critical thinking

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 10, 11

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
critical thinking
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

· Lesson

Introduction
Remember – these journal questions require more thinking than writing. Think about exactly what you are asked to do, and then write as economically as possible.  

Instructions
For this journal assignment, briefly answer each of the following prompts. For all instances where you are required to provide a definition, do not copy definitions from the text. Use your own words.

· Self-Regulation

· The textbook mentions the skill of self-regulation. How do you define this term? You may want to review Chapter 2 (to review critical thinking skills) before your write out your definition.

· Sytem-1 and System-2

· Define System-1 and System-2 thinking in your own words.

· Give an example from your personal or work life where you would use each of them, explaining why each is appropriate to the situation in which you use it.

· Heuristics

· Define “heuristic” in your own words.

· Give an example of a heuristic might be used in your personal or professional life and briefly show how it could have a positive or negative effect.

· Do not use examples found in the text.

· Dominance Structuring

· Explain the term “dominance structuring” in your own words.

· Is dominance structuring a positive or negative attribute of critical thinking? Explain.

· Use examples if that is helpful to your explanation.

· Cognitive Bias

· Briefly examine what part you think mastery of facts and understanding of data have in avoiding cognitive bias in System-1 thinking.

If you include references to outside sources (beyond the textbook), make sure you cite them properly.

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

· References page (as needed)

Grading
This activity will be graded using the Journal Grading

Rubric

.

Course Outcomes (CO): 1, 4, 5

Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday

Rubric

Journal Grading Rubric – 35 pts

Meets length requirement

0.0 pts

Does not meet length requirement

5.0 pts

Reflection demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Insightful and relevant connections made through contextual explanations, inferences, and examples.

12.75 pts

Reflection demonstrates some degree of critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions activities, and/or assignments. Connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.

11.25 pts

Reflection demonstrates limited critical thinking in applying, analyzing, and/or evaluating key course concepts and theories from readings, lectures, media, discussions, activities, and/or assignments. Minimal connections made through explanations, inferences, and/or examples.

9.0 pts

Reflection lacks critical thinking. Superficial connections are made with key course concepts and course materials, activities, and/or assignments.

0.0 pts

Little or no reflection; copies or repeats text or lecture.

15.0 pts

Conveys strong evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates significant personal growth and awareness of deeper meaning through inferences made, examples, well developed insights, and substantial depth in perceptions and challenges. Synthesizes current experience into future implications.

8.5 pts

Conveys evidence of reflection on own work with a personal response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates satisfactory personal growth and awareness through some inferences made, examples, insights, and challenges. Some thought of the future implications of current experience.

7.5 pts

Conveys limited evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Demonstrates less than adequate personal growth and awareness through few or simplistic inferences made, examples, insights, and/or challenges that are not well developed. Minimal thought of the future implications of current experience.

6.0 pts

Conveys inadequate evidence of reflection on own work in response to the self-assessment questions posed. Personal growth and awareness are not evident and/or demonstrates a neutral experience with negligible personal impact. Lacks enough inferences, examples, personal insights and challenges, and/or future implications are overlooked.

0.0 pts

No evidence of reflection.

10.0 pts

5.0 pts

Journal Grading Rubric – 35 pts

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Reflection

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersonal Growth

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality

5.0 pts

Well written and clearly organized using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling errors.

4.25 pts

Above average writing style and logically organized using standard English with minor errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.

3.75 pts

Average and/or casual writing style that is sometimes unclear and/or with some errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling.

3.0 pts

Poor writing style lacking in standard English, clarity, language used, and/or frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, usage, and spelling. Needs work.

0.0 pts

Lacks coherence; errors in grammar, usage and spelling interfere with readability and understanding to significant degree.

Total Points: 35.0

Previous

Next

Many good judgments we make every day are automatic or reactive, rather than reflective. Consider the ease with which well-trained pilots fly complicated machines safely taking millions of us to our destina- tions every day. Through training and repetition, vet- eran pilots have internalized and made automatic a series of complex analyses, inferences, and quick effec- tive judgments that novice pilots often find mentally all-consuming. Automatic reactions are also seen in more “grounded” drivers and in other situations. For example, bike riders often pedal along, paying more attention to the beauty of their surroundings than on shifting gears or maintaining their balance. The pro- cess of e-mailing friends is another example. Our fin- gers tap the keys, but our minds are focused more on composing our messages than on locating the let- ters on the keyboards.

H

uman beings do not make all their decisions using only their capacity for delib- erative reflective thought. Human decision making is more complex.1 Some judgments, including many good ones, are quick and reactive, not deliberative or reflective. Although some judgments are best made more automatically or reactively, some are best made reflectively.2 Our real-life critical thinking question is “Which of our reactive judgments ought we to make reflectively?”

For any of us to maximize our personal potential for developing and applying critical thinking to real-life decision making, we first must understand how human problem solving and decision making function in real life. We know that critical thinking, or reflective pur- poseful judgment, can and ought to be applied to a very large array of vital issues and important decisions. And we know from our experience that we do not always use critical thinking. The fact that we do not use critical thinking does not imply that we ought not to be using critical thinking.

This chapter and the next one focus on the skill of self-regulation, because monitoring our own decision making and correcting our own decision making turn out to be essential. Taking a moment to “stop and think” is excellent advice for every one of us, authors included. We begin this chapter with a brief synopsis of the cogni- tive science research on decision making so that we can position critical thinking, and in particular the skill of self-regulation, within that context. We will learn that many reactive judgments are good judgments. But, in some circumstances, reactive judgments can lead to unnecessary risks and mistaken biases. Our work in this chapter is to use self-regulation to become more aware of those circumstances so we can correct ourselves reflectively, using critical thinking, before we make a mistake.

10.1 Our Two Human Decision-Making

Systems

Human decision making emerges from the interplay of two cognitive drivers. One is our human propensity toward self- explanation known as argument making. The other driver is the influence on our decision making of mental “shortcuts” known as cognitive heuristics. Argument making, as we saw in the previous chapters, is the effort to be logical—that is, to rely on the relevant reasons and facts as we see them when mak- ing our decisions. In general, humans value making important decisions as rationally as the circumstances, significance, and content of their judgments permit. This is not to say that we are always successful in this effort. In fact, we often are not. And yet we explain our choices and judgments to ourselves, if not to others, in terms of the relevant reasons and facts—again, as we see them. For example, you ask me why I stayed overnight at a friend’s house in another city instead of driving home. I reply that it was late and I was very tired, too tired to drive.

Heuristic thinking is the tendency, which is at times quite useful, of relying on highly efficient and generally reliable cognitive shortcuts when reaching a decision. In the research literature, these mental shortcuts are known as cognitive heuristics. These mental maneuvers are as much a part of the human reasoning process as argument making. Cognitive heuristics often enable us to make judg- ments and decisions more expeditiously and efficiently. Their influences, while often positive, can introduce errors and biases into human decision making.

The “Two-Systems” Approach

to Human Decision Making

Research on human decisions made in naturalistic, every- day contexts, describes the interaction of two overlapping decision-making systems.3 One is reactive, instinctive, quick, and holistic (System-1). The other is reflective, deliberative, analytical, and procedural (System-2). Both valuable systems function simultaneously, often checking and balancing each other.

Reactive (SyStem-1) tHinking System-1 thinking

relies heavily on situational cues, salient memories, and heuristic thinking to arrive quickly and confidently at judg- ments, particularly when situations are familiar and immedi- ate action is required. Many freeway accidents are avoided because drivers are able to see and react to dangerous situ- ations quickly. Good decisions emerging from System-1 thinking often feel intuitive.4 Decisions good drivers make in those moments of crisis, just like the decisions practiced ath- letes make in the flow of a game or the decisions that a gifted

teacher makes while interacting with students, are born of expertise, training, and practice. Often we decide first, quickly, and reactively, and then, if asked about our decisions, we explain how we analyzed the situation and we provide the reasons and arguments to explain those snap judgments, which are System-1 decisions. You are suddenly and unex- pectedly confronted with an attack dog, you instantly react defensively. It is natural. So what if the owner tries to reas- sure you with a confident “He won’t bite.” Your System-1 decision making self-protective reaction kicked in, flooding your body with adrenalin and triggering your natural “fight or flee” reaction. If our ancestors had waited around debat- ing what to do when attacked by ferocious carnivorous pred- ators, our species probably would not be around today. Overt explanations using rationalistic argument making in the case of System-1 decisions are retrospective. We look back at what we did and explain the instantaneous System-1 inferences we made at the heat of the moment.

Reflective (SyStem-2) tHinking System-2 think- ing is useful for judgments in unfamiliar situations, for pro- cessing abstract concepts, and for deliberating when there is time for planning and more comprehensive consideration. Humans use heuristic maneuvers in System-2 thinking as well, often integrated as components of their logical argu- ments. Argument making is often part of the inference and deliberation process when making System-2 decisions. And, of course, explanations involve making arguments and giv- ing the reasons we used during our deliberations. When we share our reflective interpretations, analyses, evalua- tions, and inferences, we are offering explanations. Because of this, critical thinking is self-regulated System-2 thinking. Critical thinking is System-2 thinking focused on resolv- ing the problem at hand and at the same time monitoring

and self-correcting one’s own process of thinking about that problem.

As you think about the “two-systems” approach, please avoid all the harsh, rigid, stereotypic, divisive, commercialized oppositional, oversimplified, pop cul- ture dichotomies. We are not characterizing human deci- sion making by expressions and false dichotomies such as “emotion vs. reason,” “head vs. heart,” “feeling vs. judg- ment,” “intuitive vs. logical,” “expansive vs. linear,” “cre- ative vs. critical,” “right brained vs. left brained,” “warm vs. cold,” “from Venus vs. from Mars,” or “blink vs. wide- eyed.” Human decision making is neither this superficial nor this simplistic. We are not saying that normal human thinking is schizophrenic or psychologically disordered in any way. We are not suggesting that some people are only System-1 thinkers while others are only System-2 thinkers.

Normal human beings have and use both systems in problem solving and decision making every day. The two- systems approach to understanding human decision mak- ing accounts for the pushes and pulls that normal human beings often describe as part of their decision making. System-1 is the rapid-fire decision making we all experi- ence on some occasions, while System-2 is the more reflec- tive decision making we all experience on other occasions.

Because it is considered more useful for addressing novel and complex problems in a reflective and methodi- cal way, System-2 is the mode of reasoned, informed, and thoughtful problem solving and decision making that a broad undergraduate liberal arts and sciences educa- tion cultivates. System-2 is also the mode addressed by

the evidence-based practice and research methods com- ponents of one’s professional or graduate studies. All levels of education, which aim at improving one’s criti- cal thinking—improving one’s skills and dispositions to engage successfully in purposeful reflective judgment— is education focused directly on strengthening System-2 problem solving and decision making.

Is the two-systems approach only a helpful way of imagining how our minds work, or is there some basis for it in the neural chemistry of the human brain? In fact, it is the second. Using functional MRI scans scientists can now see the changes in brain activity as a person’s think- ing moves from one system to the other during learn- ing.5 System-1 processing appears highly reactive, like a reflex automatically triggered by a stimulus. By contrast, System-2 reasoning is described as much more reflective, analytical, mindful, and meta-cognitive. But System-2 can override System-1, which gives all of us hope that our decisions can be more than knee-jerk reactions.

The Value of Each System

System-1 and System-2 are vital decision-making tools, par- ticularly when stakes are high and uncertainty is an issue. We can often rely on System-1 to get us through our day-to-day activities while engaging System-2 on some other topic of con- cern. People report they can drive from home to work without remembering any of the hundreds of routine automobile oper- ating decisions necessary to make the trip. Others report being able to drink a cup of coffee and finish a bowl of breakfast cereal almost without noticing because they are so engrossed in the morning news. Have you ever had any of these kinds of experiences in your life—experiences where you did some- thing “without really thinking about it” while your mind was preoccupied with a completely different problem or issue?

We do not store the memories of our System-1 guided actions if we are simultaneously engaged in deliberating about something using System-2. For example, when we are thinking about something else, like a work assignment, a relationship issue, or a financial problem, we are distractedfrom the simpler System-1 decision making we may be doing, like walking in a familiar place, driving home on a familiar route, or eating lunch. Our mental focus is on the System-2 work, and, during those times, System-1 oper- ates in the background. This is why we may not remember routine System-1 judgments, like why we’ve walked into a room, whether we’ve already passed our freeway exit, or if we’ve already put sugar in our coffee.

System-1 functions in the background or “behind the scenes” more than System-2, but each system is capable of overriding the other. Conflicted decision-making contexts have, through the ages, been described in different ways— ”temptation” being only one example. We are drawn one way, but at the same time, pulled the other way. Although we do not accept the implication that the colloquial expres- sions are scientifically accurate, we can spot oblique refer- ences to the behind-the-scenes pushes and pulls of the two systems in the way people ordinarily talk about their deci- sion making. We have all heard people say things like “My gut says to do X, but my brain says to do Y”; “We looked at all the evidence and all the options and yet we don’t feel comfortable with where the deliberations are head- ing”; or “Emotionally I want to do this, but rationally I think I should do that.” Some theorists suggest these com- mon ways of talking are evidence that, in certain kinds of ambiguous or complex situations, the two systems might conflict, drawing the decision maker in different directions. In general, this is thought to be an advantage that reduces the chance of making poor, suboptimal, or even dangerous errors in judgment—a natural system of checks and bal- ances, as it were.

