Critical thinking, integral to creative and strategic thinking, banks on effective communications. It is easy to blame media or a distracted or disinterested public for our social inability to think well. But, this is only one more red herring.  The responsibility for successful communications lies ultimately with the sender; not with the receiver; or the media … It's the sender's responsibility to get the receiver's attention. It's the sender's job to pick the medium or mix of media that will get the receiver's attention and deliver the message best. It's the sender who molds the message into media and sends the message through media to targeted receivers. And it's the sender who makes sure the message has been received and understood by receivers within the communicator's targeted range of acceptability … In the context of a situational comedy, or as an element of light humor in discussions between people in other media formats, or as its own media format, "entertainment" is just one of many ways to get and hold the attention of receiving audiences. Yet, in the context of news and current events coverage, it generally distracts … But, "entertainment" -- even "edutainment" -- has its own array of formatted logic, sequencing, and continuity. There are many kinds of entertainment: Music. Theater. Humor. It can be highly discursive set into other contexts seeking objective levels of communion, or it can be highly appropriate, even supportive. Is entertainment always the right medium for the message between engaged communicators and receivers on issues of social gravitas or consequence? No! Can it be used discretely and effectively in news and current event presentations. Yes! … Yet, isn't reasoning, well-integrated inquiry, discourse, and discovery among and between engaged minds, as Michael has suggested, potentially more "entertaining" to inquiring minds than any muse or gimmick imposed onto space, time, or interaction by another media format?" Critical communications require their own media formats … If media choice is ultimately the responsibility of the communicator -- not media, not receiving audiences -- isn't it the responsibility of communicators to find or create the media they need? And, don't you think it's the job of communicators to "dissent" with the limited media formats that are pushed onto them by media owners and representatives? … If you agree it's the engaged thinking driven by communicators that needs to push media owners for new kinds of media formats more conducive to deeper levels and grids of engaged complex thought, isn't this a form of dissent? Dissent implies more than disagreement. It would almost have to be proactive … We have words, language, text, images, graphics, and online media that offer a range of critical media formats that are static. But, critical thought is sometimes advanced with demonstration media such as videos, DVDs, podcasts and vodcasts, etc. What better kinds of media formats do critical thinkers need? … Finally, is this line of questioning, itself, "dissent under a broader definition?" And, as communicators, don't we have an obligation to design or create media formatting in line with our message requirements? Is it simply enough to say, "the media programmers, media syndicators, or media owners need to do something" when in fact it is we communicators that are the potential users. When we point finger at others we inhibit our ability to say clearly, accurately, relevantly, logically, and significantly what needs to be said? And, as this suggests, done.

###

It is in our nature to sometimes take short cuts in our daily thinking and routines. While these shortcuts can sometimes lead to discovering new ways of doing things differently and better, they frequently change our outcomes with unintended consequences that can make things much worse. For example, the notion that "critical thinking encourages dissent" is quite different from the concept that "critical thinking sharpens one's ability to dissent constructively when thinking requires it." The former suggests an objective precondition to thinking. The latter suggests a cognitive readiness to take a position when one's thinking leads to a well-considered conclusion. Today's news and commentary media -- some with legacies in principled, timely, constructive, objective, well-communicated political satire and courageous critical dissent -- too often appear to be taking short cuts with their intellectual product. You see short cuts in editorials, where reporting is unclear, inaccurate, irrelevant, superficial, insignificant and highly subjective. You see short cuts in media policy, where the editorial or program format sacrifices substance and significance for "splash value" and entertainment. And, you even see short cuts in media brand positioning. Some media short cuts have become systemic. For example, there seems to be a major non-sequitur in play within our media organization policies that requires contributing writers and on-air talent to be edgy, negative, or cynical first as a precondition for their contributing anything that might also be objective, constructive, and significant. Where did cynicism replace skepticism as the operative concept for news and commentary? I'm sorry but I don't think "muckraking" is a substitute for well-constructed, independent, skeptical thinking that may or may not dissent from majority consensus on our social issues. Nor do I think critical dissent evolves from muckraking. I'd argue that when media set out to be cynical and negative on issues as their primary objective, they undercut an ability to look openly into an issue and provide healthy skeptical, constructive, objective and clear critical dissent about it. What  do you think?  When we  "encourage dissent," aren't we really intending to say "think about this issue and dissent if and when your thinking leads you there?"  Do you think our media culture is shortcutting its editorial responsibilities by confusing cynicism with skepticism?  Have you ever been a party to conversations where editors and publishers openly tell their contributors to dissent negatively and cynically as preconditions to conducting or accepting thorough critical commentary? Or, do you believe the media intentionally ignores these nuances to build audiences and ratings for capital gain at the expense of our social discourse and values?  How pervasive do you think these practices are?

