DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC) Maxwell AFB, AL 36118

1 Oct 14

AIR FORCE SENIOR NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER ACADEMY STUDENT GUIDE

PART I COVER SHEET

LESSON TITLE: CF03, CRITICAL THINKING

METHOD: DL Content/ALE Core Lesson

REFERENCES: Air Force Manual 36-2236, (2003). Guidebook for Air Force Instructors.

Barell, J., (1988). Cited (p. 59) in Costa & O'Leary, Co-cognition: The cooperative development of the intellect. In Davidson, J. and Worsham, T (Ed.) Enhancing Thinking through Cooperative Learning. (Ed.) (1988, April). Cogitare: A Newsletter of the ASCD Network on Teaching Thinking, 3(1).

Blass, F., Levy, D., and Parco, J. (2010). “The 52nd Floor, Thinking Deeply About Leadership,” second edition. Retreived from info@ensobooks.com.

Facione, P., (2011). Think Critically. Prentice Hall, 1 Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Haskins, G. R. (2006). A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm#critical and http://skepdic.com/essays/Haskins.html.

Paul, Richard Dr. and Elder, Linda Dr., (2009). A Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts. (pp 42) Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrived from www.criticalthinking.org.

Paul, Richard Dr. and Elder, Linda Dr., (2008). The thinkers guide to the nature and functions of critical & creative thinking. (pp 20) Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrived from www.criticalthinking.org.

Paul, Richard Dr. and Elder, Linda Dr., (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking: concepts and tools, Fifth edition, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrived from www.criticalthinking.org.

Resolving Ill-Defined Problems: Critical Thinking and Innovative Problem Solving, Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center, Retrived from http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/ridp-ct2011.htm.

Roediger, H.L., McDermotol, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in list. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814.

The Little Brown Book, (2001). 8th ed, H. Ramsey Fowler & Jane E. Aaron, Chapter 5 – Taking a Critical Perspective, Chapter 6 – Reading Arguments Critically, Chapter 7 – Writing an Argument.

PART IA

DL COURSE GOAL: Prepares Senior NCOs to lead the enlisted force in the employment of air, space and cyberspace power in support of our national security objectives.

GENERAL LEARNING OUTCOME: Upon completion of this lesson, students are better prepared to lead and manage more effectively.

SUPPORTED COMPETENCIES/DIRECTIVES: The Critical Thinking lesson supports the following AU Continuum of PME Education Strategic Guidance (CESG)

- Core Area: Communication Studies - Critical Thinking

TERMINAL COGNITIVE OBJECTIVE Comprehend Critical Thinking and/or its impact on subordinate, SNCO, unit, and mission effectiveness.

TERMINAL COGNITIVE SAMPLES OF BEHAVIOR: 1. Explain Critical Thinking and/or its impact on subordinate, SNCO, unit, and

mission effectiveness. 2. Give examples of Critical Thinking and/or its impact on subordinate, SNCO, unit,

and mission effectiveness. 3. Predict the impact of Critical Thinking on subordinate, SNCO, unit, and mission

effectiveness.

AFFECTIVE OBJECTIVE: Value Critical Thinking

PART IB

LESSON OUTLINE:

CONTENT

MP 1. Characteristics that Embody a Proficient Critical Thinker A. Open-mindedness B. Healthy Skepticism C. Intellectual Humility D. Free Thinking E. High Motivation

CF03SG - 2

MP 2. Essential Intellectual Traits A. Intellectual Humility

B. Intellectual Courage

C. Intellectual Empathy

D. Intellectual Autonomy

E. Intellectual Integrity

F. Intellectual Perseverance

G. Confidence in Reason

H. Fairmindedness

MP 3. Universal Intellectual Standards A. Clarity

B. Accuracy

C. Precision

D. Relevance

E. Depth

F. Breadth

G. Logic

H. Fairness

MP 4. Hindrances to Critical Thinking A. Basic Human Limitations B. Use of Language C. Faulty Logic or Perception D. Psychological or Sociological Pitfalls

MP 5. Approaches for Evaluating Information

MP 6. Facione’s Scoring Rubric w/ Exercise A. Background B. Scenarios C. Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric D. System 1 and System 2 Thinking

MP 7 Decision Analysis A. Define Decision Making

CF03SG - 3

B. Decision Analysis

MP 8. Thinking Deeply About Leadership

MP 9. Impact on SNCO Effectiveness

CONCLUSION: Summary

PART II

STUDENT READING

MP 1: Characteristics that Embody a Proficient Critical Thinker

The first step to becoming a proficient critical thinker is developing the proper attitude. Such an attitude embodies the following characteristics: A) open-mindedness, B) healthy skepticism, C) intellectual humility, D) free thinking, and E) high motivation.

A & B. The first two characteristics may appear contradictory, but they are not. Critical thinkers must be willing to investigate viewpoints different from their own view, but at the same time recognize when to doubt claims that do not merit such investigation. A critical thinker must be neither dogmatic nor gullible. Being both open-minded and skeptical means seeking out the facts, information sources, and reasoning to support issues we intend to judge; examining issues from as many sides as possible; rationally looking for the good and bad points of the various sides examined; accepting the fact that we may be in error ourselves; and maintaining the goal of getting at the truth (or as close to the truth as possible), rather than trying to please others or find fault with their views. Too much skepticism will lead one to doubt everything and commit oneself to nothing, while too little will lead one to gullibility and credulousness.