Even a good thinker makes both System-1 and System-2 errors from time to time. We misinterpret things, overestimate or underestimate our chances of succeeding, rely on mistaken analogies, reject options out of hand, trust feelings and hunches, judge things credible when they are not, etc. Often mistakes like these are directly related to the influences and misapplications of cognitive heuristics. We all share the propensity to use these heuristics as we make decisions, because at times the heuristics seem to be

Example of System-1 Thinking: A well-trained soldier reacting quickly and correctly under fire.

Example of System-2 Thinking: Experienced policy makers carefully considering possible responses to budget challenges.

hardwired into our species. Since the critical thinking skill of self-regulation can help us avoid some of these errors if we become more familiar with how they look in practice, let’s examine several in closer detail.

“To paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined thought is not worth thinking.”

Pat Croskerry, MD.6

10.2 Heuristics: Their Benefits and Risks

Shakespeare called humans the paragon of animals. Aristotle said “rational animals.” For Plato, “featherless bipeds” was good enough. Perhaps not the most honorific descriptions, yet humbling and useful reminders that there are times when we base our judgments on unfounded assumptions and fallacious reasoning. The long list of argument fallacies in the table we put at the end of the Chapter 9 titled “Warranted Inferences” does not include all the ways that our decision making can go astray. In the current chapter we consider a whole new set of biases and errors emerging from the misapplication of those ordinarily reliable reasoning maneuvers known as “heuristics.” Given the natural limitations of human rationality, it turns out that errors in heuristic thinking can result in serious problems when the risks are great and the stakes are high.

The correct application of cognitive heuristics is abso- lutely essential for day-to-day living. We would exhaust ourselves mentally and accomplish very little if every single judgment was a full-blown reflective decision. We get through the routine parts of our day making quick, automatic reactive heuristic judgments. We rely on these snap judgments because (a) most of the time they are good enough for the purpose at hand; (b) we need to conserve our mental energy for bigger, more important, and less familiar problems that life throws our way; and (c) often, Chapter 10

we have no time for reflective thought. This will be clearer as you review the examples and do the exercises in con- junction with each of the following heuristics.

Individual Cognitive Heuristics

cognitive heuristics are natural human decision- making shortcuts we all rely upon in real life to expedite our judgments about what to believe or what to do. There are potentially beneficial consequences associated with rely- ing on the cognitive shortcuts we’ll discuss. In each case we examine the heuristic shortcut or maneuver itself and note potential advantages and disadvantages of relying on the heuristic. A brief, true-to-life vignette and other examples illustrate how that heuristic looks in real life. In most cases a short exercise invites you to apply your critical thinking— and in particular your skill at reflective self-regulation—to occasions in your own life when reliance on that particular heuristic may have resulted in outcomes that were less suc- cessful than you had hoped. There are 17 common heuris- tics described in this chapter. Each is likely quite familiar.

1. SatiSficing and 2. tempORizing The first time he was at the beach, young Jerome darted down to the wet sand and watched as a small wave washed up toward him. A wave came in and lapped at his toes and ankles, the chilly wet water sending him scurrying up the sand. He turned and cautiously approached the water a second time. Again he got close enough to just let the water touch the tips of his toes, and scooted up the sand. But not nearly as far as the first time. The third time he approached the surf he anticipated the wave as it approached and, instead of turning to run, he back-pedaled a few steps. Just far enough not to be hit by the salty bubbles. He went just far enough! The kid satisficed, I thought, and, more interestingly, nobody taught him how.

The Satisficing Heuristic: Having found an option that is good enough, we take it. We human beings typically do only what must be done to achieve our purposes. In day-to-day living, when faced with choices, instead of expending the resources necessary to identify and then attain the maximally optimal alternative, we decide in favor of an alternative we deem satisfactory.7 How many times have we read the whole menu in a restaurant compared to reading along only until we spot an entrée that strikes our fancy? We tend to divide the world into “good enough” and “not good enough” and search for a solution until a solution is found that is good enough to attain the desired outcome. Truisms like “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” and “Perfect is the enemy of good” reflect the satisficing cognitive maneuver. Humans satisfice in System-1 and System-2 decision making situations.

Example (System-1): Being thirsty, how much water would we drink? Only enough to slake our thirst.

• Example (System-2): Seeking a new job, how hard would we look? Only hard enough to find one

The water is so captivating and inviting to the young child. But scary too, like lots of things in life. How far from danger is “far enough”?

that meets whatever are our basic criteria for pay, proximity to home, nature of the work, etc.

• Example (System-2): Having arrested a suspect who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime, how hard can we expect police detectives to strive to locate other suspects? Satisficing sug- gests hardly at all because they have a stack of other crime cases needing their attention. The question of the actual guilt or innocence of the subject becomes the concern of the prosecuting attorney and the courts.

The Temporizing Heuristic: Deciding that a given option is “good enough for now,” or temporizing is satisficing’s running mate. We often move through life satisficing and temporizing. At times, we look back on our situations and wonder why it is that we have settled for far less than we might have. If we had only studied harder, worked out a little more, or taken better care of our relationships and ourselves, perhaps we would not be living as we are now. But at the time, each of the decisions along the way was “good enough for the time being.”

We must not overlook the important potential advan- tages to satisficing. These include conserving time, money, and energy.8 If you have to put in 10 percent more effort and time to gain only 1 percent more value, your return on that investment of effort may not be worth the cost. The main disadvantage of satisficing is that we may be mis- taken in our estimation of how much is “good enough.” Why did the better team lose the game? Because, in under- estimating its opponent, the team failed to play up to its own potential. Why did we have trouble on the exam? Because we did not do the homework exercises and study hard enough. Why did my boss not give me a better evalu- ation compared to my peers? Because I was not produc- tive enough, even though I had thought all along that I was doing just fine. Using our critical thinking in real time,

we should take a moment in key situations to be sure our heuristic estimate of “good enough” is really accurate. To achieve greater success we will have to self-correct and recalibrate our sense of how much is enough.

3. affect: “gO WitH yOuR gut” “I proposed on our first date. She said no. But somehow we both knew that her response was not going to be her final answer. A few months later we were engaged. More than 40 wedding anniversaries later, we are still in love. Perhaps we have been lucky; our marriage could have been a disaster. Whatever was reflec- tive and rational about that decision—as I recall trying to explain it to her folks and mine—had to have been an effort to build a case for a decision we had already made.”

The Affect Heuristic: Making a decision based on your initial affective (“gut”) response.9 There is no question that many different kinds of experiences can cause us to respond with joy or sorrow, with desire or revulsion, with enthusi- asm or dread. A “gut reaction,” that is, an affective response, is a strong System-1 impetus, either positively or negatively, toward the object.10 It is natural to have the response.11 That response may be the “first word” on the matter, but System-2 self-regulation demands that we ask ourselves whether that should necessarily be the final word on the matter.

• Example: “Oh, I like those shoes. . . . You know, they would look great with the blue jacket I bought.”

• Example: “Did you see his eyes? Pure evil! Made my blood run cold. Believe me, a guy like that, no way should you trust him.”

• Example: “Forget it. I don’t want to hear about how you think we can balance the budget. You said the ‘T’ word and I won’t have anything to do with that. Read my lips, ‘No new taxes!’ We all pay too much in taxes as it is.”

Our natural, initial affective response to ideas, ques- tions, images, people, events, etc., can have obvious advantages and disadvantages. Research on the relation- ship between facial and body symmetry, perceived attrac- tiveness, and physical health suggests that first affective impressions we have about another human being as a pos- sible mate are evolutionarily selected for and contributes to the survival of the species. Our System-1 affective reac- tion can influence us toward embracing a choice that “just feels right” or away from an option that appears frighten- ing or repugnant when our System-2 decision making gets bogged down with too many factors to consider, too many divergent criteria, and too much uncertainty. Were it not for this, some of us might never get unstuck and make a decision when one is needed.

But, what if that initially frightening option is actually the best and most reasonable? For example, what if our fear of the anticipated consequences of radiation or chemother- apy influenced us to reject those options when one or both of them were the best possible cancer treatment options? It may take significant amounts of reflective System-2 reason- ing to overcome a powerful System-1 affective response to an idea, but it can be done. And at times it should happen, because there is no guarantee that our affective responses are necessarily always true. Strong critical thinking demands that we check our affective responses. Simply having them is not nearly enough for wise, reflective decision making.

The affect heuristic influences us to make judgments and decisions based on our initial impulsive and sublimi- nal responses. Knowing this, marketing experts coined the expression, “The package is the product,” to indicate

how important the wrapping, the container, and the initial appearance of a product are to making the sale.12 Certainly a broken residence hall window and an unkempt campus lawn are not necessarily indicative of an academically sub- standard college. But college recruiters know that these things had better be fixed before prospective students show up for the campus tour. And on reflection, no one would argue that a cabernet in an attractively designed bottle with a classy label is necessarily superior to a caber- net in a generic bottle with a plain looking label.13 There is no question that first impressions count when choosing a college, choosing a wine, or choosing a mate.

4. SimulatiOn “I was in center field, my favorite posi- tion, and the runner at third was itching to tag up and dash for home if the batter hit a fly ball. I imagined what I would do if it were hit to me, how I would run in, position my body, make the catch and fire the ball to the plate on one hop so the catcher could handle the throw easily and tag out the runner. The odds were overwhelming that the batter would hit the ball someplace else. But no! The ball was in the air arcing over the infield and sailing out toward center. I darted to my right, took the fly out of the air with my gloved left hand and made my throw toward the plate. The runner had tagged, leaving early I think. But he didn’t have a chance. My throw, just up the third baseline from home, was on target and on time. The catcher put the tag on the runner for the third out. It was like I had made a movie in my mind, watched the movie, and then lived the scene almost exactly.”

The Simulation Heuristic: Estimating the likelihood of a given outcome based on how easy it is to imagine that outcome.14 Simulation is a mental process of imagining ourselves doing something successfully or unsuccessfully. Before giving a speech we might “see ourselves” at the podium talking to the audience with confidence, making our point, and delivering our message effectively. Or we may simulate the opposite, seeing ourselves messing up, getting flustered, and forgetting to say things we had wanted to say. If we experience ease in processing a simulation, this influ- ences us to believe that achieving the anticipated outcome is more likely.15 A person choosing among several options might simulate what it would be like to select an option and then, like making a movie in his or her mind, imagine what life would be like having selected that option. Unless we are being reflective about the actual probabilities that what we picture will actually happen, the simulation heuristic can influence us to select an option that plays out in our minds as the one offering the most desirable result. This might be called “wishful thinking,” but whatever it is called, it is not a reflective and well-informed System-2 decision about the actual probability. The same would be true of pessimisti- cally overestimating the likelihood of a bad outcome.

Example: “You know, I didn’t go there to buy a car. But when I was on the lot looking, this salesman came up to me and invited me to sit behind the wheel. Then we went on a test drive, and I could really see myself tooling along I-70 in this baby. So, here it is. My new set of wheels.” • Example: “I don’t know what happened, sir!” said the sales representative to the manager after the failed presentation. “Yesterday I could see myself closing that deal.”

• Example: “Day trading. I took it up for a while. Lost a lot of money, too. You know it just seemed like it was going to be so easy. All I had to do was invest in some stocks in the morning and watch them increase in value as the day went along. Then sell them just before the market did its typical end-of-day little dip. Well. Things didn’t turn out that way at all. I think the only people who made money on my day trading were the guys who work at the brokerage house.”

Psychologist Albert Bandura’s research on social learning demonstrates the value and power of simulation to increase attitudes of self-efficacy.16 Mentors and coaches use the simulation heuristic, (they may call it visualiza- tion) as a technique to improve performance and to help people anticipate being able to succeed at challenging things. Successful advertising often depends on stimulat- ing simulation. Car ads, for example, often show someone with demographics just like the intended buyers taking great pleasure in driving the model of car the ad is promot- ing. The idea is that if you match those demographics, you

would then be led to see yourself in that car and then want to buy it. The process of simulation is quick, easy, and need not be reflective. In fact, it might be better for the adver- tiser if you do not reflect too much on the actual costs and benefits of buying that new car. The obvious disadvantage of simulation is the potential to err in estimating the like- lihood of the imagined outcomes. This can result in mis- placed confidence and unwarranted optimism.

Everyone knows that simulating academic success is not a replacement for actually studying, doing the assign- ments, and doing well on exams. But along with those things, simulation can be very helpful. Take a moment and see yourself being a successful student by simulating how you will structure your time so that you can read the text- book and do all the exercises and assignments. Simulate how you will be organized, focused, and highly efficient in your use of that study time. See yourself going to class or taking tests justifiably confident in what you have learned, well prepared and ready to demonstrate your knowl- edge on exams and assignments. Oh, yes, and the critical thinking skill of self-regulation requires that we remind ourselves that we have to carry out the study plans that we have simulated, if we are to have a reasonable shot at achieving the learning and enjoying the success we anticipate.

5. availability “I was doing 75+ heading eastbound on I-96 from Michigan State back home to Detroit, alone, late at night. Darkness had engulfed the rural stretch of interstate. Occasionally, a car heading west passed by on the other side of the wide grassy median. Eastbound was two lanes, and I liked driving in the left lane because it was smoother since the heavy 18-wheelers had not furrowed and gnawed the pavement. But for rea- sons I’ll never know, I decided that night to do the right thing, the thing I’d been taught in driver’s education back in high school, and I moved back into the right- hand lane. Then, ahead, just over a slight rise in the interstate, I saw the glare of an approaching vehicle’s high beam headlights. It didn’t make sense—there shouldn’t be any traffic heading west directly in front of me. I drove on, never reducing my speed. The lights grew brighter and brighter. I reached the crest of the rise in the freeway just as the other vehicle did. In a shocking blur it roared by, easily doing 75+. Heading west. On the east- bound side of I-96. And, thank God, he was in his right lane too. Moral of the story. Stay to the right, son, or you’ll never know what hit you.”

