217
Teaching Critical Thinking About Difficult Topics
less goodwill toward partners, were tenser, were more defensive, preferred greater physical
and psychological distance, and were less likely to achieve a goal of discussion. Students
are aware of the hazards of these discussions: Although many current college students
voice strong support for diversity on many dimensions, diversity of moral values is decid-
edly unwelcome (Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom, 2003). We feel much more comfortable
talking only to those who reaffirm the rightness of what we hold dear.
It is probably not worth trying to point out to students that they behave in this way,
either during or after a discussion. In the midst of defending a sacred value, such a critique
will be taken as part of the assault and reinvigorate the defenses of the intuitive theologian.
And once the discussion has passed, it is unlikely that students will recognize their irra-
tionality. Those who have abandoned evidence to defend a moral value will not recognize
that they have done so, because of our cherished belief that we alone are reasonable (see
Robinson, Keltner, Ward, & Ross, 1995). We assume that others, even people who share
our side of the argument, are biased, and see no reason to find compromise or common
ground with someone holding an obviously wrong opinion.
What Happens in the Classroom
Taking all this research into account, we can see that students are set up for a difficult
situation—they believe that some questions should never be asked, because just imagining
the answer can be a moral violation. And once a moral violation is noted, students are
highly motivated to avoid the kind of thinking we are asking them to do, and to restore
themselves to their pre-existing state. They are also unable to recognize that any of this is
happening.
This process is antithetical to education, but is understandable in light of the multiple
goals students are trying to serve. The intuitive theologian framework is functional because
it maintains community ties and helps us to navigate social relationships. These goals are
important to students and cannot be dismissed just because they are inconvenient to a
classroom exercise. Tetlock’s research (2002) predicts behavior familiar in the classroom:
When faced with an unavoidable contradiction with pre-existing beliefs, an intuitive theo-
logian is motivated to accept facetious arguments or distractions in order to avoid con-
fronting the paradox, or chooses to attack the source of the forbidden cognition. This kind
of reasoning is certainly not critical thinking, but should not serve as an indicator that
students lack critical thinking skills in general or appropriate evidence on the topic at
hand. The intuitive theologian actively undermines skills that the student may be able to
demonstrate in other contexts.
Suggestions for Faculty
Students’ personal experience-based beliefs and their moral values can get in the way of
their application of critical thinking skills. It is very unlikely that this problem can be
overcome simply by more teaching of those skills. The problem is not necessarily that the