C. Having intellectual humility means adhering tentatively to recently acquired opinions; being prepared to examine new evidence and arguments even if such examination leads one to discover flaws in one’s own cherished beliefs; to stop thinking that complex issues can be reduced to matters of ‘right & wrong’ or ‘black & white’, and to begin thinking in terms of ‘degrees of certainty’ or ‘shades of grey’. Sometimes ‘I don’t know’ can be the wisest position to take on an issue. As Socrates noted: Arrogance does not befit the critical thinker.

D. A critical thinker must also have an independent mind, i.e., is a free thinker. To think freely, one must restrain one’s desire to believe because of social pressures to conform. This can be quite difficult or even impossible for some. One must be willing to ask if conformity is motivating one’s belief or opinion, and if so, have the strength and courage to at least temporarily abandon one’s position until he or she can complete a more objective and thorough evaluation.

E. Finally, a critical thinker must have a natural curiosity to further one’s understanding and be highly motivated to put in the necessary work sufficient to evaluate the multiple sides of issues. The only way one can overcome the lack of essential knowledge on a subject is to do the necessary studying to reach a sufficient level of understanding before

CF03SG - 4

making judgments. This may require the critical thinker to ask many questions, which can be unsettling to those asked to respond. A critical thinker cannot be lazy.

MP 2: Essential Intellectual Traits

Intellectual traits are the traits of mind and character necessary for right action and thinking; the dispositions of mind and character essential for fair-minded rationality; or said another way, the virtues that distinguish the narrowminded, self-serving critical thinker from the openminded, truth-seeking critical thinker. We must understand essential intellectual traits to be a critical thinker. The eight intellectual traits are Intellectual Humility, Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual Autonomy, Intellectual Integrity, Intellectual Perseverance, Confidence in Reason, and Fair-mindedness. The following is an explanation of each of them.

A. Intellectual Humility vs. Intellectual Arrogance Having a consciousness of the limits of one’s knowledge, including sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one’s viewpoint.

Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one’s beliefs.

B. Intellectual Courage vs. Intellectual Cowardice Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated (instilled) in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically “accept” what we have “learned.” Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for nonconformity can be severe.

C. Intellectual Empathy vs. Intellectual Narrow-mindedness Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

D. Intellectual Autonomy vs. Intellectual Conformity

CF03SG - 5

Having rational control of one’s beliefs, values, and inferences. The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over one’s thought processes. It entails a commitment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to believe when it is rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to conform.

E. Intellectual Integrity vs. Intellectual Hypocrisy Recognition of the need to be true to one’s own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one’s self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one’s antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action.

F. Intellectual Perseverance vs. Intellectual Laziness Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

G. Confidence In Reason vs. Distrust of Reason and Evidence Confidence that, in the long run, one’s own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

H. Fair-mindedness vs. Intellectual Unfairness Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one’s friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s group.

MP 3: Universal Intellectual Standards:

Universal intellectual standards are standards which should be applied to thinking to ensure its quality. To be learned they must be taught explicitly. The ultimate goal, then, is for these standards to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice, guiding them to reason better.

A. Clarity: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don’t yet know what it is saying. For example, the question “What can be done about the education system in America?” is unclear. In order to adequately address the question, we would need to have a clearer

CF03SG - 6

understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the “problem” to be. A clearer question might be “What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?”

B. Accuracy: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? Astatement can be clear but not accurate, as in “Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight.”

C. Precision: Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is overweight.” (We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)

D. Relevance: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, “effort” does not measure the quality of student learning, and when that is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

E. Depth: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Are you dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement “Just Say No”, which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

F. Breadth: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of…? A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoints which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question).

G. Logic: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? Before you implied this and now you are saying that, I don’t see how both can be true. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is “logical.” When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not “make sense,” the combination is “not logical.”

CF03SG - 7

H. Fairness: Are we considering all relevant viewpoints in good faith? Are we distorting some information to maintain our biased perspective? Are we more concerned about our vested interests than the common good? We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends to privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or interests. Because we tend to be biased in favor of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to see things we don’t want to see, or give something up that we want to hold onto.

MP 4: Hindrances to Critical Thinking

Each day of our lives we become exposed to things that hinder our ability to think clearly, accurately, and fairly. Some of these hindrances result from unintentional and natural human limitations, while others are clearly calculated and manipulative. Some are obvious, but most are subtle or insidious. Armed with the proper attitude, a critical thinker must next understand how to recognize and avoid (or mitigate) the gauntlet of deception that characterizes everyday life. These hindrances can be divided into four categories:

Basic Human Limitations

Use Of Language

Faulty Logic Or Perception

Psychological Or Sociological Pitfalls

A. Basic Human Limitations applies to everyone, including the most proficient critical thinkers. These limitations remind us that we are not perfect and that our understanding of facts, perceptions, memories, built-in biases, etc., preclude us from every seeing or understanding the world with total objectivity and clarity. The best we can do is to acquire a sufficient or adequate understanding depending on the issue at hand.