The Availability Heuristic: Estimating the likelihood of future events based on a vivid memory of a past expe- rience that leaps easily to mind. Let’s experiment with a memory. Imagine a conversation you may have had about foods you can’t stand. Does a particularly awful experience with that food leap to mind? For example: “I hate mush- rooms. Once when I was a kid I got sick on mushrooms at a restaurant.” That quick, automatic connection is a mani- festation of the availability heuristic. “No mushrooms on my pizza! Please.” This heuristic leads us to estimate the likelihood of a future event based on the vividness or ease of recalling a similar past event.17 Because a past experi- ence leaps vividly to mind or because it was so important, we overestimate the probability that future outcomes will be the same as they were back then. People tell stories of things that happened to them or their friends all the time as a way of explaining their own decisions and warning or advising their friends and family about the future. Often these are helpful because they vicariously increase our own range of experiences. The use of stories makes it much easier for us to remember their lessons or morals. Aesop’s fables have more than entertainment value; they remind us not to “cry wolf,” not to devalue what we have by coveting something we cannot get (as did the fox with the grapes), and many other solid bits of wisdom. On the other hand, there is always the risk that in the retelling, the actual events may be mistakenly remembered, misunderstood,

M10_FACI9661_03_SE_C10.indd 202

12/24/14

2:36 PM

“That could be me! What would I do? Where would I go?”

or misinterpreted. Whether accurate or not, stories have an unwarranted amount of influence on decisions about what to expect, what to believe, and what to do.

Availability sells. The news media, knowing the power of a compelling narrative, regularly “put a human face” on news reports. They know it is boring to hear newscasters drone on about statistics and abstractions—for example, about how many homes were damaged by a tornado or how many families lost electric power due to the storm. So instead, the news crew will interview an emotionally distraught person. They will take pictures or video of the person, the damaged home and felled trees in the back- ground, looking lost among the scatterings of furniture and the family’s ruined and irreplaceable mementoes. This makes abstractions like “terrible tornado,” “brutal shoot- ing,” “five alarm fire,” and “devastating flood,” vividly available to us. And because of the availability heuristic, we, unreflectively, jack up our estimate of the chances that we too might become a hapless storm victim—just like that sad person we’re seeing in the news report.

The disadvantage of basing judgments on the avail- ability heuristic is that we will wrongly estimate the actual probabilities that a given outcome will occur.18 Or worse, while we are worrying about the far less likely possibility, we will stop paying attention to threats and problems that are far more likely to happen.

In the aftermath of the horrendous killings of over 30 people at Virginia Tech (VT) in 2007, parents, students, fac- ulty, and staff at the nation’s more than 4,200 colleges and universities sharply revised their estimates of the probabil- ities of a similarly deranged killer’s assault on their own campuses. Campus security increased, counseling centers received more funding, legislators held hearings at the state and national levels, and campus authorities updated emergency plans and conducted readiness drills. Although

these might have been good things to do, resources are finite. Were these the most urgent things for a campus to do, given all the other risks and threats out there? Probably not. Fire preparedness, weather disaster preparedness, theft detection and prevention, rape and assault protec- tion, food poisoning prevention, and flu epidemic pre- paredness are just a few projects that address tragically lethal and somewhat more probable eventualities. But all the attention was on the VT situation. It was vividly in mind for administrators, students, parents, and the media. Those other more likely dangers were not on their minds right then. Hence, the disproportionate allocation of time, money, and attention.

the genetic and environmental factors that estimate a per- son’s cancer risks. But absent that self-corrective reflection, we risk allowing the analogical representation heuristic to influence our beliefs and choices unduly.

If the similarity between two things is fundamental and relevant, it’s more likely that the analogy will be reli- able. For example, suppose your co-worker was fired for missing sales targets. You might draw the reasonable con- clusion that you are no different in relevant respects from your co-worker. Thus, if you miss your sales targets, you’ll be fired too. Good thinking.

Or the similarity might be superficial or not connected with the outcome, which would make the analogical infer- ence much weaker. For example, we see a TV commer- cial showing trim, sexy young people enjoying fattening fast foods and infer that because we’re young, too, we can indulge our cravings for fast foods without gaining unhealthy excess poundage. This is another example show- ing that heuristic thought needs to be monitored when it is used to make important decisions. As we develop our critical thinking skill of self-regulation, we become more adept at noticing when our decisions hinge on the analogi- cal representation heuristic. And we can correct ourselves before making a decision that is not well thought out. Self- monitoring and self-correcting one’s thinking can help ensure that conclusions are warranted. In a later section entitled “Comparative Reasoning” we will explore the cri- teria for the evaluation of analogical inferences in detail.

7. aSSOciatiOn “We were having a good time, prob- ably on our third beer, Sports Center was on TV someplace nearby, but we’re not really paying attention because Bill was talking about how the girl he was seeing really liked dogs, and he did, too. So, he’s saying that she has a pit bull. And I have no idea what Harry was thinking but he says, ‘How do you think Michael Vick will do this season? He

JOURNAL

That Reminds Me of the Time When . . .

Provide an example of when someone gave you advice about a really important matter and their only argument was that your situation reminded them of their own or someone else’s situation.

“Uncle John did not smoke cigars at the track, he chewed them. Today he liked the filly—a sleek 3-year-old who looked fast. He would have to find her name in the racing form. But just watching her in the paddock, she reminded him of a horse he’d seen run so well at Bay Meadows a couple of years back. Same mark- ings, same look of a winner in her dark, intense eyes. Hadn’t he won a couple of Benjamins at 8 to 1 on that filly? To Uncle John it only made sense to put down a bet on this one to win.” Uncle John made the snap judgment that because this horse looked like that other horse, this horse

would perform like the other horse. The Representation Heuristic: Making the

snap judgment that X is like Y in every way upon noticing that X is like Y in some way. A perceived similarity becomes the basis for assuming that there is an analogical relation- ship between two things, an analogy that may or may not be warranted.19 For example, some- one might say, “My father and I were alike in so many ways—in our lifestyles and how we thought about things. Dad died a few years ago of lymphoma. He was only 69. You know, as much as I don’t like the idea, I probably have about 30 years before lymphoma gets me, too.” The speaker in this example is overestimating the probability of contracting a fatal lymphoma or even of dying at age 69. This thinking is disconnected from any System-2 analytical reflection on the scientific evidence regarding

6. RepReSentatiOn

H

was amazing his first year back in the NFL, but his third year in Philadelphia was a bust. So the Eagles dump him and the Jets pick him up?’ We all look at Harry because he’s on some other planet and say, ‘Where did that come from?’ And he’s like, ‘Pit bulls, dogs, dog fights, illegal, prison, Michael Vick.’ And then I’m like, ‘I wonder if Tiger Woods will pull off a comeback.’ And now they’re all looking at me. So I’m like, ‘Hey, you know! Michael Vick, troubled athlete, big comeback after major issues. Can Tiger do the same? Which reminds me, are we all still on for golf this weekend?’”

The Association Heuristic: Connecting ideas on the basis of word association and the memories, meanings, or impressions they trigger. We all have experienced con- versations in which one comment seems connected to another by nothing more than word association. Someone might suggest, “Let’s take our drinks outside to the picnic table.” To which someone else might respond, “Remember the picnic three years ago when Grandpa had his heart attack? I’m never going to that park again.” The repre- sentativeness, or associational heuristic maneuver, is trig- gered when a word or idea reminds us of something else. Typically, this is System-1 thinking: reactive, associational, and not critically reflective. For example, one person might associate sunshine with happiness, and another per- son might associate sunshine with sweaty work picking strawberries. Or, as in the example above, “picnic” with Grandpa’s heart attack. The salient negative experience

brought to mind by the mere use of the word picnic influ- enced the speaker to assert the decision never to return to the park where the sad event occurred. This unreflective decision emerged from the System-1 reaction triggered by the word association in this person’s mind.

Associational thinking, an unmonitored nearly stream-of-consciousness mind flushing twitter-blab of ideas, is of very little value, logically speaking. But if the associational thinker is also saying out loud everything that comes to mind, it can be creative, frustrating, and entertaining all at the same time. And way too personal! It is rather commonplace in today’s culture, and yet we seem unconcerned that judgments made using associa- tional thinking can be very flawed. Instead the media report the results of causal twitter fests and “instant polls” as though these represented our best and most informed thinking on a given topic.

8. Stereotyping “I met this Marine, a young corporal, and he was an impressive young man. I could tell just talk- ing to this young soldier that our servicemen and service- women are wonderful people.” Stereotypes are general- ized perceptions that members of one group of people have regarding another group. They shape how we see others and how others see us. The System-1 tendency is to think that everyone in the group has the characteristics, positive or negative, associated with the stereotype. Societal stereo- types tend to evolve slowlyThe Stereotyping Heuristic: Making a snap judgment about an entire group based on a single instance. Although an anecdote is not data, we have all heard people draw conclusions about whole groups of people based on their experience with only one or two people who are members of that group. We call this stereotyping or profiling. There are advantages to stereotyping, because it is a highly effi- cient way of thinking. For example, we tend to stereotype grandparents as loving caretakers. So if I say that I am hav- ing Grandma watch my daughter, you are not likely to worry too much about the child. On the other hand, there are risks associated with stereotyping. Profiling groups of people based on unfortunate experiences with one or more of its members can lead to bigotry, prejudice, misunder- standing, and mistrust, to name only a few.

Humans do not have the time to make systematic scientific surveys of everything we may need to know. So, we take the shortcut of basing decisions on relatively few instances. This is what we are doing when we ask a friend if she or he knows a good dentist, doctor, real estate broker, or lawyer. Or if we ask an alumna to tell us how good her college experience was when we are trying to decide where to go to school. The trade-off between effort expended and the reliability of the information derived makes this approach risky. Yes, it’s a starting point to get some preliminary information, but it is not an ending point of a thorough investigation. Here again, monitoring one’s habits of mind is a good idea.

The tendency to think that our personal experience of a single instance is predictive of what we would find were we to sample more systematically a whole class of individuals can undermine decision making in almost any context. We eat a burger at a fast food restaurant and make a snap judgment about everything on the menu there and at every other restaurant in the same chain. Does this work for paintings by a given artist, songs by a given songwriter, and novels by a given author? What about courses taught by a given professor, patient problems treated by a given health care provider, or building proposals by a real estate developer?

One example of false and negative stereotyping in contemporary America is the idea that all Muslims are ter- rorists.21 Like other negative stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, this one fuels fear and hatred. In our more reflective moments we realize that Muslim Americans were victims in the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers along with Jewish Americans, Christian Americans, and Americans who practiced no religion. We know that Muslim Americans serve with distinction in our armed forces, including side by side with soldiers of other faiths in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we know that millions of American Muslims go to work every day, take care of their families, pay their taxes, and contribute in numerous ways to the quality of our commu- nities. The same is true of millions of African Americans, Jewish Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Mormon Americans, Catholic Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. But our System-2 reflective considerations about freedom of religion and the rights of others can evaporate if System-1 kicks into overdrive. Negative ste- reotyping can trigger just that kind of kneejerk defensive hostility. And when that happens, occasionally System-2 is dragged into the skirmish, because all of us are naturally inclined to seek rationalizations in support of our unreflec- tive reactions.

Sensationalist media and unscrupulous politicians rel- ish playing on our weakness for stereotypes. Stereotyping, particularly vicious negative stereotyping, sells papers and garners votes. And, say the unethical journalists and poli- ticians, “Who cares who you have to hurt as long as you make money and win election, right?”

We know that it is difficult to root out the System-1 reactive stereotypic responses. On occasion it takes encountering a remarkable person or story to help us real- ize that our kneejerk stereotypes about people can get in the way of good judgment. Recently, for example, a 6-year- old little girl was rescued from a kidnapper by a brave man and his wife. Seeing the kidnapper snatch the child, they took immediate action. He chased the kidnapper while she called the police. The man who pulled the child out of

the grasp of the kidnapper was honored by the mayor as a hero. The national news picked up the story. Oh, and, as it turns out, he was an illegal immigrant.22

Speaking about jarring counterexamples that chal- lenge strong critical thinkers to examine their unreflec- tive stereotypes about people, do you know who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is? Yes, exactly, she is the former member of the Dutch Parliament, native of Somalia, ex-Muslim, feminist who advocates Islamic–Christian dialogue in America.23 Or do you know Sgt. Maj. Kent Dolasky, retired com- mandant of the US Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy with multiple combat tours? Right, he’s the army veteran who teaches business at the community college level and founded the Buckets of Hope volun- teer organization to assist the homeless in Tampa.24 And, above all, strong critical thinkers know that none of us are obliged to live out the stereotype that anyone is trying to force upon us.

