinking, in particular, &/but also through intellectual traits & standards of CT.
Now, let’s take your example: First, I think it’s highly unlikely for an American to react to black people from Africa or anywhere else.
I think the ‘majority’ of Americans have overcome that racist issue; they have a black President. I wonder to what extent people from other countries & regions have consciously managed this essentially global issue of color bias in general! Notice also, the inherent assumption / presumption in your example. ‘American’ is ‘casually’ (unreflectively) associated with being white/Caucasian, while Africans are black. It’s clearly not always the case.
Regards,
Faheem
In your ‘loaded’ examples, the use of the word ‘negative’ in the context of CT means different things. In general, CT is associated with ‘negative’ when, in the sense, or when it is assumed to, or when it directly connotes criticism or fault finding (captiousness) of some or any sort. But in our model of CT, the word ‘critical’ really connotes / means analytical & without bias or favor (nepotism). At a very fundamental level, the word critical emanates from two Greek words: ‘kriticos’ and ‘kriterion’. ‘Kriticos’ mean means ‘discerning judgment’ while ‘kriteria’ means ‘standards’. Together this means 'discerning judgment based on standards'.
ReplyDeleteIn the defense examples you are using a moral judgment. It highlights ‘your personal value or position (normative') on the matter, essentially that war is bad. In the eyes of the defense analysts, war is probably a necessary reality, an outcome of conflict where the objective is to win whatever way you chose to define the word ‘win.’ Therefore the defense analysts will use whatever intelligence (aka critical thinking) to meet their objectives. Unlike you, they are most likely not concerned with moral and ethical judgment.
For our purposes in CT thinking, we need to be able to recognize the types of judgments we may have to make in life: objective, subjective, ethical, moral, black or white, rigid, or flexible, etc. The CT model – if used self reflectively (meta-cognitively) - enables us to highlight these differentiations, options, choices. While our model does not specifically get into morality and ethics, (its outside the its purview), it does have certain standards, and one of the more important ones of which fair-mindedness.
So in the defense example, we could say that there is a possibility that the defense people are intelligent and have the skills and abilities of critical thinkers, but that they are not ne4cessarily fair-minded. At another level, the defense analyst may argue that once init it, then all is fair love and war. The important thing for you to know is that you have a value system which is bound to get challenged in many contexts in life. How and why would you hold on to your values is the core question for self reflection.
Would you not use intelligence (as much knowledge of CT as needed) along with possibly even physical power to restrain or even kill someone who tries to harm you?
I think the same kind of logic does not exactly really apply to the case of the bank robbers.
There’s no issue of ethics or morals here; at least there’s no debate about it. In most societies in the world, once could argue, that robbing is considered to be wrong. It’s a judgment and a clear one. So if robbers are using their intelligence then this does not necessarily mean that they are using fair-mindedness. This in turn means that they are not using critical thinking in the way that we’ve defined it. Therefore the robbers are not critical thinkers because they do not meet a fundamental criterion of being a CT, of fair-mindedness.
Its important to recognize 'context' when ever you are anlayzing something, especially from a CT perspective.
Regards,
Faheem
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Sarmad & Miqdad.
ReplyDeleteCheck out this link for a more professional and eloquent treatment of the relationship between EI & CT by Linda Elder. She's one of the authors of one of our books in this course.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/print-page.cfm?pageID=485
Regards,
Faheem
Thankyou Sir :-)
ReplyDeleteSir i still dont get it. i would like to ask people critically think to get to a significant conclusion. Terrorists think probably to reach to a conclusion on whether to carry out a terrorist activity or not. For terrorists terrorism is their business while for you and me teaching and studying is. For them terrorism is positive while for us its negative. So don’t you think critical thinking is a matter of acuity and how one perceives the idea of the subject
ReplyDeleteThank You for commenting on all the possible dimension of my question sir. :) Now, things are making sense for me. :P
ReplyDeleteI think its okay to have biases in our sub-conscious, because 'forcibly not having biases' is also a biased act. We are also learning when we are making false conclusions and judgement about ourselves and others, this is also indicator of 'self-awareness'...and that why we make judgements all the time.
ReplyDeleteLets think about the angels who don't use the faculty of imagination and judgement, they work like robots. they don't make decisions, if we would have been like them.
Biases are the inception of CT in a way, when we learn by making mistakes, bad judgments, un-authentic approach to the conclusion.
@Sarmad. On your question on terrorism.
ReplyDeleteNo! The terrorists are not thinking critically at all. They may be thinking intelligently & analytically - neither of which carries a value judgment in & of itself. 'But ones actions do.' And that's where CT's have a problem with this.
Converesly they may not be thinking at all!!Terrorists do not engage in thinking to reason towards a conclusion. They already have a conclusion; they work backwards. Their thinking is confined to the best possible way of implementing their destructive acts.
On the other hand critical thinkers routinely go through a reasoning & reflective process. They are not necessarily always aware (upfront)of their conclusions, decision & actions. And strong sensed CTs awlays take ownership of their actions, even if that action is inaction.
In critical thinking we are clearly territorial'. We do not consider unethical & immoral acts to be within our practising domain. It does not matter whose name, or in what pretetxt, you kill under. It is a criminal act. It harms human beings.
Also, "we" are not 'just' teaching & learning critical thinking. We are certainly practicing it & I think are also beginning to apply it in various contexts of our lives. Obviously it's not a one-off activity.
Regards,
Faheem