Basic Human Limitations include:

1. Confirmation Bias and Selective Thinking

2. False Memories and Confabulation

3. Personal Biases and Prejudices

4. Physical and Emotional Hindrances

5. Testimonial Evidence

1. Confirmation Bias and Selective Thinking is the process whereby one tends to notice and look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. For example, if one believes that more murders occur during a full moon, then one will tend to take notice of murders that occur during a full moon and tend not to take notice of murders that occur at other times. A critical thinking tip to help with this hindrance would be to obtain and objectively evaluate

CF03SG - 8

all relevant information and sides of an issue before passing judgment.

2. False Memories and Confabulation is being unaware that our memories are often “manufactured” to fill in the gaps in our recollection, or that some memories of facts, over time, can be unconsciously replaced with fantasy. Police officers should not show a photo of a possible assailant to a witness prior to a police lineup, or the actual memory of the witness may be unconsciously replaced. To combat this, you need to put more reliance on proven facts than memory recollection or testimonies from others and also know your own memory limitations.

3. We each have Personal Biases and Prejudices, resulting from our own unique life experiences and worldview, which make it difficult to remain objective and think critically. Some people are biased against claims made by scientists because their worldview appears too cold and impersonal. You must resist your own biases by focusing on the facts, their sources, and the reasoning in support of arguments.

4. Physical and Emotional Hindrances can severely affect our ability to think clearly and critically. These include stress, fatigue, drugs, and related hindrances. An example would be, “Air traffic controllers often have difficulty making good judgments after long hours on duty.” We should restrain from making critical decisions when extremely exhausted or stressed.

5. Testimonial evidence can also be a hindrance to critical thinking. We should not rely on the testimonies and vivid anecdotes of others to substantiate one’s own beliefs, even though testimonies are inherently subjective, inaccurate, unreliable, biased, and occasionally fraudulent. Dramatic stories of Bigfoot sightings do not prove the existence of Bigfoot. So we should resist making judgments based on testimonies alone. Extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary evidence.

B. The Use of Language is highly relevant to critical thinking. The choice of words themselves can conceal the truth, mislead, confuse, or deceive us. From ads which guarantee easy weight loss to politicians assuring prosperity for everyone, a critical thinker must learn to recognize when words are not intended to communicate ideas or feelings, but rather to control thought and behavior.

Use of Language include:

1. Ambiguity

2. Assuring Expressions

3. Meaningless Comparisons

4. Doublespeak Jargon

5. Emotive Content

6. False Implications

1. Ambiguity is a word or expression that can be understood in more than one way.. From the statement “Lying expert testified at trial”… is the expert a liar or is the person an expert on telling when someone is lying? If the intended meaning of an ambiguous word or expression cannot be determined, avoid making judgments.

CF03SG - 9

2. Assuring Expressions are those that disarm you from questioning the validity of an argument. Expressions such as “As everyone knows…”, and “Common sense tells us that…” are examples of assuring expressions. Disregard assuring expressions and instead focus on facts & reasoning that support arguments.

3. Meaningless Comparisons include language that implies that something is superior but retreats from that view. An ad that claims a battery lasts “up to” 30% longer, but does not say it will last 30% longer, and if it did, longer than what. Avoid making judgments if it is not exactly clear what is being compared.

4. Doublespeak Jargon is the use of technical language to make the simple seem complex, the trivial seem profound, or the insignificant seem important, all done intentionally to impress others. An example of this would be referring to a family as “a bounded plurality of role-playing individuals” or a homeless person as a “non-goal oriented member of society.” Try to recognize the cognitive (factual) content of jargon words and expressions to be a better critical thinker.

5. Emotive Content is the intentional use of words to arouse feelings about a subject to bias others positively or negatively, in order to gain influence or power. Naming detergents “Joy” and “Cheer” (positive), not “Dreary” and “Tedious” (negative). The military using the phrase “neutralizing the opposition” (less negative) rather than “killing” (negative). Learn to recognize and distinguish the emotive (emotional) content of language. Try to focus on reasoning and the cognitive (factual) content of language when evaluating arguments.

6. False Implications is the use of language that is clear and accurate but misleading because it suggests something false. The dairy industry is very good at this…they cleverly express fat content as a percentage of weight, not of calories. Thus 2% “low” fat milk really has 31% fat when fat is measured as a percentage of calories. To alleviate false implications, try to understand not only the facts, but also their relevance and context.

C. Faulty Logic or Perception include:

1. Superstition

2. Argument from Ignorance

3. False Analogies

4. Irrelevant Comparisons

5. Pragmatic Fallacy

6. Slippery Slope Fallacy

1. Superstition is the erroneous perception of the connections between unrelated events. An example would be irrationally believing that how one wears their hat while watching a football game can influence the score. We must recognize the difference between cause & effect versus unrelated coincidence.

2. Argument from Ignorance is a logical fallacy claiming something is true because it has not been proven false. Believing that there must be life on Mars because no one has proved that there is not life on Mars. Do not believe a proposition simply because it

CF03SG - 10

cannot be proven false.