9. “uS vS. tHem” “I went to Congress to lobby for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and to sup- port increased funding for Pell Grants and other forms of non-exploitive student aid. I explained that higher educa- tion is a benefit to the person who is fortunate enough to afford to go to college. Research shows consistently higher earnings for college graduates than for those who have not gone to college. But, I added, college education benefits society as a as well. The teachers, nurses, businesspeople, engineers, journalists, social workers, and the like, who attained access to those professions through their college education, provide much needed services for everyone in the community. I was told by one member that he simply did not agree with that. His reason was simple: ‘I’ve heard all that before because it’s what the other side says.’ I asked

Stereotype breaker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali

the member to help me understand his thinking better and he replied, ‘You see, on the Hill, it’s good guys vs. bad guys. They’re the bad guys. Whatever they say, whatever they want, whatever argument they make, I don’t buy it’.”

The “Us vs. Them” Heuristic: Reducing decisions to the choice between two starkly opposing options and then rejecting whatever option your opposition favors. This could be named the “good guys vs. bad guys” heu- ristic as well because applying this heuristic results in an automatic competitive and oppositional relationship. And our tendency, evolving from the earliest survival instincts of our species, is to band together with “our own people” to fight “those other guys.” Battle lines are drawn with phrases like “Those who are not with me are against me”; “There can be no middle ground”; “Never compromise”; and “There can be no negotiations.”25 Once our minds apply the Us vs. Them heuristic to a situation, many other decisions about the people or issues involved become very simple. We have no obligations toward “them” or toward anything they want or anything they represent. But, if you are one of “us” we will stand by you through thick and thin.26 In its most extreme manifestations, the Us vs. Them heuristic can set up the tendency to regard “them” as non- persons, objects off the ethical radar screen, “others” who can be manipulated or removed without ethical concern. As a nation, we saw this in the torture and prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. Called the false polarization effect,27 this tendency to divide the world into two opposing camps can be a very dangerous approach to problem solving and a potentially explosive and negative strategy for a society or a leader to take.

Let us not be naïve about this. If humans are strongly influenced by Us vs. Them thinking, then it would be

foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.

High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal

divisions, loyalties, rituals, and rival- ries of the Us vs. Them mindset flour- ish. For example, search and watch the “Pep Talk” scene from Glory Road. The coach begins by antagonizing his play- ers with racial stereotyping, and their gut response (affect heuristic) is silent anger and resentment. The coach says that they cannot win the national championship, because they cannot think. He describes them losing the game, they can see it hap- pening (simulation) in their minds, and they become even more agitated because he is the authority figure and he is say- ing they will lose. They do not want to lose. This is not “just a game.” Then the coach changes his tone and evokes the Us vs. Them heuristic to rally the players and unify the team. The short scene ends with one of the players making the point

foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.
High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal

to his teammate that he needs to play good defense (not satisfice), because the usual effort will not be good enough. There are some great “Us vs. Them” moments, simula- tions, and System-1 affect heuristic appeals to be discov- ered if you search for the “best movie pep talks of all time.”

Journalists, politicians, zealots, coaches, and evangelists of all stripes use our natural tendency to mis- trust “those other people”—the ones who are not part of “us,” the ones who are different, the ones with whom we disagree. Unscrupulous people make an enemy of the opposition and ascribe to them evil and dangerous inten- tions. This rallies the troops against the external threat and makes it unnecessary to take seriously what “they” have to say. In the cut-throat competition for high office, campaigners strive to marginalize or even demonize their opposition, engender fear in “us,” lest “they” should “get

divisions, loyalties, rituals, and rival- ries of the Us vs. Them mindset flour- ish. For example, search and watch the “Pep Talk” scene from Glory Road. The coach begins by antagonizing his play- ers with racial stereotyping, and their gut response (affect heuristic) is silent anger and resentment. The coach says that they cannot win the national championship, because they cannot think. He describes them losing the game, they can see it hap- pening (simulation) in their minds, and they become even more agitated because he is the authority figure and he is say- ing they will lose. They do not want to lose. This is not “just a game.” Then the coach changes his tone and evokes the Us vs. Them heuristic to rally the players and unify the team. The short scene ends with one of the players making the point
foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.
High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal
to his teammate that he needs to play good defense (not satisfice), because the usual effort will not be good enough. There are some great “Us vs. Them” moments, simula- tions, and System-1 affect heuristic appeals to be discov- ered if you search for the “best movie pep talks of all time.”
Journalists, politicians, zealots, coaches, and evangelists of all stripes use our natural tendency to mis- trust “those other people”—the ones who are not part of “us,” the ones who are different, the ones with whom we disagree. Unscrupulous people make an enemy of the opposition and ascribe to them evil and dangerous inten- tions. This rallies the troops against the external threat and makes it unnecessary to take seriously what “they” have to say. In the cut-throat competition for high office, campaigners strive to marginalize or even demonize their opposition, engender fear in “us,” lest “they” should “get

what they want,” “come to power,” or “take what is right- fully ours.” The risks associated with dualistic thinking are serious, and these risks are compounded when fear and mistrust are set in opposition to loyalty and group identity.

The Us vs. Them Heuristic is a favorite tool of zeal- ots, extremists, hate-mongers, and bigots. Why does it work for them? Too often because, fearing their wrath, the rest of us fail to muster the courage to challenge their caustic and divisive rhetoric with accurate information and sound reasoning. The positive critical thinking habit of truth-seeking requires the courage to ask tough ques- tions and to follow reasons and evidence wherever they lead. History shows us how devastating and explosive religion in the blind service of nationalism can be. That has not changed. So it is not an exaggeration to say that the lives of tens of millions of people may depend on the courage and capacity of educated and truth-seeking men and women to stand up to those whose ambitions or beliefs demand the economic, political, or military anni- hilation of all of “them.”

At this time in our national history the electorate is almost evenly divided between the two major parties. This is why voting is such an important responsibility. In statewide and national elections, political control turns on changing the minds of small percentages of people. A shift of 5 percent one way or the other can empower one party or the other to have control of the one or both houses of Congress, the Presidency, or to win the governorship of a state. Explore how shifting just a few Senate seats can impact control of that house of Congress.

Passing or defeating a statewide referendum or elect- ing a President can depend on shifting just a few percent of the likely voters this way or that. Political parties use wedge issues, like gay marriage, immigration, and mari- juana legalization, play on our System-1 heuristic thinking. Can our collective System-2 critical thinking overcome the divisiveness with reasoned judgment?

10. pOWeR diffeRential “I once worked on a senior management team that was headed by a CEO who was the personification of the ‘alpha male.’ I recall one meet- ing where the other nine vice presidents and I were sitting along both sides of a conference table, with the CEO at the head of the table. He wanted us to discuss a proposal he had come up with the night before. He presented his idea by handing out five pages single-spaced and talking non- stop for half an hour. Then he said, ‘OK, now I’d like to hear from you.’ Nobody spoke. Nobody believed he actu- ally wanted to hear our views. Nobody wanted to rock the boat or risk crossing him by pointing out even the smallest flaw or raising even the most tentative counterargument. The CEO waited less than two seconds. When nobody

responded, he said, ‘OK, then. That’s it. We’ll implement this. Now, next topic.”

The Power Differential Heuristic: Accepting without question a belief as stated by, a problem as presented by, or a solution as proposed by, a superior authority. Social hierarchies abound at home, at work, in government, in religion, and even in recreation. Many are benevolent and respectful. But even in these cases, and certainly in those that are manipulative and abusive, there is a tendency to defer to the individual (or subgroup) in charge. It may be something as benign as agreeing on when to eat dinner or which TV show to watch. The decision to defer—that is, not to dispute or challenge—the decisions of others higher in the social pecking order is natural. It manifests itself in our accepting what “those above us” may decide to have us do. This heuristic leads us to see the world as how our leaders see it and to understand problems and issues the way our leaders describe them to us. Middle managers in a corporate culture are susceptible to similar pressures from senior executives, as are second children from their elder

sibling, or junior officers relative to their superiors. But “pressure” is not exactly the correct word, for this heuristic makes compliance with authority the automatic reaction. Thus, when one is out of step with one’s “higher-ups,” one often feels more discomfort than when one is “going along to get along.” In a gang, for example, the power differential between the gang leader and his or her followers, when combined with the Us vs. Them heuristic for viewing the world, can strongly influence gang members to internal- ize gang rivalries and to agree with violent responses to perceived threats.

There are some advantages to recognizing the reali- ties of power differentials and not bucking the system. Not only can this save cognitive resources, it might save your job and your domestic happiness as well. After all, if the boss wants the client list updated, why not update it? And if your partner wants to go to a movie that might not have been your first choice, why not go anyway? Having people see things your way may not be the highest of all values, even if you are smarter than they are about some things. Societal harmony and domestic tranquility are values, too

On the other hand, how many times have we seen clearly that the boss was heading the department in the wrong direction, that the team captain was employing an ineffective strategy, that our elder sibling was wrong, or that our leaders were motivated more by self-interest than by the common good? Any full evaluation of the reason- ing presented by those in power over us—coaches, teach- ers, ministers, managers, governmental authorities, or otherwise—should include consideration of whether the benefits derived from the current power structure rela- tionship warrant continuing that relationship or whether it is time to consider seriously other options. In reviewing one’s options, do not forget the influence that the satisfic- ing heuristic, discussed earlier, can have on our sense that, however flawed our current situation may be, it is “good enough.”

11. ancHORing WitH adjuStment “The first book report I wrote as a ninth grader was about the novel Space Cadets. My report earned a C−. The teacher, a lover of eigh- teenth- and nineteenth-century British literature, found scant merit in the silly juvenile novel I had chosen and even

less merit in my futile attempt to state its theme and explore how its author had developed plot and characters. A friend of mine received an A on his report on George Elliot’s (Mary Ann Evans’) 1861 novel, Silas Marner. About halfway through the academic year I was consistently making C−, C,orC+onmywork,andmyfriendwasdoingA−orA work. So, we switched. I started writing reports using his name and he wrote reports using my name. My grades (that is, the grades he earned for me) edged up into the C+ and B− range. His grades (that is, the grades my reports earned for him) held steady except for one B+ late in April. Our analysis: In the mind of our teacher from the first paper we submitted in September and throughout that whole year, I was a C student and my friend was an A student.”

The Anchoring with Adjustment Heuristic: Having made an evaluation, adjust only as much as is absolutely necessary and then only if new evidence is presented.28 When we are making evaluative judgments, it is natural to locate or anchor our evaluation at some point along whatever scale we are using. If we are being more reflec- tive, we may have established some criteria and we may be working to apply them as fair-mindedly as possible. As other information comes our way, we may adjust our evaluation. The interesting thing about this cognitive maneuver is that we do not normally start over with a fresh evaluation. We have dropped anchor and we may drag it upward or downward a bit, but we do not pull it off the bottom of the sea to relocate our evaluation. First impressions, as the saying goes, cannot easily be undone.

One advantage of this heuristic is that it permits us to move on. We have done the evaluation; there are other things in life that need attention. We could not long endure if we were to constantly reevaluate everything anew. Part of developing expertise is learning to calibrate and nuance one’s judgments, refine one’s criteria, and adjust the cri- teria to fit the complexities of the circumstances of judg- ment. Anchoring with adjustment can reflect a progression toward greater precision, a way to refine not only judg- ments about particular things, but the criteria applied when making those judgments.

The unfortunate thing about this heuristic, however, is that we sometimes drop anchor in the wrong place; we have a hard time giving people a second chance at making a good first impression. How often have we seen it hap- pen that a co-worker’s performance is initially evaluated as sub-par (outstanding) and almost nothing that happens subsequently can move that initial evaluation marker very far from where it started? Subsequent outstanding work (poor work) is regarded as a fluke or an anomaly, not as genuine counterevidence that should result in a thorough reevaluation.

12. illuSiOn Of cOntROl “They hired me because I was known as a corporate gunslinger. I know how to take

a failing organization and turn it around in short order. I kick ass and take names. I hire people who want to bust their butts to get the job done, and I fire the deadwood and anyone who gets in the way of what we’re trying to do. Within 90 days I had reorganized the finance division and the technology division. Sales needed major work. That took another three weeks, but I put in the right people and revised our marketing approach. Then it was time to increase productivity and decrease costs in our manufac- turing operation. In six months I had stopped the bleed- ing. In nine, we had bottomed out and were starting to see the signs of a turnaround. We posted our first net profits at the end of my fourth quarter with the corporation. I stayed another two years and then the job got so boring that I had to move on. So, now I’m on the market looking for another company that needs my skill set to save its cookies.” The gunslinger’s constant references “I did this” and “I did that” give no credit to the team effort it really takes to turn an organization around. Perhaps the gunslinger deserves praise and credit for his or her leadership contributions. But from my own personal experience, I assure you that turning around a large organization that is in real trouble is a group project, not a one-person show. The gunslinger in this example is looking back on the project with an exag- gerated and illusory sense of his or her own personal con- trol over how events turned out.

The Illusion of Control Heuristic: Estimating the con- trol you have over events by the amount of energy and desire you put into trying to shape those events. When used correctly, this heuristic helps calibrate estimates of our effectiveness and thus helps us gauge how hard we should try. When misapplied, the illusion of control heu- ristic leads us into snap judgments that are nothing more than wishful thinking. We frequently overestimate our actual ability to control the outcomes of events because we consistently fail to account for contingencies.29 We overestimate our control of a situation because we underestimate the influences of other people and events. As a result, we imagine wrongly that there is a very strong relationship between whatever we might do and how things are going to ultimately turn out. Wanting a given outcome strongly, we tend to think that decisions we make or actions we take are genuinely instrumental in bringing about or failing to bring about that outcome regardless of the actual contingencies, forces, and factors at work.