###

Is the Practice of Plea Bargaining Just?
SonomaLight -- November 21, 2007
by Hunter Finch

In the context of media advancing information on prosecutorial claims about suspects and hearings in progress, do you think the U.S. legal system is working at cross purposes with its own ideals? Should names of the detained, arrested, or accused be advanced or leaked to media before verdicts are reached at trial? If not, should laws for leaking be made more strict and leakers prosicuted more strictly? Does the prosecutorial tactic of charging people for crimes, even when there is insufficient or sometimes no evidence, working at odds with the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven? Is the practice of offering the accused a plea bargain on trumpted up charges in exchange for a plea of guilt to lesser charges before a judge, a form of extortion? Should prosecuters be allowed to freely use their license to intimidate and impose unwarranted pressure on those for whom there is little or no evidence to suggest guilt? Has our legal system extended itself beyond the law? If not, what laws need to be changed? Should grand juries be allowed to announce their findings prior to trial? Should the media be allowed in to cover grand jury proceedings prior to the actual trial?

###

Does Critical Thinking Add to Overload?
Gravitas – November 13, 2007
by Hunter Finch

College students are dealing with "information overload." They complain about having "too much to learn in too little time." And most faculty are attempting to cover entirely too much material in a semester course. So, it's common to wonder, "Does an emphasis on critical thinking in the classroom add to this overload?"… We need to move away from an emphasis on content coverage and towards an emphasis on deep understandings about the most fundamental concepts in our courses. When students are taught in the didactic mode -- when they are "dumped on" -- most cannot adequately articulate even the most basic concepts of a given subject at the end of a semester’s course. They forget anything they may have preped up for a lot more easily than anything they ever actually "learned.". Remember, most students take years of classes in science, history, math, language arts, etc., and yet they cannot accurately state what science is, why it is important to think scientifically, what history is and why it is important to think historically, what math is and why it is important to think mathematically, etc? … We have been on the content coverage bandwagon for many years, and the volume of content we are asking students to learn is increasing exponentially at accellerating and compounding rates of complexity. Even our best students are limited in what they can conceptually learn and apply over the course of one semester. So, as we design our courses, we need to ask ourselves questions such as these: "If my students learn nothing else in my classes, what would I want them to learn?" And, "What concepts within the targeted content are the most crucial for them to understand and utilize for the rest of their lives?" In other words, we need to teach for significance. Nobody understands or does everything well. Our challenge is to get everyone understanding and doing at least one thing well. This said, it's essential to optimize learning for significant understandings in at least one or several domains on a case by case basis before pushing a content dense curriculum. Substantive understandings in any one domain or discipline often serves as a foundational pro forma for further learning in that domain as well as others. As students succeed in their critical understandings and commitments in formative domains and disciplines they are also learning how to learn critically in other domains and disciplines for life … The fact is we have little time with our students. Most of what we want to teach, we simply do not have the time to teach. Thus, we must begin with the most significant ideas and concepts in our subjects. We must help students grasp and apply those ideas deeply so that those ideas take root and continue to live, grow, and process information in their minds across their individual interests and throughout their lives. When critical thought becomes the standard in the classroom, as in life, the issue of "overload" generally evaporates for teachers as well as students. Learnining is only difficult when you don't know how to do it. Conversely, learning consumes you when you have learned how to learn. Thus, "overload" becomes a non issue when you are critically equipped and compelled to learn about the domains and disciplines that most interest you. That's my sense of it. What's yours?

###

Where Do I Apply Critical Thinking?
Gravitas -- November 2, 2007
by Hunter Finch

For me, critical thinking is a soliloquy. I talk to myself constantly, much to the frustration of others as well as myself. The suggestion that we merely apply critical thinking after doing it, as opposed to think critically about something we believe, say, and do while believing, saying and doing it, seems a little strange to me. The idea of applying critical thinking to something you're going to do as opposed to thinking critically before, during and after doing it suggests one merely needs to think before doing.

As I understand it, critical thinking is like a continuous stream of light that projects outward and reports back continual insights and understandings on presupposed activity before, during, after, between and across domains in progress. It isn't something you do in the "critical thinking department" before moving on to another department where critical thinking isn't needed.

That said, my greatest failure -- and there are many -- is probably a tendency to not hear and understand what others mean by what they say even when I'm listening critically to what they are saying. Or, on the flip side, to say what I mean, not just so others might understand what I mean but so that they can't misunderstand what I mean. In other words, my greatest failure to apply critical thinking is most likely my use, misuse and overuse of language to say what normally can be said better, more simply and to the point.

It's easy to fool myself into thinking I know what people mean by what they say, and that others understand where I'm coming from by what I have said, but, how do you ever really know exactly what someone means when they haven't said what they mean? Or when you superimpose your own interpretations of what you think they mean onto a discussion or application in progress? Or when you try to rephrase their language to make sense of it? And, how do you commune with those around you to share relevant insights and support collective interests so that everyone's on the same page so you can move ahead together in common applications?

We each come from different backgrounds and interests. Our language and our points of entry on discussions are more often than not skewed. Is it egocentric to assume you know what someone is asking or thinking by what they have said or haven't said? Is it right to interpret and rework someone else's language in the interest of progress? Is it pretentious to engage in conversations on issues when you're the only one in the discussion? Does one's failures and successes to apply critical thought in their ongoing critical soliloquy ever end? Or, is it one's critical soliloquy that makes the application worth doing in the first place?

###