3. False Analogies is making illogical analogies to support the validity of a particular claim. Arguing that two children sharing the same bedroom is wrong because double-celling of criminals in a penitentiary can lead to bad behavior. Learn to recognize the faulty assumptions behind false analogies.

4. An Irrelevant Comparison is making a comparison that is irrelevant or inappropriate. Making a claim that Printer A makes better copies than Printer B, while ignoring the important fact that only Printer B can also fax, copy, and scan. Be sure to compare “apples with apples.”

5. A Pragmatic Fallacy is arguing something is true because “it works,” even though the causality between this something and the outcome are not demonstrated. After using a magnetic belt for awhile, a woman notices her back pain is less, even though there may be a dozen other reasons for the reduced back pain. Try to identify known or possible causal mechanisms for observed effects, starting with those that are more likely, not more emotionally appealing.

6. A Slippery Slope Fallacy is an argument that assumes an adverse chain of events will occur, but offers no proof. “Because regulators have controlled smoking in public places, their ultimate goal is to control everything else in our lives.” Evaluate the logic supporting an alleged adverse chain of events.

D. Perceptions can be misinterpreted due to Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls. Reasoning can be twisted to gain influence and power. Psychological and sociological pitfalls include:

1. Ad hominem Fallacy

2. Ad populum, Bandwagon Fallacy

3. Emotional Appeals

4. Evading the Issue, Red Herring

5. Fallacy of False Dilemma, Either/or Fallacy

6. Poisoning the Well

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy is criticizing the person making an argument, not the argument itself. An example would be “You should not believe a word my opponent says because he is just bitter because I am ahead in the polls.” We should focus on reasons & facts that support an argument, not the person making the argument. Independently verify supporting facts if the source is in question.

2. Ad Populum, Bandwagon Fallacy is an appeal to the popularity of the claim as a reason for accepting the claim. Thousands of years ago the average person believed that the world was flat simply because most other people believed so. A valid claim should be based on sound arguments, not popularity.

3. Emotional Appeal is making irrelevant emotional appeals to accept a claim (since emotion often influences people more effectively than logical reasoning). Advertisements that appeal to one’s vanity, pity, guilt, fear, or desire for pleasure, while providing no

CF03SG - 11

logical reasons to support their product being better than a competitor. If an argument requires a logical reason to support its claim, do not accept emotional appeals as sufficient evidence to support it.

4. Evading the Issue, Red Herring could happen when one has been accused of wrongdoing by diverting attention to an issue irrelevant to the one at hand. An example would be making jokes about one’s own character in order to disarm critics & evade having to defend policy. Learn to recognize evasion, which implies a direct attempt to avoid facing an issue.

5. Fallacy of False Dilemma, Either/or Fallacy is intentionally restricting the number of alternatives, thereby omitting relevant alternatives from consideration. An example would be someone making the statement, “You are either with us, or with the terrorists!” Seek opposing arguments on the subject which may reveal the existence of other viable alternatives.

6. Poisoning the Well is creating a prejudicial atmosphere against the opposition, making it difficult for the opponent to be received fairly. An example would be someone making the statement, “Anyone who supports removing troops from Iraq is a traitor!” When evaluating an argument, focus on the argument, not prejudicial remarks.

MP 5: Approaches for Evaluating Information

While there is no simple answer, a critical thinker should look for information sources which are credible, unbiased, and accurate. This will depend on such things as the source’s qualifications, integrity, and reputation. Does the source have a motive for being inaccurate or overly biased? It is extremely easy to fool people with numbers—so you may consider becoming educated in the fundamental principles of probability and statistics before believing statistical information that supports an argument. This is the type of question a critical thinker will consider. This information will be covered in one of our communication skills projects.

MP 6: Facione’s Scoring Rubric w/ Exercise

Even when we are first learning a musical instrument or a sport, we can tell that some of our peers are better at the instrument or the sport than others. We all make progress, and soon we are all doing better than when we first started. We do not have to be experts to begin to see qualitative differences and to make reasonable evaluations. This, too, is true of critical thinking. There are some readily available ways to begin to make reasonable judgments concerning stronger or weaker uses of critical thinking. Dr. Peter Facione is one of the leading international experts in developing critical thinking. He is the author of the Military and Defense Critical Thinking Inventory, one of the leading assessments in the application of critical thinking in national defense. He and his spouse, Dr. Noreen Facione, have developed a critical thinking scoring rubric to help us develop critical thinking in the military. You may apply his scoring rubric (attachment 2) to the scenario below to get a better understanding.

Imagine a professor has assigned a group of four students to comment on the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. Among other things, the bill, signed into law on April 21,

CF03SG - 12

2009, designates September 11th as a national day of service. The group of four students has access to the information outlined below.

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

“The bill encourages voluntary service. The legislation provides for gradually increasing the size of the Clinton-era AmeriCorps to 250,000 enrollees from its current 75,000. It outlines five broad categories where people can direct their service: 1) helping the poor, 2) improving education, 3) encouraging energy efficiency, 4) strengthening access to health care, and 5) assisting veterans.”