13. OptimiStic biaS and 14. HindSigHt biaS Please answer these three questions: Are you any more or less likely than others just like you to contract cancer at your age? Are you more or less likely than others just like you to suffer a debilitating injury in a traffic accident? Are you below average or above average in your ability to get along with others?30

The Optimistic Bias Heuristic: Tendency to underes- timate our own risks and overestimate our own control in dangerous situations.31 Responding to the third ques- tion, most will say they have above average abilities, even though mathematically it cannot be true that most peo- ple are above average. On the first two questions above, approximately 75 percent of us will estimate our risks to be lower and about 25 percent will say higher. But, the true answer is that our risks are neither higher nor lower than persons just like us. This natural tendency toward optimistic bias has the evolutionary advantage for our species of providing us with the cour- age to move ahead in life. The constant dread of serious hazards could be mentally detrimental and debilitating. However, since our risk of hazard is actually no bet- ter and no worse than others’ just like our- selves, all things being equal, this built-in bias results in poorer and perhaps riskier judgments in some situations. Our sense that we will succeed where others have failed, or that we are not as likely as others to suffer misfortune or the ill effects of bad decisions can lead us to take unnecessary risks.

Please answer these questions: Have you ever felt that you did not receive your

fair share of the credit for your contribution to a highly successful project? Were you ever unfairly blamed when things went wrong, even though the unfortunate outcomes were beyond your control?

The Hindsight Bias Heuristic: Tendency to remember suc- cessful events as being the result of the decisions we made and actions that we took and past failures as having resulted from bad luck or someone else’s mistakes.32 Our human

need for accuracy, predictability, and self-justification is believed to motivate this hindsight-biasing behavior.33 Hindsight bias adds fuel to the fire of our false confidence, for it inclines us to believe that our decisions and actions had a strong positive impact on the outcome of events, or, if things did not turn out as hoped, the fault was not ours. The tendency to take undeserved credit for good outcomes or to shift responsibility to others for undesirable outcomes is something we humans seem to have in common.

We do not mean to suggest that we are mistaken every time we feel unfairly blamed nor that we are mis- taken every time we feel in control of a situation. By noting these potentials for wrong judgments, however, we are able to anticipate the possibility of a mistake and correct our thinking before we dig in too deeply to the feelings of pride or resentment that come with being mis- takenly praised or blamed. We can use our self-regulation critical thinking skills to monitor ourselves for optimistic bias and hindsight bias so that our estimations about how much we really can control or how much blame or credit we deserve are made more reflectively, and hopefully, more accurately.

15. eliminatiOn by aSpect: “One StRike and yOu’Re Out” “I went on four job interviews, which was great because many of my friends were having trouble getting any interviews. The interviewers all wanted me to make a PowerPoint presentation. And, of course, there was a lot of meeting individuals and groups of people. And the mandatory lunch when you have to remember to order lemonade instead of anything alcoholic. All those parts went fine. But at one place there was this guy who kept interrupting my PowerPoint to ask questions. I don’t want

to work there, not with jerks like him in my work group. This other place was OK, great new computers in fact, but the cubicles were gray and so was the carpet. I just didn’t like how blah it looked—too institutional, you know. So, really, it’s down to the other two places, and I’m hoping to get an offer from one or both of them real soon.”

The Elimination by Aspect Heuristic: Eliminating an option from consideration upon the discovery of one undesirable feature. There are simply too many choices! The Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas boasts a 500-dish smor- gasbord. DIRECTV and Comcast offer hundreds of chan- nels. Want to buy a car, rent a downtown condo, enroll in an MBA program, or select a can of soup from the grocery shelf? There are thousands from which to pick. How do we move efficiently through this maze of opportunities? Certainly not by giving our full attention and due consid- eration to every aspect of every option. Rather, we hack through the choices individually or in whole bunches at a time, pushing the clutter out of our cognitive path as quickly and efficiently as possible. Elimination by aspect is our heuristic strategy. As soon as we identify a “reason why not,” we dump that option and options like it. The reason does not have to be monumental. I don’t like brown cars or used cars. That’s it. For me, the car-buying choices have just been reduced by tens of thousands. Don’t like cream sauces? Great, that cuts the smorgasbord problem down by a huge percentage. Don’t like to wait behind other folks grazing through the food line? Fine, step around them to an open spot along the buffet and never worry about look- ing back at the dozens of culinary delights you may have skipped.

In situations where we enjoy a plethora of acceptable choices, the cognitive utility of elimination by aspect cannot be overestimated. However, the price we pay for conserving

Do you think retailers know that too many choices can overwhelm System-2, causing us to fall back to our reactive heuristic-driven System-1 responses? If so, isn’t that exactly what they want—that we should just buy without thinking through our decisions?

all that energy and time is clear, too. Applying this heuristic may result in a final selection that does not reflect the best holistic choice we might have made. The used car I refused to consider may have been just as good in every way as a new car of the same make and model, but thou- sands of dollars less expensive. I will never give that car its due consideration, having eliminated it entirely from view when I rejected it along with all others that were labeled “used.” In situ- ations where our choices are limited and where no option is perfect, this heuristic can be a major liability. Because nobody is perfect, balancing the good with the bad is a sign of wisdom. The one strike and you’re out approach denies this reality. Political litmus tests, for example, could paralyze a pluralistic democracy. We would all soon become hermits if we tried to select our employees, friends, and leaders on the principle that any one flaw is a fatal flaw.

16. lOSS and RiSk aveRSiOn “Early in my career I was offered an entry-level management position with a new company in a new industry. The company was called Cingular Wireless. I didn’t seek the job. And I was a bit surprised when the offer was extended one evening dur- ing a dinner party. It would have meant a lot more money than I was earning as a part-time instructor. A job like that would have been the ticket to a lucrative corporate career. But I had a job in the field of higher education, and, with a couple years of experience, I was becoming comfort- able in the role of college teacher. I didn’t want to lose the identity I had just begun to create for myself. I wasn’t sure what it would be like to work in the corporate sector, having all my life been either a student or a teacher, and recently a new mother. My daughter was less than a year old at that time. What if the job with Cingular didn’t work out? Somehow the idea of remaking myself into a corpo- rate junior executive seemed too risky and there was too much to lose. So, I thanked the person but declined her offer.”

The Loss and Risk Aversion Heuristic: Avoiding risk and avoiding loss by maintaining the status quo. Not losing any- thing, not going backward, at least staying where we are, for most humans, is the preferred default outcome, particularly under conditions of uncertainty. Research demonstrates that most humans are more likely to pass up an opportunity to make a gain rather than risk a loss.34 Humans psychologi- cally privilege the status quo. Whenever possible, humans take an incremental approach, seeking to avoid uncertainty and the difficult cognitive tasks of weighing and combining information or trading-off conflicting values, rather than opting for more dramatic change. Muddling through per- sonal decisions, attempting to avoid any loss, is the norm rather than the exception. We’ve all heard the old adage “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Making decisions on the basis of what we do not want to risk losing can have advantages in many circumstances. People do not want to lose control, they do not want to lose their freedom, and they do not want to lose their lives,

their families, their jobs, or their possessions. And so, in real life, we take precautions. Why take unnecessary risks? The odds may not be stacked against us, but the conse- quences of losing at times are so great that we would pre- fer to forgo the possibilities of gain to not lose what we have. Can you think of an example of this in your life?

We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to engage in change that we perceive as “radical” or “dangerous.” Loss and risk aversion have the disadvantages of leading to paralysis or delay precisely when action should be taken. Having missed that opportunity to avert a crisis, we discover later that it requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations once the crisis is upon us. Worse, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something about the problem back when it might have been possible to salvage the situation. History has shown time and time again that businesses that avoid risks often are unable to compete successfully against those willing to move more boldly into new markets or into new product lines.

Uncertainty, risk, and fear of loss are the tools of those who oppose change, just as optimistic bias and simulation are the tools of the proponents of change. There were and continue to be abundant example of both in the protracted and highly politicized debate over Obamacare. And, of course, both sides use satisficing, temporizing, affect, avail- ability, representation, stereotyping. and “Us vs. Them.”

17. “all OR nOtHing” “I heard that there were going to be budget cuts and layoffs. We all knew that the economy was in the tank. But this is a big university with an annual operating budget over $230,000,000 and more than 1,800 faculty and staff members. So, I figured that the chances that they would cut the course that I was going to take next semester out of the budget had to be about 100,000 to 1. I mean, they probably offer thousands of courses here everyyear. And there are so many other places to save money at a university without cutting academics. So, I planned my work hours and day care around taking that course. And then I go to register and it’s not in the schedule. I learned they dropped it for budget reasons. Can you imagine! How am I supposed to complete my program if they cut required courses like that one?”

The “All or Nothing” Heuristic: Simplifying decisions by treating remote probabilities as if they were not even possibilities. By and large, when making decisions, we do not calculate Bayesian probabilities. Computers might, but humans do not. But over the millennia as a species, we humans have done reasonably well for ourselves (so far) by operating as if the exact probabilities did not really mat- ter. Instead of thinking that there is precisely a 92 percent chance of this occurring or a 12 percent chance of that occur- ring, we tend to simplify our estimations and move them toward the extremes. In fact, we behave as if the odds were either 0 (no possibility at all), or 1 (it definitely will happen). Whether the chances are 1 in 100, or 1 in 10,000, do we really think about the mathematical differences in those situa- tions? No. Instead we tend to treat both of them as if the odds were the same, and, in fact, as if they were both zero. The all or nothing heuristic treats these remote possibilities as if they were, for all practical purposes, “impossible.” That is, as if the actual odds were 0 in 100 or 0 in 10,000.

When we stop and really think about things, there are all kinds of risky situations. A person walking across the street could be hit by a car. But, really, what are the chances? They are in fact not equal to zero. But if even the smallest risk of such a great loss as the loss of one’s life were per- ceived, some of us might never venture out into the world. So, we push that decimal point out further and further in our minds, nullifying the risk, treating it as if it were not present at all. I’ve ice-skated hundreds of times, so what are the chances that tonight I’ll fall and crack my skull? There are thousands of commercial flights each day, so what are the chances of a near miss involv- ing my flight? Sadly, if one of those remote and unfortunate possibilities were to occur, we often think, “I never thought that would happen to me.” A main advantage to the all or nothing heuristic is that it balances the paralyzing influ- ences of loss and risk aversion.

Heuristics in Action

In real-world conversations in which we focus on our own issues, cognitive heuristics expe- dite our thinking by generating ideas, but not necessarily reflectively. Here is an example of a person explaining why he decided to invest in high-tech stocks in late 2007. What could go wrong? “I know some businesses fail, particularly those based on technological innovation. But only 3 percent of new ventures failed last year, so I decided that the risk of failure was actually pretty small [All or Nothing], and I decided to go for broke and invest, and . . . you know. . . I’m pretty good at what I do, and I am really watch- ing things closely now so that nothing happens that will threaten my investment. [Illusion of Control] I just don’t think I can miss on this one.” [Optimistic Bias]

True, it was smart to consider the percentage of busi- nesses that failed, and to do all that one can to run a business well. And the business may not fail, but even the speaker himself would not be likely to invest with confidence were it not for the misuse of heuristic thinking, providing hope, a bit of confidence, and a sense of being in control of the investment. The worldwide economic disaster known now as the Great Recession of 2008 demonstrated that the previ- ous reasoning was a house built on sand.

Often, cognitive heuristics work in tandem with one another. For example, parents often worry about their chil- dren getting sick from germs that may be lurking in the environment, like on playground equipment, neighbors’ houses, or in public bathrooms. The gut feeling “Germs = Bad!” is an example of the affect heuristic. Fueled by the illusion of control heuristic, many parents set high stan- dards for cleanliness, especially for their daughters. But research suggests that keeping little girls squeaky clean may in fact be the opposite of what they need.35

In the following example of a casual family conver- sation over morning coffee, several heuristics are in play, including association, affect, and stereotyping:

• Husband to wife: “I’m looking forward to retiring. I’ve worked for 35 years in offices without windows, and, when I’m retired I want to be outside. I can see myself on the fifth tee right now!”

• Wife replies: “Same as my Dad; he used to say how much he hated the winter especially going to work when it was dark outside, working in a windowless office all day, and then coming home when it was dark.”

• Mother-in-law: “That senior ’s apartment you showed me was terrible. Only one window! I need more light. I’m never moving to an apartment! You’re going to have to drag me out of my house.”

In the first paragraph, availability and simula- tion influence the husband immediately to link the idea of being outside to his vivid and happily remembered hobby [availability]. He sees himself golfing [simulation],

projecting how much easier it will be to play golf when retired. As is common with the availability heuristic, he may be overestimating his opportunities to be on the fifth tee. Meanwhile, his wife is still thinking about the origi- nal topic, namely retirement. However, she connects her husband’s expressed distaste for his windowless office with her father’s similar expressions of distaste for the same work environment [representation]. At that point the mother-in-law introduces a new topic, her mind having jumped from “windowless” to an association with dark- ness [association] and from there to her vividly recalled [availability], negative [affect] experience of recently see- ing one dark apartment. Clearly, she is overestimating thelikelihood that all apartments will be dark. And, given that she has introduced this new topic, rather than join the conversation, this comment has the ring of a bolster- ing argument for a long-term debate about whether she will agree to move to an apartment. The option of moving to an apartment is off the table as far as she is concerned. And more, not wanting to lose control [loss aversion] over her own life, she expresses her decision to her children— regardless of their obvious age in this context—as a deci- sion she will not permit them to override.

