Paul C. Smith & Kris Vasquez
214
What exactly is it that makes some of these beliefs fair game for research and critical
thinking although others are not? It is not easy to establish a clear divide: establishing exact
conditions of applicability for critical thinking and research raises some epistemological
questions that are still unresolved. Critical thinking-minded psychology faculty are fairly
good judges of the conditions of applicability of critical thinking and research skills, but
paradoxically use a sort of “I know it when I see it” heuristic rather than explicit rules.
They often have long experience with false claims and personal experience-based asser-
tions and also have long experience imagining and eliminating alternative explanations.
The expertise is in us, but it has not been made explicit. As a result, we do not have a good
method of teaching students how to discern between claims that really are supported by
certain personal experiences and those that are not. If we expect students to apply their
critical thinking skills in everyday life, we need to develop such a method.
Irresistible Forces
Another consistent difficulty in assignments asking for critical thinking from students is
that where their values are involved, their ability to think critically seems to be diminished.
Students engaging in discussion about a social issue may quickly revert to defensiveness or
ad hominem attacks. Although this behavior could be attributed to a lack of background
information or analytical skills, it is also possible that the nature of the topic itself impedes
critical thinking.
Consider an example assignment from research methods: teaching the distinction
between correlation and causation. In this assignment, students are asked to read press
coverage of an article discussing cognitive outcomes for children in day care, as well as
the original scholarly source (Brooks-Gunn, Han, & Waldfogel, 2002). Though the
class has covered extensively the difference between correlation and causation, though
the popular press uses the word “cause” in its headline, and though Brooks-Gunn and
colleagues explicitly say that their study does not show causal links, the students are
often unable to spot the key difference between the original article and the popular
press coverage.
In contrast, using Stanovich’s (2007) excellent example of the correlation in Taiwan
between number of small household electric appliances and use of contraception, the
students unfailingly see the folly of drawing causal conclusions from correlational data.
Yet somehow when it comes to the question of working mothers, some students appear
unable to make this critical distinction. Instead, critical consideration of the validity of
the causal conclusions gives way to an emotionally charged voicing of opinions about the
economic factors in society that drive women with young children into the workforce,
about the sexism inherent in the assumption that mothers are solely responsible for child
rearing, and about the selfishness of mothers who won’t “do what’s right” and stay home
with their children.
Similar posturing, without critical thought, can be produced by topics such as the
basis of homosexual orientation or the role of evolution in mate selection. It is easy to
assume that this lack of rational exchange reflects insufficient reasoning skills.