“AmeriCorps offers a range of volunteer opportunities including 1) housing construction, 2) youth outreach, 3) disaster response and 4) caring for the elderly. Most receive an annual stipend of slightly less than $12,000 for working 10 months to up to one year”

“The bill also ties volunteer work to money for college. People 55 and older can earn up to $1000 education awards by getting involved in public service. Those awards can be transferred to a child, grand-child, or even someone they mentored”

“Students from sixth grade through senior year of high school could earn $500 education awards for helping in their neighborhoods during a new summer program”

Group Of Four Students’ Statements Label

Student #1: “My take on it is that this bill requires national service. It’s like…a churchy-service-sorta-thing. But, you know, like run by the government and all. We all have to sign up and do our bit before we can go to college. That’s a great idea. Think about it, how could anyone be against this legislation? I mean, unless they are either lazy or selfish. What excuse could a person possibly have not to serve our country? The president is right, we need to bring back the draft so that our Army has enough soldiers, and we need to fix health care and Social Security. I don’t want to pay into a system all my working life only to find out that there’s no money left when it’s my time to retire”

Student #2: “Well I think this bill is a stupid idea. Who’s going to agree to work for a lousy $12,000 a year? That’s nuts. I can earn more working at Target or by enlisting in the Navy. This legislation is just more foolish liberal nonsense that takes our nation one step closer to socialism. Socialism is when the government tries to control too many things. And now the president is trying to control volunteer service. Maybe you want to build houses for poor people or clean up after hurricanes, but I don’t see how any of that is going to help me pass physics or get me a better job after college.”

Student #3: “I think there are problems with the legislation, too. But you’re wrong about people not wanting to volunteer. The number of hits on the AmeriCorps Web site keeps going up and up each month. Retired people, students, and people who just want to make a difference go there and to Serve.gov to see what opportunities might exist near where they live. On the other hand, I do have issues with the government being the organizing force in this. Volunteerism was alive and well in America before Big Brother got involved. I don’t see why we need to spend 5.7 billion dollars getting people to do what they were already going to do anyway. We shouldn’t pay people to be volunteers.”

Student #4: “That’s the point, some of them wanted to do volunteer service but they need

CF03SG - 13

a small incentive. Nobody is going to get rich on the stipends the government is offering. I think that people who want to keep government at arm’s length are going to have problems with this bill. They are right that it is another way that government is worming itself into every facet of our lives. But a lot of people feel that way about religion, too; that’s why they do not want to volunteer in programs sponsored by religious groups, because they don’t want to be seen as agreeing with all the beliefs of that group. The real question for me is the effect that this legislation might have on the future politics of our nation. All these volunteers could become, in effect, people the Administration can call on in the next election. Organizing tens of thousands Americans who basically agree with the idea of public service at public expense is like lining up the Democratic voters who will want to be sure these policies are not reversed by the Republicans. I’m not talking about a vague idea like “socialism,” I’m talking about clever politics, positioning the Democratic Party for success in 2012. On balance, that’s OK with me. But we need to understand that this legislation will result in more than just a lot of wonderful work by a large number of generous Americans who are willing to give of their time to help others.”

MP 7: Decsion Analysis

Definition of Decision Making “Decision-making is the mental (cognitive) process that results in the selection of a course of action from among several alternative scenarios.” Every decision-making process produces a final choice.0F

i The output of which can be an action or an opinion of choice.

Two System Approach to Decision Making If you look back to the days when you were a brand new airman just learning your job for the first time, more than likely you had to really focus on the tasks that you were doing. Now through repetition, tasks you once thought of as “complex” are now nothing more than routine actions, decisions, and behaviors. It is only after many hours of complex analysis, inferences and effective judgments that tasks become routine enough as to require little or no thought. As long as you can do things the same way, every time, decisions seem to come easy. However, what happens when things change? We are often uncomfortable with change because change takes out of our “norm.” When we move to something new or different we have to focus on new ways of doing things—the “old way” of doing things is reactive, instinctive, quick and holistic (S-1). The “new way” is deliberative, analytical and procedural (S-2).

System 1 (Reactive Thinking) Reactive Thinking (System-1) involves deciding first, reacting and then trying to make sense out of all of it! Many of the judgments that you make every day are automatic or reactive, rather than reflective. When you wake up in the morning and go to work, chances are that unless something dramatic happens, you are on “auto pilot” until you get to work. You probably do not spend a whole lot of time thinking about how to brush your teeth, how to eat breakfast or how to drive to work. Many freeway accidents are often avoided because drivers are able to see and react to dangerous situations quickly. Good decisions emerging from system-1 thinking often feel intuitive. Decisions good drivers make in those

CF03SG - 14

moments of crisis, just like the decisions athletes make in the flow of the game or the decisions an NCO makes in the heat of battle, are born of expertise, training, and practice. Many times if you make a decision based entirely from reactive thinking you may look back and ask yourself “what was I thinking?” The answer—“probably not a whole lot!”