We end this chapter with an example to remind our- selves that heuristic thinking, while generally useful, can lead to some very poor decisions too. Consider this true story. A black high school senior was visiting a college campus with two friends on a recruiting trip. One of the

university’s white undergraduates accosted the three in the parking lot, questioning their purpose and presence. All the while the student video recorded the younger visitors with her cell phone. The visitors asked why they were being videotaped and the college student replied “just in case”. Offended, disillusioned, and a little bit angry about the WWB36 profiling of the college student, the visitors decided to leave. Moments later the three were coming out of a nearby grocery store only to be met by the campus police who had been alerted by the college student to “suspicious behavior.” A series innocent mis- takes and misunderstandings? Perhaps. But one based on stereotyping, association, “Us vs. Them,” and representa- tion on the part of the college student, the visitors, and perhaps the police too.

CHAPTER 11

“Locals refuse to budge in battle with an oil company.” Hermosa Beach has a decision to make. It has been a long time coming, but the referendum is finally on the ballot. Will we permit E&B Natural Resources to drill for oil, or will we say no? Everyone has heard the arguments pro and con for years. E&B has the legal right to drill. So if the citizens say no, then the city must pay the oil company $17.5 million over the next 20 years. But, if the citizens say yes, then E&B will pay the city as much as $451 million spread over the next 35 years from the billions E&B will be making from the oil. E&B plans to sink 36 wells from a small site, about the size of three lots, located in a quiet res- idential neighborhood at 6th Street and Valley. The shafts will spider out below the homes and arc under the beach and the ocean floor to reach a vast oil deposit in the shale rock 3,000 feet down.1

Opponents warn that property values will plummet. Who will want to buy a house where there could be toxic spills? Think of the fire hazard, the health risks, the eye- sore, the constant noise, and the nasty oil odors fouling air we breathe. Think of globs of thick tarry oil washing on to the sandy beach with every wave. The oil company says the risks are being greatly exaggerated. New technologies and current laws make drilling safe and clean. Sound and sight abatement is already part of the plan. Other commu- nities are benefiting from drilling, why not Hermosa Beach too? Oh, and remember, the money. $3.8 million will go to the schools each year. The rest will go to parks, public ser- vices, and to put all the city’s ugly overhead utility wires

underground. These improvements will increase property values!

The interesting thing is that both sides are locked in. Neither side is listening to the other. Not anymore. Every “fact” is contested, every “study” is flawed, every claim is challenged, and every expert opinion is maligned. All motives are questioned. Yes, we will vote. But, no, we will not be doing any more System-2 deliberating.

For reasons that will be explained in this chapter, it is very hard for human beings to reverse a decision once made. The best opportunity to exercise our critical thinking is while we are still considering options. We can improve decision making by using our critical thinking skills and habits of mind to thoughtfully manage, monitor, and self- correct our own decision-making process. In this chap- ter we are focusing on the quality of the decision-making process. In the second part of this chapter we will explore specific strategies aimed at fostering reflective decision making. When the stakes are high and when we have the time to think things through carefully, our best chances for a good decision-making outcome is to call on the full power of our reflective System-2 thinking, that is on the full power of our critical thinking skills and habits of mind.

But, before getting into the decision-making strategies, we first will explore the psychological phenomenon that is the natural human tendency to lock into a decision. Once we commit to a given decision option, we gain confidence that our choice was the best one and that the other options would have been mistakes. Called dominance structuring,

this is an extremely valuable human characteristic. With confidence in the choice we have made, we are able to take action and to persevere during difficulties. We would hardly be able to accomplish anything were we to con- stantly reconsider every decision and change our minds. Our natural tendency toward dominance structuring helps us to be resolute and to sustain our commitments. But with the benefits come risks. Because dominance structuring tends to lock us into a decision, this tendency can occasion- ally lock us into an unwise decision. The critical thinking skill of self-regulation and the habit of truth-seeking are our best hopes for identifying those occasions and guard- ing against hanging onto poor decisions. In this chapter we first unpack dominance structuring so we can see how it works. Then we consider critical thinking strategies for managing the potentially negative consequences of prema- ture dominance structuring.

11.1 Dominance

Structuring

: A Fortress of Conviction

Once human beings have made a decision, we almost never change our minds. Looking back on our choice as compared to other options, we often feel that ours was so obvious and others were so poor that it is a wonder that we considered them possibilities at all. Maybe we do not need to work on the skill of self-regulation after all because we are seldom, if ever, wrong. We say to ourselves, “Others may disagree, but that’s their issue.” Things may not turn out as we had expected, but that’s just bad luck or someone else’s screwup. Right? Be honest; there are plenty of times when we all have thought exactly that. Why? Part of the answer may be that we really do a good job of making sound decisions. And part of the answer, whether our decisions are objectively wise or foolish, is our tendency toward dominance structuring. To appreciate the thought- shaping influences of dominance structuring, consider the arguments presented in this next example.

“I Would Definitely

Go to the Doctor”

A woman who has made a decision was invited to describe her decision-making process in detail to a trained inter- viewer. The narrative below is a brief excerpt from the transcription of that much longer interview.2 The inter- viewer and the woman are talking about the possibility that she might discover a worrisome lump during a breast self-examination. The excerpt begins with the interviewer asking the woman whether she would go to see her health care provider if she were to discover a change in her body that caused her to worry about the possibility of breast cancer.

IntervIewer: “You’re very religious. Could you see your- self waiting a while before going to the doctor and praying instead?”

respondent: “Oh, no. For one thing, God is a wonderful God; he made doctors. You know, my mother-in-law— I’m divorced, I was married then—she had had a heart attack. And, she definitely would pray instead of go to the doctor. She loved the Lord, and she remained in God’s will [and was fortunate not to die]. But at times people have to understand that God doesn’t make things as complicated as people kind of want to make it. And it’s not about religion; it’s about God, your per- sonal relationship with Him. And God, He made some [people] become doctors to want to help. You know that’s how I feel. You know, I’ll say this until the day I die and go back to the Lord. I’m a practicing Christian; I love the Lord. I just know God works within com- mon sense. That’s why He gave us a brain, you know. And I would definitely go to the doctor. “

Review the decision map showing the respondent’s arguments. For this individual the option not selected (“I would pray for a while instead of going to the doctor”) has virtually no support. She considers whether going to the doctor means that she is not being sufficiently trusting in God, but abandons that line of reasoning. She is pulled by the availability heuristic as she recalls what her mother- in-law would do, but she resists that pull, saying that God does not make things that complicated. Although in the end she offers only two arguments directly supporting her decision, it is clear from the interview and the map that all her thinking has moved inexorably and confidently in that direction. Not going to the doctor is, for her, not really an option. The problem in her mind was how to explain that to her deeply religious friends.

Were we to evaluate the arguments the woman makes using the standards and strategies presented in Chapter 7 entitled “Evaluate Arguments: Four Basic Tests,” we would find them wanting. For example, comparing herself to her mother-in-law could well have led the respondent

to infer that she did not need to see the doctor right away. The mother-in-law, a close family member, and, like her- self, a woman of faith with a potentially severe illness, would delay seeking medical help. Ergo, following out the analogy, the woman being interviewed should also delay. The respondent’s other arguments rely on belief statements about what God intends or how complicated God wishes things. But humans cannot know the mind of God. Therefore, we cannot establish the truth of premises about what God may want, intend, or think. This makes the soundness of those two arguments highly question- able. And yet, whatever their individual logical weak- nesses might be, taken together her arguments are, for her,

persuasive explanations that she would indeed go to the doctor. She is firm in that decision. From the longer narra- tive, which is not reproduced here, we can infer that she is not an uneducated or illogical person; therefore to under- stand what is happening we have to dig deeper into her purposes for telling the story as she does.

As it turns out, this woman is using her reasoning skills to explain a decision, not to make a decision. Going to the doctor was always to her the more sensible of the two choices. For her this was a System-1 decision—Sick? Go to the doctor! What she needed to do was explain that choice in the light of her deeply religious views and in the context of having relatives (and perhaps friends) who use

religion to delay seeing a doctor for a possibly dangerous symptom. Her cognitive challenge was actually rather for- midable. She had to deal with the issue that some of her friends and the people at her church would interpret her going to the doctor as showing that her faith was weak. Notice that she does not bother to explain why going to the doctor would be valuable to her health, only why it’s OK not to leave it to God. And also notice that she is not doubting her faith. But she does achieve her goal of creat- ing a rationale to support her preferred option.

Explaining and Defending

Ourselves

Our thinking capacities helped us survive as a species through the many millennia when we were anything but the most formidable species on the planet. Today our capacity for problem solving and decision making helps us achieve our personal goals, whatever they may be. If

learning the truth helps achieve our goals, then we apply our skills to the problem of learning the truth. If needing to feel justified that we have made the right decision, particu- larly if that decision cost people their lives, is vital, we will apply our thinking skills toward creating and sustaining that justification.

Objectivity in decision making is something we prize. Yet objectivity can be very difficult for us when we already have a strongly held opinion on a given issue. Truth-seeking and open-mindedness incline us toward objectivity in the application of our skills of analysis, interpretation, evaluation, inference, and explanation. But unless we also invoke the sixth critical thinking skill, self- regulation, we may fail to achieve the objectivity we seek.

a Poorly Crafted assignment For many years I gave my students critical thinking assignments expressed like this example: “Gun control is a controversial issue in our nation. Take a position for or against legislationbanning all sales of handguns. Research the issue and defend your position with the best arguments possible. In doing so, please consider the arguments for the other side and explain why they are mistaken.”

As it turned out, that was a terrible way to give a critical thinking assignment. Why? Because my students would do exactly what I had asked, in exactly that order. If they did not already have a point of view on the matter, they would first take one side or the other. Often their System-1 heuristic thinking played a big role in deter- mining which side they took. Some were “pro-gun” and some had poignant personal stories of gun violence that made them “anti-gun.” Some would knock one side or the other out of contention in their minds using the one-rule decision-making tactics of elimination by aspect: “If she’d had a gun to protect herself, she’d be alive today” or “You don’t need an automatic pistol to hunt deer.” Then, after they had taken a side in their minds, they would search for reasons and information that supported their point of view, but not reasons or information that opposed the view they had adopted. This was energetic investiga- tion, but it was neither truth-seeking nor fair-minded. Their minds were pretty much already made up on the subject. Next they would write a paper laying out all the good reasons for their points of view. But, no matter which side they took, they struggled to say anything good about the opposing point of view. Their papers, by the way, were often well organized and logically presented. Like the woman talking about her decision to see the doc- tor, my students could explain their decisions and defend them. But they had not reflected on whether or not they were the best decisions. Critical thinking is not the holding of a belief; it is the process of reflective judgment by which we come to the belief.

The problem was my own, not my students’. I wanted my students to give due consideration to both sides of a controversial issue and to think about it in a fair-minded, objective, informed, and well-reasoned way. But that was not what the instructions said. What I had done instead was invite students to build a dominance structure around one option and to bolster their perspective by fending off all counterarguments. I should have said, “The right to bear arms has become a major issue in our country. Come to class on Monday next week prepared to discuss this issue. I may ask you to take either the pro side or the con side with regard to a possible piece of legislation relating to gun control. Open your mind to either possibility. Be ready to present either side effectively. And be ready for the third possibility, which is that I will assign you to listen and then to adjudicate the class discussion by evaluating objectively the reasoning presented by your peers. Study the issue, inform yourself about the arguments in favor of and opposed to gun control. Be ready to speak intelligently and fair-mindedly on the topic of the right to bear arms

and gun control legislation, no matter which of the three jobs I give you on Monday in class.” If critical thinking is a process, then I should have found a way for my students to demonstrate that they are able to interpret, analyze, infer, explain, evaluate, and self-regulate. Only after the full, informed, and fair-minded discussion would it have made sense to invite students to then take a reasoned posi- tion on the matter.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

Winston Churchill3

The challenge for critical thinking is not unlike the problem of building a new house on a lot where an older house already stands. Without doing damage to the land or the neighborhood, we need to remove the old house, salvaging anything that may be of value, before we can build the new house. It takes similar skill and sensitivity to perform the same operation on opinions. Truth-seeking and open-mindedness need to be cultivated as much as possible so that we can be prepared to revisit our opinions with objectivity and judiciousness. In my life there have been more than a few times when my dearly held but ulti- mately mistaken opinions on controversial matters had to be abandoned so that sounder, more informed, and better- reasoned opinions could take their rightful place. But it is never easy to change one’s mind about an opinion that has been firmly held—and this makes the job of self-regulation that much more difficult. To understand why most of us have a very hard time changing our minds, let’s explore the psychological process of deciding on “the best avail- able option.”

Moving from Decision to Action

Whenever we are presented with a problem, our cognitive heuristics and our capacity for logical reasoning play criti- cal roles in the natural human quest to find some resolu- tion that we can assert with plausible confidence to be our best available option. We shall call this option the dominant or superior option in any given context. In decision mak- ing we move, more or less quickly, through a process that includes sorting through options. We discard the implau- sible ones, identify one or more promising options, evalu- ate it or them on the basis of our decision-critical criteria,4 and select the option we come to judge to be superior.5 Psychological research by Henry Montgomery and others, as we shall see, is consistent with the idea that both argu- ment making and cognitive heuristics are central factors in our search for a dominant option—to move us from cognition to action. In times of uncertainty, when action is needed, dominance structuring is a necessary strategy for

deciding between alternatives and swinging into action. Montgomery describes the human search for a single dominant option among our many possible choices in any given context as having four phases:

• pre-editing

experience, education, employment test scores, and the like. We may have a concrete set of characteristics in mind for the final choice: someone with strong communication skills, enthusiasm for the position, and a schedule that per- mits that person to work the hours we might require. Our selection of these criteria shows good reasoning, for they are in fact crucial to finding the best person for the job. And we expect further evidence of reasoning in the systematic approach taken to identify potential candidates by adver- tising the position and screening the applicants to cull the list down to a group of interviewees. But when the applica- tions come in, we don’t exhaustively rate every candidate on every decision-critical attribute. Rather, at this early pre-editing stage we look for reasonable ways to make the decision easier and more efficient. We eliminate as many alternatives as possible with as minimal an expenditure of effort as must be committed to the task.