System 2 (Reflective Thinking) Reflective Thinking (System-2) is broad and informed problem-solving and deliberate decision-making. It is useful for judgments in unfamiliar situations, for processing abstract concepts, and for deliberating when there is time for planning and more comprehensive consideration. Argument making is often part of the deliberation process when making system-2 decisions. Critical thinking is considered system-2 thinking because it is often focused on resolving the problem at hand and at the same time monitoring and self-correcting the process of the situation or problem.

As you think about a two-system approach to decision-making, do not make the mistake of thinking of the process as a “head versus heart” or a “right brain versus left brain” approach. Human decision-making is not this superficial or simplistic. Likewise, do not categorize.

Using the Appropriate Systems Thinking for Decision Making If you have ever heard (or maybe said), “that is the way we have always done things” it is because too often, many of today’s problems are solved by utilizing easy and comfortable approaches to obtain a solution. In reality, as you may have discovered, simple and common approaches are not always the most effective way of dealing with complex, dynamic, and diverse problems.

The next few sections on Decision Analysis are an in depth look at one type of System-2 thinking.

As a SNCO and a member of the Profession of Arms, there is an increasing need to improve and create impeccable results through systems thinking. In essence, system thinking is a discipline of seeing the “whole,” recognizing patterns and interrelationships, and learning how to structure more effective, efficient decisions.

Many reactive judgments can be good judgments, but can lead to unnecessary risks and mistaken biases. Thus, the true “decision” is which of our reactive judgments should we make reflective?

CF03SG - 15

Decision Analysis Criteria

Figure 1 Decision Analysis

Making the right decision is critical. Decision Analysis will assist you in avoiding making the wrong decision and guide you to the best decision every time. However, before a decision can be made, a number of factors have to be considered and analyzed. The following will help you achieve this:

1. Brainstorming will help you decide your priorities 2. Rating Sheets will help you make a choice against criteria 3. Solution Effect will help you identify any consequences of the choices you have

made

The technique formalizes the decision process by highlighting the need to:

1. Understand that choices have to be made 2. Discuss those factors that are vital to the success of the decision 3. Agree what action will satisfy these factors 4. Recognize what could prevent the success of any action

Note: The scenarios chosen to demonstrate the use of decision analysis are non-military. This is because most people have experienced buying a living room suite or a car, whereas if a specific military situation were used, there would be less people who could relate to the scenarios. Decision analysis can be used for decisions we make daily and once you understand the concept, you can easily use it for personal or military use.

STEP 1: Decision Statement The first step is to prepare a statement which acts as a starting point and sets limits for any choices to be made while reaching the decision.

For example: Purchase the best living room suite.

STEP 2: Decision Criteria

Step 2a: In this step, you decide on the criteria you’ll use to make the decision. The

CF03SG - 16

simplest way to determine criteria is to conduct a brainstorming session with those affected by the decision. In some cases, you may also want to ask one or more subject matter experts for their opinion/input and talk with the decision authority (if it’s not you) to ensure you know their needs/intentions

Step 2b: After compiling a list of criteria, the next part of this step is to place each item in either a MUST or WANT category.

The MUSTs are criteria essential for any solution to be effective.

For example, the living room suite MUST:

cost $2000 or less; be delivered in 6 weeks or less; and include at least 2 chairs and 1 sofa

“The MUSTs determine who/what gets to play”

The WANTs are characteristics, traits, accessories, etc. that enhance the solution, that is they are “nice to have” but are not necessary for the solution to work.

For example:

Able to tumble dry Washable covers that are easily removed and stain guard on footstool Footstool option

“The WANTs determine who/what wins”

Step 2c: Weighting the WANTs

BEFORE doing anything else, you must assign a weight (importance) to each WANT. You can use any scale (0-5, 1-10, 1-100, etc.) but for most decisions, a 1 – 10 scale works best with 1 being least important and 10 being most important. There is no scientific process for this; it is basically how important you feel the WANT is. The weight you assign a WANT will be different than the weight someone else will assign the same WANT.

Note: If you rate one or more items as 1 or 2, consider whether the item(s) are so trivial that they should be eliminated. Likewise, rating one or more items as 10 may mean those items are so important they should be moved to the MUST category. This is not say you must eliminate or move items that you rate 1 or 2 or 10, only that you should give them a second look before moving to the next step. It is perfectly okay to rate items 1, 2 or 10 and leave them as WANTS.

Weighting the WANTs WANTs *Weight Factor

1. Washable covers that are easily removed 9

2. Tumble Dry 8

3. Stain guard on footstool 4

CF03SG - 17

4. Footstool available 6

*Weighted factors are based on the needs/opinions of those involved in the decision-making process. In this scenario, the curriculum writer assigned the weights. However, if you or someone else were tasked to make this same decision, your/their weights would more than likely be different than the writers.

Note: Be sure to weight your WANTs before looking at alternatives to avoid skewing results in favor of the alternative we like most, which often results in poor or less than effective decisions.

STEP 3: Alternatives After determining MUSTs and WANTs, and assigning weights to the WANTs, it is time to find potential alternatives. Alternatives can come from many sources. For example, when buying a car, you could look online, check out newspaper ads, and shop several car dealerships.

On the other hand, when you are in need of alternatives for solving a problem, alternatives can come from

Brainstorming with end users Research Your own creative thinking Subject matter Experts

Note: Given the fact that decision analysis can help us select the most effective solution(s), we will revisit it during the problem-solving portion of the lesson.

Step 3a: Locating Alternatives

For our purposes here, we shopped local furniture stores looking for alternatives and came away with the following four alternatives:

Furniture Suite #1 (AKA: Alternative 1)

Cost $1850, 2 chairs and 1 sofa, red, delivery in 3 weeks, washable covers, but hard to remove, are not tumble dry, and no footstool.

Furniture Suite #2 (AKA: Alternative 2)

Cost $1725, 2 chairs and 1 sofa, red, delivery in 4 weeks, washable covers easily removable, are tumble dry, but are made of heavy fabric that requires a long time to dry, footstool available but not in stock (2 months), and stain guard is available for a nominal fee.

Furniture Suite #3 (AKA: Alternative 3)

Cost $1450, 2 chairs and 1 sofa, red, delivery in 7 weeks, washable covers and easy to remove, tumble dry, footstool available and in stock, and comes with inexpensive stain guard.

Furniture Suite #4 (AKA: Alternative 4)

CF03SG - 18

Cost $1750, 2 chairs and 1 sofa, red, delivery in 3 weeks, washable covers semi-easy to remove, are tumble dry and made of light fabric so they dry fast, footstool is available but not in stock (1 month delivery) and the stain guard is very expensive.

Step 3b: Comparing Alternatives to MUSTs

This step is very simple, especially when you use a comparison sheet like the one shown below. Enter MUSTs in the criteria column and then enter the information from each alternative that fulfills a corresponding MUST. This places the criteria and alternatives side by side so you can quickly eliminate any alternative that does not meet one or more of the MUSTs.

Criteria (MUSTs) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Costs $2000 (or less) Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 chairs and 1 sofa Yes Yes Yes Yes

Color = Red Yes Yes Yes Yes

Deliver under 6 weeks Yes Yes No Yes

Figure 2. Comparison Worksheet (Alternatives to MUSTs)

As you can see from the worksheet above, Alternative #3 does not meet the MUSTs and is therefore eliminated from contention (does not get to play).

You then need to look at each choice and determine, by way of a Weighted Rating Sheet, how each one performs on its own and how it compares with the other choices by taking the WANTs into consideration.

Step 3c: Selecting the BEST Alternative

Although we have narrowed our alternatives to just three, we still need to determine which one is the best by continuing our systematic process. This next step involves some simple math and the use of another worksheet.

First, we enter our WANTs into the Criteria column and our previously determined weights into the Previously Determined Weight column.

Next, we consider and weight each item from each alternative. For example, the first item in the worksheet below is washable covers that are easy to remove. Alternative #1 offers washable covers, but they are hard to remove so we assign it a weight of 4. (Remember, this weight is based on opinion—in this case the curriculum writer’s opinion) Alternative #2 offers washable covers that are easy to remove which is exactly what we want, so we assign a weight of 9. Finally, Alternative #4 offers washable covers that are semi-easy to remove, so we assign it a weight of 6.

As you can see below, we have entered the rest of the items from each alternative and assigned each one a weight based on our opinion of the item.

CF03SG - 19

Criteria (WANTs)

Previously Determined Weight

Alt 1 Score Alt 2 Score Alt 4 Score

Washable covers that are easy to remove

9 4 9 6

Tumble Dry 8 0 5 8

Footstool available

6 0 4 7

Stain Guard 4 0 3 3

Figure 3: Assigning Weights to Alternative Items

Now it is time to perform a little math. Begin by multiplying the Previously Determined Weight by the Weight of the first item in Alternative #1 (9x4=36). Do this for all remaining items in all remaining alternatives. Then, add up the scores for each alternative column to arrive at the Total Score.

Criteria (WANTs)

Previously Determined Weight

Alt 1 Score Alt 2 Score Alt 4 Score

Washable covers that are easy to remove

9 4 36 (9x4) 9 81

(9x9) 6 54 (9x6)

Tumble Dry 8 0 0 (8x0) 5 40

(8x5) 8 64 (8x8)

Footstool available 6 0 0

(6x0) 4 24 (6x4) 7 42

(6x7)

Stain Guard 4 0 0 (4x0) 3 12

(4x3) 3 12 (4x3)

Total Score 36 (36+0 +0)

157 (81+40 +24+12)

172 (54+64 +42+12)

Figure 4: Figuring Total Scores

At this point, the decision seems clear: Alternative #4 scored highest and therefore must be our BEST choice; however, there is still one very important step left…Risk Analysis.

STEP 4: Risk Analysis Before we run with Alternative #4, we must identify and consider the adverse consequences of choosing Alternative #4. We begin by identifying any adverse or

CF03SG - 20

unintended consequences that could have 2nd and 3rd order effects.

For example: Let’s assume for a moment that we’ve just learned

Furniture Store #4 only offers the suite in the color brown.

If we determine that having the suite in the color brown isn’t an adverse consequence or there are no unintended consequences, then we would choose Alternative #4. However, if the color brown does have adverse consequences or if after thinking about having a brown suite causes us to reconsider having a different color furniture set, as a Must or a Want, we need to reevaulate.