• • •

identifying one promising option testing that promising option for dominance structuring the dominance of the option selected6

Phase 1: Pre-editing In the pre-editing phase, we start by selecting a group of possible options and a number of attributes that we think are going to be important as we decide which option to finally pick. Take, for example, the problem of hiring one new employee from a large applicant pool. We want to interview only a small group of highly qualified candidates. We want them to have relevant work

experience, education, employment test scores, and the like. We may have a concrete set of characteristics in mind for the final choice: someone with strong communication skills, enthusiasm for the position, and a schedule that per- mits that person to work the hours we might require. Our selection of these criteria shows good reasoning, for they are in fact crucial to finding the best person for the job. And we expect further evidence of reasoning in the systematic approach taken to identify potential candidates by adver- tising the position and screening the applicants to cull the list down to a group of interviewees. But when the applica- tions come in, we don’t exhaustively rate every candidate on every decision-critical attribute. Rather, at this early pre-editing stage we look for reasonable ways to make the decision easier and more efficient. We eliminate as many alternatives as possible with as minimal an expenditure of effort as must be committed to the task.

Typically, we use the elimination by aspect heuristic and the satisficing heuristic to make our work go more quickly. We toss every applicant who is missing any single qualifying condition (insufficient education, low employ- ment test scores, or no relevant work experience), and we retain only those we judge to be good enough for a second look. We may cluster the applications into broad categories such as “well-qualified,” “qualified,” and “marginal.” If we do cluster them like that, we will quickly eliminate all but the “well-qualified.” Pre-editing can be brutally expe- ditious, and yet there is good reason for this. In real life we do not have the time or the resources to deliberate in detail about the cases we already know are not going to make the cut. What’s the point?

Our natural eagerness to shortcut through large num- bers of options was captured in a lyric from “The Boxer” by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, where the poets said that we tend to hear what we want or expect to hear and then to ignore or disregard all the rest.

Phase 2: identifying one Promising oPtion The second phase of the search for dominance is the identifica- tion of a promising option. We do this by finding one alter- native that is more attractive than the others on at least one critically important attribute. There are many reasons why one choice may emerge as very attractive and be judged optimal. Perhaps this choice is most in tune with our val- ues or current desires. Or perhaps the choice is the least threatening or the most economical. Whatever the source of the attraction, once this choice is identified, it becomes our “favored” or “promising” option. Using our hiring example, suppose there are four finalists who have passed through our initial screening process, and we plan that a committee will interview them all. And suppose that can- didate number one has the most job experience, number

two is most energetic, number three is most analytical, and number four is the most congenial. It is possible the com- mittee will immediately discover its consensus candidate. But it is more likely that different members of the commit- tee will find different candidates to be optimal for differ- ent reasons. Each member of the committee has a different favorite. Thus, the stage is set for a difference of opinion as to which candidate should be the one hired.

Phase 3: testing the Promising oPtion Having identified a promising option, we begin almost imme- diately to test it against the other options. We do this by comparing our promising alternative to the other options in terms of the set of decision-critical attributes. Typically, we focus on seeing whether our promising option has any salient disadvantages or major drawbacks. Returning to our hiring example, suppose that five years of relevant work experience is a decision-critical criterion. If our favored candidate has seven years of relevant work expe- rience, we will interpret that to mean that our candidate is not at a disadvantage on that criterion. That our candi- date may not have as many years of experience as some other candidate is not a problem. We are not going to argue the potential positive advantage of more years beyond the minimum five. Our focus will only be to assure ourselves that our favored option does not fall short of the mark on any decision-critical factor. But what if our candidate does fall short? In that case some of us may argue that the disad- vantage is not fatal to our favorite’s candidacy. In fact, if we are attracted to candidate number four because of his or her congeniality, we are likely to argue that even if candidate four has only two years of experience, this is really more than enough. At this point, we are not looking to prove that our candidate is the best; rather we want to be sure that our candidate has no fatal flaws.

If our promising alternative is “comparable to the others,” “about as good as the others,” “neither bet- ter nor worse than the others,” or “good enough” on the other decision-critical attributes, the promising alterna- tive becomes the “to be chosen” alternative. Our initial preference for that candidate, who was the first one we found whom we liked, wins out. We become more and more firm in our choice. We will not abandon our “to-be-chosen” option easily. Once we begin to appraise and anchor on a given promising option, we seek to establish a rationale for selecting this promising or “to-be-chosen” option over the others, and this means we transition nearly seamlessly into phase 4.7

The detective “began to worry that he was ‘locking in,’ a problem he saw with other cops all the time, the sure sense that something was just so, when it wasn’t.”

John Sandford, Mortal Pre.

Phase4:fortifyingtheto-Be-ChosenoPtion In the final phase, we restructure our appraisals of the options so as to achieve the dominance of one option over the others.8 This restructuring can be more or less rational, more or less in touch with reality, and, hence, more or less likely to lead to the intended and desirable results.9 One way we restructure the decision so that our “to-be-chosen” candi- date comes out on top is by de-emphasizing those deci- sion-critical attributes on which our promising candidate may be weaker. Another way is to bolster our candidate by increasing the significance of an attribute on which our candidate is stronger. A third way is to collapse attributes into larger groupings; for example, we could combine edu- cation and job experience into the single attribute, “back- ground experience.” Now we can hire someone with more education but very little job experience, overriding our concern for job experience per se. Or, because we do not favor candidate number one who has the most job experi- ence, we may need to diminish this apparent strength. We might argue that work experience is an advantage of can- didate number one, but some detail about that work expe- rience (for instance, that the person had never served in a supervisory role) is a disadvantage, so the one can be said to cancel the other. And, because of this, we might argue, candidate number one is not the person to hire.

The process of de-emphasizing, bolstering, trading off, and collapsing attributes continues until we find that one alterna- tive stands above the others as the dominant choice. Acute reasoning skills are vital to this complex and dynamic pro- cess of making comparisons across attributes. Obviously, one might be able to quantify within a given attribute—for example, by comparing two candidates on the basis of their years of relevant background experience. But it is not clear

how one would compare—for the purposes of possible trade-offs— communication skills against, say, energy or loyalty. And yet, we will make arguments in support of the to-be-chosen alternative as the decision maker’s search continues for a dominance structure to support this choice above all others.10 When the decision is being made by committee, and the stakes are high, this process can become interpersonally difficult, stressful, political, and, in the

worst situations, ruthless. When is dominance struc-

turing complete? There are three indicators. First, unless they are intentionally dissembling, peo-

ple who have made their choice will tend to describe themselves as having decided, rather than as still thinking or as undecided. Second, people who are locked into a given choice tend to dismiss as unimportant, refute, or abandon all arguments that appear to be lead- ing to a decision other than the one they embrace. Third, when asked to explain their choice, people who have built a dominance structure to fortify their selection often pres- ent with some enthusiasm a plurality of arguments sup- porting their chosen decision and they tend to recite rather unconvincingly a minimum number of arguments sup-

porting any of the other possible options.

Benefits and Risks of Dominance

Structuring

The result of dominance structuring is confidence, whether reasonable or unreasonable, in the option we have decided upon. Dominance structuring supplies us with enough confidence to motivate us to act on our decisions and to sustain our efforts. Obviously, the more unreasonable,

biased, irrational, and unrealistic we have been in our dominance structuring, the greater the risks of a poor deci- sion. On the other hand, if we have made the effort to be reasonable, truth-seeking, informed, open-minded, and neither too hasty nor too leisurely in coming to our deci- sion, then there is a greater chance that the decision will be a wise one. And we would be foolish not to be confident in it and not to act on the basis of such a decision. It is hard to know what more we could want when we need to make an important decision that involves elements of risk and uncertainty.

It would be a mistake to think of this human process as intentionally self-deceiving or consciously unethical or unfair. Rather, what cognitive scientists like Montgomery offer is a description of how human beings bolster confi- dence in their judgments under conditions of uncertainty. Humans seek to establish a strong and enduring rationale for the belief that one alternative dominates over others. This strong rationale impels us to act and sustains our con- tinuing to act on the basis of that belief. We surround our choice with a rationale for its enduring superiority to the other choices. This strategy allows us then to move for- ward, with confidence in the quality of our decision.

Understanding the power of dominance structuring explains why it is so difficult for us to reconsider a choice once it has been made or why the criticisms of our choices seem unpersuasive. Once we have dominance structured around a choice, the virtues of other options are less compel- ling to us and their vices appear larger than they may in fact be. When the dominance structure has been created, it is not uncommon to hear people describe the results of their delib- erations with phrases like “When we looked at it, we really didn’t have any other choice,” or “Hey, at the end of the day it was a no-brainer!” These mantras are evidence that the decision maker has elevated one option to the top position and discredited or discounted all other options. Having done that, it often is unclear to the decision maker why any of the other options were ever considered viable in the first place.

Searching for dominance in conjunction with elimina- tion by aspect, satisficing, and anchoring with adjustment involves cognitive risks. First, we risk making poor deci- sions due to a lack of due consideration of all reasonable alternatives. Second, we risk being blind to the chance that our choice might be seriously flawed or need revision. At some level, we recognize these potential problems in human decision making. Our judicial system, for example,

generally provides for appeals to be made to some person or judicial panel other than the one that rendered the ini- tial decision. We know that once people have fixed their minds on given results, it is very difficult for them to change their judgment. In everyday life, who is there to review our decisions for us if we do not do have the habit of truth-seeking and the skill of self-regulation so that we can review them ourselves?

Dominance structuring is a powerful influence on individual and group decision making. Our discussion may seem a harsh critique of human decision making. However, no rebuke is implied or intended. Nor is any praise. The description of dominance structuring is meant to be exactly that: a description of how human decision making works based on empirical investigations. At times we do well, at other times not.

OK, given that we humans naturally engage in dominance structuring, and given that the process has many benefits but some risks, does that mean that we cannot improve our decision making? No. Developing strength in critical thinking is all about improving our decision making process. We are human beings, not machines, so we are not going to replace dominance structuring with some other process. But we can adapt. The question for strong critical thinkers with a positive habit of truth-seeking becomes “What steps can we take to improve our decision making process and realize better outcomes given that we tend toward dominance structuring?”

11.2 Self-Regulation Critical Thinking

Skill Strategies

Because dominance structuring is an automatic System-1 tendency, we do not ask ourselves whether we wish to engage in dominance structuring or not. We just do it. And, again, for the most part that is a good thing, par- ticularly in contexts of uncertainty when a decision is needed and action is required. But, sometimes, prema- ture dominance structuring is a mistake. It can lock us into a less than optimal decision. Fortunately, System-2 decision making is capable of overriding and inter- vening. There are many strategies to mitigate the risks of dominance structuring around a less than optimal choice. These strategies rely on the critical thinking skill of self-regulation. Using self-regulation we can moni- tor our individual and group decision making, and we can make corrections in our decision-making processes to protect ourselves against premature dominance struc- turing around a lesser option. Some of these strategies will be familiar and obvious, but others may be new to you. What’s important is that we use our self-regulation skills to monitor decision making and make midcourse corrections should we begin to lock in prematurely. And that can happen, because our preferred option, after all, appears to be rather strong as compared to the others.

“Ongoing cognitive debiasing [e.g. monitoring one’s own thinking for errors and self-correcting] is arguably the most important feature of the [strong] critical thinker and the well-calibrated mind.”

Pat Croskerry, Geeta Singhai, and Silvia Mamede11

So, we will be tempted to take shortcuts and to achieve closure prematurely on our preferred option, fortifying it psychologically even against the onslaught of our origi- nal precautionary intentions.

Precautions When Pre-Editing

Be sure aBout “the ProBlem” What we take to be the problem can limit our imaginations about possible solutions. For example, if the problem is “Our team is not going to meet the deadline,” our solutions include work- ing harder, putting in more time, or reducing the quality of the work to complete it on time. But if the problem is “Roy is not doing his share of the work,” then our solu- tions include talking with Roy about the importance to the team of his fulfilling his responsibilities, giving some of Roy’s work to other team members, replacing Roy on the team, or excluding Roy from the work effort and the resulting credit for the team’s accomplishments. As we saw in Chapter 2 entitled “Critical Thinking Mindset and Skills” the crew of Apollo 13 was

flight is, in your judgment, a requirement for your next vacation trip, then don’t compromise on that standard. On the other hand, if a non-stop flight is desirable but not essential, then don’t elevate a secondary criterion to the level of “mandatory.” If the decision must be made after you hear from your friend next week on Monday, but before the opportunity lapses next week Thursday, then hold to that time frame. People with strong critical thinking skills and habits of mind protect themselves from making suboptimal decisions by establishing primary and secondary criteria and negotiating the secondary ones but holding firm to the primary ones.