If the color of the furniture suite is now important, we must decide how important.

- If it’s important enough to now include as a Must, we would add it to our Must list. If we add it to the Must list, we need to start the entire Decision Analysis process over with all previous identified alternatives and possibly find new alternatives to be assessed.

- If it’s important but not a deal breaker it should be included in the Want list. If we add the color of the furniture set to the Want list, then we need to assign it a weight and reaccomplish assigning weights to the alternatives that had all the Musts.

With our Risk Analysis complete, we are now in a position to decide whether Alternative #4 is truly our best choice. For our purpose here, we will say that having a brown furniture set is not important in the selection. Given the fact that Alternative #4 had the highest score and after running risk analysis we determined that it had no adverse conditions or no unintended consequences, we can clearly state that Alternative #4 is still our best option. Now, if anyone were to ask why we selected Alternative #4, we can provide hard data to support our decision.

Enlisted leaders do not need to run every decision they make through such an elaborate process. In fact, the Air Force depends on SNCOs to apply their extensive knowledge and experience (System-1 Thinking and decision making) to most day-to-day decisions. However, there are times when SNCOs have to make critical and solve complex problems. In these cases, by using a Decision Analysis process like the one outlined above will help ensure high quality, fact-based decisions.

SUMMARY

The first step to becoming a proficient critical thinker is developing the proper attitude. Such an attitude embodies the following characteristics: A) open-mindedness, B) healthy skepticism, C) intellectual humility, D) free thinking, and E) high motivation.

Intellectual traits are the traits of mind and character necessary for right action and thinking; the dispositions of mind and character essential for fair-minded rationality; or said another way, the virtues that distinguish the narrowminded, self-serving critical thinker from the openminded, truth-seeking critical thinker. We must understand essential intellectual traits to be a critical thinker.

Universal intellectual standards are standards which should be applied to thinking to ensure its quality. To be learned they must be taught explicitly. The ultimate goal, then, is for these standards to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their

CF03SG - 21

inner voice, guiding them to reason better.

Each day of our lives we become exposed to things that hinder our ability to think clearly, accurately, and fairly. Some of these hindrances result from unintentional and natural human limitations, while others are clearly calculated and manipulative. Some are obvious, but most are subtle or insidious. Armed with the proper attitude, a critical thinker must next understand how to recognize and avoid (or mitigate) the gauntlet of deception that characterizes everyday life.

While there is no simple answer to evaluating information, a critical thinker should look for information sources which are credible, unbiased, and accurate. This will depend on such things as the source’s qualifications, integrity, and reputation. Does the source have a motive for being inaccurate or overly biased? It is extremely easy to fool people with numbers—so you may consider becoming educated in the fundamental principles of probability and statistics before believing statistical information that supports an argument. This is a question a critical thinker will consider.

Even when we are first learning a musical instrument or a sport, we can tell that some of our peers are better at the instrument or the sport than others. We all make progress, and soon we are all doing better than when we first started. We do not have to be experts to begin to see qualitative differences and to make reasonable evaluations. This, too, is true of critical thinking. There are some readily available ways to begin to make reasonable judgments concerning stronger or weaker uses of critical thinking. Facione’s scoring rubric can help us with critical thinking.

CF03SG - 22

Attachment 1

A Self-Test For Critical Thinkers

Place a check mark next to each item that you believe is true (most of the time) of your personal thinking patterns.

____I think for myself and am not easily manipulated by others.

____I recognize my own values and perspectives, and I can talk insightfully about the influences on my beliefs.

____I do not simply accept conclusions; I evaluate and critique the underlying reasons.

____I recognize irrelevant facts and false assumptions, and I discount them.

____I am able to consider the strengths and weaknesses of my own point of view and that of opposing positions.

____I admit my tendency toward egocentrism and my capacity for self-deception, and I work to overcome them.

____I am able to distinguish what I know from what I don't know, and I am not afraid when "I don't know."

____I am willing to consider all available information when working on problems or making decisions; I am also flexible and willing to try any good idea whether it has been done before or not.

____When evaluating the behavior of myself and others, I am conscious of the standards I use, and I am especially concerned with the consequences of actions.

____I am a good questioner. I like to probe deeply into issues, to dig down to root ideas, to find out what's really going on.

____I am comfortable being questioned, and I do not become defensive, confused, or intimidated. I welcome good questions since they help to clarify my thinking.

____I am a critical reader. I read with healthy skepticism, while reserving judgment until I fully understand the author's perspective.

CF03SG - 23

Attachment 2 Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR)

4 (Strong): Consistently does all or almost all of the following: - Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. - Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. - Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. - Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. - Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. - Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

3 (Acceptable): Does most or many of the following: - Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. - Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. - Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. - Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. - Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. - Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

2 (Unacceptable): Does most or many of the following - Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. - Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. - Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. - Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. - Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. - Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

1 (Weak): Consistently does all or almost all of the following: - Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, - questions, information, or the points of view of others. - Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. - Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. - Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. - Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. - Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. - Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason.

CF03SG - 24

NOTES

1 Facione and Facione

i James Reason (1990). Human Error. Ashgate

CF03SG - 25