Be Clear aBout Why an oPtion is in or out Even at the pre-editing phase, make a reflective and deliberative judgment as to why each option should remain in conten- tion or be eliminated. It will be impossible in most cases to give full consideration to every conceivable option. We need to eliminate large numbers of options early in the process so we can conserve time and energy to focus on those that remain. Real estate salespeople know this, and so they will ask prospective buyers and renters about their price range and how many bedrooms they need. These two parameters alone will enable agents to avoid wasting their own time and their clients’ time on properties that are too expensive or not the right size.

able to identify the right prob- lem; it was the oxygen. But if they had interpreted the prob- lem to be instrumentation, it is difficult to see how they would have survived. Through train- ing and experience, we learn all sorts of ways of solving all kinds of problems. But if we interpret the problem incorrectly, we are very apt to decide upon a solu- tion that will be ineffective or inappropriate.

Suppose you are looking to rent a two-bedroom apartment for less than $900 per month near school. A computer search or a friend who is a real estate agent can provide a list of a dozen apartments within minutes. Because you were clear about why an option was in (near the campus, two bedrooms) and why an option was out (cost more than $900), each and every one of the apartments will be a viable possibility. Your chances of making a poor decision or falling in love with a place you cannot afford or that does not meet your needs are reduced considerably. Suppose that a safe neighborhood and proximity to the metro system are also major considerations for you. Now, with clarity about five criteria, the choices become fewer and the next step, identifying the promising option, is more

manageable.

sPeCify the CritiCalattriButes Before beginning to work on a solution, be clear about the standards to be applied when evaluating options and minimum thresholds that an acceptable option must meet. If two years of work experience is an expectation for hiring, then say so and stick to it. If a non-stop

flight is, in your judgment, a requirement for your next vacation trip, then don’t compromise on that standard. On the other hand, if a non-stop flight is desirable but not essential, then don’t elevate a secondary criterion to the level of “mandatory.” If the decision must be made after you hear from your friend next week on Monday, but before the opportunity lapses next week Thursday, then hold to that time frame. People with strong critical thinking skills and habits of mind protect themselves from making suboptimal decisions by establishing primary and secondary criteria and negotiating the secondary ones but holding firm to the primary ones.

Be Clear aBout Why an oPtion is in or out Even at the pre-editing phase, make a reflective and deliberative judgment as to why each option should remain in conten- tion or be eliminated. It will be impossible in most cases to give full consideration to every conceivable option. We need to eliminate large numbers of options early in the process so we can conserve time and energy to focus on those that remain. Real estate salespeople know this, and so they will ask prospective buyers and renters about their price range and how many bedrooms they need. These two parameters alone will enable agents to avoid wasting their own time and their clients’ time on properties that are too expensive or not the right size.

Suppose you are looking to rent a two-bedroom apartment for less than $900 per month near school. A computer search or a friend who is a real estate agent can provide a list of a dozen apartments within minutes. Because you were clear about why an option was in (near the campus, two bedrooms) and why an option was out (cost more than $900), each and every one of the apartments will be a viable possibility. Your chances of making a poor decision or falling in love with a place you cannot afford or that does not meet your needs are reduced considerably. Suppose that a safe neighborhood and proximity to the metro system are also major considerations for you. Now, with clarity about five criteria, the choices become fewer and the next step, identifying the promising option, is more
manageable.

Precautions When Identifying

the Promising Option

sCrutinize oPtions With disCiPlined imPartiality When you first start considering a prob- lem, it is too soon to become the champion of one alterna- tive over another, and you’ll need to discipline yourself to assess strengths and weaknesses without becoming enam- ored of any specific option. If there are four apartments to look at, prepare your mind to look objectively at each. In practice, this can be more difficult than it seems, especially because many professional real estate agents often use the following tactics. First, an agent shows an acceptable property, a weaker one second, the best one third, and a lesser-quality property fourth. Psychologically, this puts the client at ease because, after two less-than-fully-desir- able options, the third option looks really good, adjusting upward from where the client had first anchored. Seeing a less-acceptable fourth option helps lock the client in on the third option. Although the salesperson may never have heard of Professor Montgomery and dominance structur- ing, he or she knows how to wield these decision behav- iors. The agent might ask the client to note the positives of one apartment over the other, guiding the dominance structuring process along.

The agent will have a fifth to show, if the client insists, but the agent is hoping that the client will lock in on one that is “good enough.” The way not to be shepherded into a decision we might later regret is to decide beforehand that we will not let ourselves make any decision about the options, not even a tentative decision, until we have exam- ined each with equal scrutiny.

listen to Both sides first A variation on the pre- vious strategy is the mental discipline not to decide until we have heard the other side of the story. Judges instruct juries not to decide until after the prosecution and the defense have both com- pleted presenting their cases and made their closing argu- ments. Parents discover that it is not good enough to hear They know that they must hear the other child’s side of the story. We all have a natural tendency to believe the first credible report we hear and then use that belief to critique subsequent reports. Has this ever happened to you? Can you think of a time when you were involved in a situation or a disagreement with another person that resulted in that other person telling a third party what happened, only to find that when you tried to explain your side of the story to that third party they seemed to have already made up their minds about you? We as authors can think of a few examples with co-workers, friends, and even some family members where this has happened to us in the past. It takes a set of practiced critical thinking self-regulation skills and a strong habit of open-mindedness to resist coming to a premature decision regarding which side to believe.

Precautions When Testing

the Promising Option

use all the essential Criteria As obvious as this seems, we often do not use all the decision-critical criteria after identifying our promising option. We like the apart- ment in the complex that has the well-equipped workout

room, and so we elevate that new factor to the status of a major consideration. But our initial set of essential factors did not include that consider- ation. It may have been on our desirable list, but it was not on the essentials list. Instead, we err by neglecting one or more of our initially essential crite- ria, for example, the proximity to the university or the cost. Strong critical thinking hab- its of mind incline us toward sticking to our initial criteria and applying all of them to this candidate and to all the other candidates. If a new and important criterion emerges during the decision-making process, then we would want to revise the list of decision- critical criteria and initiate a new search. There may be others that have great rec- reational spaces. As we first envisioned our set of criteria, great recreational space wasnot among them. Until we saw this apartment, that consid- eration was not an essential factor. No matter whether we stick with our initial set of criteria or initiate a new search with a new set of criteria, the important thing is that we apply all of them if they are all considered essential.

treat equals as equals The tendency toward domi- nance structuring privileges the promising option over all the other candidates by orienting our thinking around whether that one option has any obvious disadvantages. If the favored option has no obvious disadvantages, then it will become the to-be-chosen option. I like the apartment in the complex with the great fitness room. So, I ask myself whether it has any major disadvantages as compared to the other choices. It’s pricey, but I can stretch. It isn’t as close to the university, but it’s not too far either. I wish the second bedroom were bigger, but I can live with that. Nope. No major disadvantages. Notice that in this process I did not give all four options a fair-minded evaluation, seriously comparing them on each criterion. Instead of truth-seeking, I threw objectivity to the wind and settled for an apartment that was more expensive, further from the university, and too small. And I did not even look at the other two criteria, safety and proximity to the Metro.

diligently engage in truth-seeking and remain imPartial Truth-seeking helps us follow reasons and evidence wherever they lead, even if they go against our preferred or favored option. This is an active process. We must discipline ourselves to go out and find the needed evidence and consider all the reasons, pro and con. Being diligent in truth-seeking means that we give fair- minded consideration to options and ideas even if they go against our preconceptions or cherished, but perhaps unreflectively held, beliefs. Impartiality helps us main- tain our objectivity. But we all know that it is hard to be impartial in some situations. If the stakes are high for us or if people we care about are involved, it is very diffi- cult. Strong critical thinking demands that we recognize contexts in which impartiality is difficult to maintain. In those cases, if others are involved, the judicious thing to decide is that someone else should decide. In legal mat- ters, when a potential juror is deemed to be at risk of not being impartial, that person is excused from being a juror. A judge who is at risk of not being impartial in a given case asks that the case be moved to a different judge. But in our daily lives, we cannot remove ourselves from judg- ing or excuse ourselves from the responsibility of making decisions. We must, instead, make a conscious and delib- erative effort to decide objectively. The habit of truth- seeking and the skill of self-regulation are irreplaceable assets in doing this.

Precautions When Fortifying

the To-Be-Chosen Option

Be honest With yourself The complex processes at work in the final stage of dominance structuring can be difficult to manage unless one is deeply committed to making honest evaluations. But, if there are good rea- sons, we can de-emphasize a given decision-critical crite- rion relative to another. In the apartment example, price may be more important than proximity to the campus. At other times, a criterion cannot be de-emphasized. Safety, for example, might have been a major consideration in the pre-editing phase. If that were the case, then it would be intellectually dishonest to argue at this point that it is no longer a factor to consider seriously. When bolstering we may be tempted to exaggerate the virtues of our to- be-chosen option and exaggerate the vices and shortcom- ings of the other options. But exaggeration would be less than fully honest. Yes, our favored candidate does have advantages, and yes, the other options have flaws, but we should use self-regulation to monitor our evaluation so that we do not blow these advantages or these flaws out of proportion.

Trading off one criterion for another can be straight- forward if the two have the same metric. For example, proximity to the university and proximity to the metro can both be measured in time and distance. So, we can more easily decide whether being a little closer to the metro and a little further from the university is acceptable or not. But when two criteria are measured on different met- rics, the trade-offs can be more difficult. How much safety should one trade to get a lower rent? How much smaller

can that second bedroom be to live closer to the univer- sity? Again, we need self-regulation skill to monitor and correct, if needed, our tendency to trade away too many importantthingstogetthatonefeaturethatattractsusso much. Collapsing criteria is not going to work when the criteria are as different as those in the apartment example. It is hard to imagine price and safety as one criterion. But in the hiring example earlier in the chapter, it could be rea- sonable to collapse work experience, volunteer experience, and maybe service-learning experience. If we can expect that the person learned job-relevant skills even though he or she may not have had a paying job, then collapsing makes sense.

Critical Thinking Strategies for Better

Decision Making

task indePendent teams With the same ProBlem Military commanders, realizing the risks of poor decisions, occasionally set two independent teams to work on the same problem. The theory behind this strategy is that if the two teams make the same recommendations, then that recommendation is probably the best option. If the teams make divergent or conflicting recommen- dations, then that provides the commanding officer the opportunity to listen impartially and objectively as each team explains why its recommendation is superior.

deCide When it’s time to deCide Particularly in group decision-making situations, there is a tendency to decide prematurely. Time for discussion is short, and some people always seem ready to decide faster than others do. People can become impatient, and the urgency of other matters can lead us into the trap of “Ready, Fire, Aim.” We can mitigate the ten- dency toward premature decision making by first setting out a plan for making the decision that identifies all the steps that will be taken first. In group decision making, this can be very helpful, for it establishes a set of expectations and assures time for the diligent inquiry and deliberation that is due an impor- tant decision. Obviously, it would be equally unwise to fail to make the decision when opportunities are being missed and the costs of delaying are mounting up. That said, sticking to an initial plan for when and how a decision needs to be made, including the time frame, fact finding, option development, and consultation, can be very helpful.

analyze indiCators and make midCourse CorreCtions Health care and business professionals employ this strategy. They frequently measure progress and make necessary adjustments if the relevant outcome indica- tors do not show the expected improvements. This strategy is the critical thinking skill of self-regulation made operational. When a patient is in the hospital, the clinicians monitor all the patient’s bodily systems to be sure that the treatment plan is having the desired effect. If any of the many tests that are performed show that the patient’s condition is not improv- ing, then the medical team makes changes in the patient’s

treatment. In business settings, people monitor sales revenues, expenses, cash flow, accounts payable, and accounts receiv- able on a regular basis. They review data to monitor progress toward revenue targets or to be sure they are staying within budget allocations. If any of the numbers look problematic, they make midcourse corrections. The same idea applies to decisions we make to improve or change our life situations. If we monitor the effects of those decisions and we do not see the results we planned, we need to make midcourse corrections.

Create a Culture of resPeCt for CritiCal thinking All of us, and leaders in particular, can increase the likelihood of better decision making by creating a cul- ture of respect for critical thinking. We do this by modeling and encouraging positive critical thinking habits of mind. We do this by inviting, acknowledging, and rewarding the con- structive use of critical thinking skills. We do this by showing respect for people even if they advance ideas and opinions that differ markedly from our own. We can model respect- ing people’s effort to think well even if we do not accept their ideas. As leaders we would be wise to invite people to sup- ply their reasons for their recommendations, rather than only their votes or their recommendations, as if the reasons were unimportant. As leaders we must give truth-seekers enough latitude to raise difficult questions without fear of reprisals. We must be willing to listen, to reconsider, and to be persuaded by good arguments. At the same time, we must use these same tools when presenting our final decisions—sharing not just the choice made, but providing the reasons for that choice.

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

image

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

image

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

  • Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
  • Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
  • Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
  • Paper Formatting $05FREE
  • Cover Page $05FREE
  • Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
  • Dedicated User Area $08FREE
  • 24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
  • Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE
image

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

  • On-time Delivery
  • 24/7 Order Tracking
  • Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

image

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

Categories
All samples
Essay (any type)
Essay (any type)
The Value of a Nursing Degree
Undergrad. (yrs 3-4)
Nursing
2
View this sample

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate
image

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

image

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

  • Clear elicitation of your requirements.
  • Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

  • Proactive analysis of your writing.
  • Active communication to understand requirements.
image
image

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

  • Thorough research and analysis for every order.
  • Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
Place an Order Start Chat Now
image

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code Happy