Critical Thinking: Where, oh where, have you gone?

"FAKING IT"

Christopher Dwyer Ph.D

One of my favorite observations from teaching undergraduate critical thinking (as I noted in my last post) is that even though students claim to, they often don’t know what educators mean by "critical thinking." Even so, there is a tendency for students to nod their heads in agreement with whatever educators say, because hey, no one wants to look foolish! We see this behavior quite often in the classroom.

“Does anyone have any questions?”

Nothing. Not a single hand. Maybe, there genuinely are no questions. However, in larger classrooms, with over 100 people, this is probably not the case—there’s bound to be at least one question. In my opinion, if a student has a question, it makes them look smarter to ask it. It is in their interest to do so, particularly if they don’t understand what is being discussed. Still, questions often go unasked, perhaps, because of shyness or uncertainty. When hands do go up, there are generally very few of them. No one wants to stand out and look like they don’t get it, especially if no one else is raising their hand. Thus, some might just be sitting there, still wondering, “What do you mean by critical thinking?”  

Source: Syda Productions/Shutterstock

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process: It consists of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when applied through purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment, increase the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). As noted in my last post, CT is important because it allows students to gain a better understanding of complex information; it allows them to achieve higher grades and become more employable, informed and active citizens; it facilitates good decision-making and problem-solving in social and interpersonal contexts; and it decreases the effects of cognitivebiases and heuristic thinking. Though past research suggests that explicit CT instruction can foster CT (e.g. Reed and Kromrey 2001; Rimiene 2002; Solon 2007), how best to teach it remains a key concern in educational research (Dwyer, et al., 2014). This is perhaps a result of issues regarding CT conceptualization.

Though the definition above is a modern and, arguably, straightforward description of what is meant by CT, it is only one of many. The varying definitions and conceptualizations can make it difficult for researchers and teachers to understand or agree on the key components of CT. In turn, this may impede their ability to construct an integrated theoretical account of how best to train and assess it (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

The University of Western Australia (2007), found that while 92 percent of academic staff believed it was important to provide students with opportunities to critically evaluate their own beliefs and perspectives with a view towards changing them, 54 percent of students felt that they were not actually provided such opportunities by their educators. Perhaps this can be somewhat explained by research conducted by Lloyd and Bahr (2010), who examined the qualitative descriptions of CT provided by academics. According to one university lecturer interviewed, "we expect students to do it [think critically], but now you are questioning me on my understanding of it, I wonder if I actually understand it myself."

Lloyd and Bahr’s research revealed that only 37 percent of academics instructing or assessing CT in university courses at least acknowledge the dispositional and self-regulatory aspects of CT. Furthermore, only 47 percent described CT in terms of involving processes or skills! If educators are in the dark about CT, how can we expect students to know its meaning?

Lloyd and Bahr’s research indicates that students’ descriptions of CT were largely outcome focused, whereas academics’ descriptions of CT were more process focused. For CT instruction to be effective: (1) instructors need to acknowledge the discrepancies among "understandings" (i.e. discrepancies between educators’ and students’ understanding, as well as understandings among educators themselves); and (2) students’ pre-existing understandings (sometimes inaccurate) must be addressed (Bransford, et al. 1999). These considerations, like CT, are metacognitive in their own right; for example, in this context, students are required to think about their thinking (Flavell, 1976). If the diverse perspectives that students hold prior to training are not engaged, they may fail to grasp newly taught concepts; and may fail to understand how they can coordinate their knowledge with the knowledge of others and apply it to real world problems — CT in practice!

Educators need to reach agreement on what is meant by CT. However, what seems like the simplest solution, unfortunately, is not. For example, in 1988, a committee of 46 experts in the field of CT gathered in an effort to agree upon a definition of CT and the skills necessary to think critically. The findings of this meeting, the Delphi Report, revealed overwhelming agreement (i.e. 95 percent consensus) that analysis, evaluation and inference were the core skills necessary for CT (Facione, 1990). Though advancements in understanding CT have been made, 30 years later, these skills remain "core." Nevertheless, debate lingers on. Why? Why is it that educators, after 30 years, still have trouble conceptualizing and communicating CT for instruction?

Perhaps it isn’t necessarily an issue of agreement or even trouble. Both for good and bad, critical thinking has become a "buzz" phrase over the past couple of decades. We all know it’s important, useful and we want our students to do it; but, maybe it’s the case that, consistent with the qualitative excerpt above, many educators don’t really know what researchers mean by "critical thinking" and/or simply haven’t researched it themselves (see also: Eigenauer, 2017). Despite not understanding it, there is a tendency for educators to, like my students, nod their heads in agreement with whatever researchers say. In a way, educators will sometimes fake it too. 

If we want everyone to stop faking it and successfully apply CT, we need to make sure we, as educators, understand it. We need to throw away the buzz words and read the research on CT. For students to think critically, we must not fake it. 

Even moderate drinking can damage the brain - current research

Research reported last week found “even moderate drinking” could “damage the brain”. Considering 78% of Australians over 14 years old drink alcohol, this is understandably concerning information.

News reports were reasonably accurate in their interpretation of the study. With measured headlines using words such as “may damage the brain” and “linked with”, these reported that the observational study found an association between moderate drinking and brain damage, not a causation.

The Financial Review ran the headline:

The silent damage from drinking moderately down the decades

and CBS News said:

Even moderate drinking could harm the brain.

Others, such as the Deccan Chronicle, were more hyperbolic, hinting at causation:

Moderate drinking leads to severe brain damage.

We know about 17% of Australians drink at levels considered to put them at risk of long-term harm such as diabetes, liver disease and cognitive problems.

And it’s well established heavy drinking over ten years or more can cause significant cognitive difficulties. These include disorders such as Korsakoff’s Syndrome and Wernicke’s Encephalopathy, where memory and other essential thinking functions, as well as motor coordination, are severely and permanently damaged.

But what about those of us who have two to three drinks a night?

First, this is an observational study that followed people over time, showing an association between their alcohol intake and certain cognitive functions. Observational studies cannot prove that one (alcohol) caused the other (impaired brain function).

And while alcohol can potentially affect multiple parts of the brain, the researchers found significant impact in only one part of the brain. And that did not appear to correlate with poorer brain functioning overall.

---

The Conversation, CC BY-ND

---

How was the study conducted?

Researchers from the University of Oxford and University College London conducted the study, which was published in the well-regarded journal The BMJ. It followed 550 men and women for 30 years who were not alcohol-dependent.

Participants were categorised into four groups based on how much alcohol they drank per week. The “abstinent” group drank less than one standard drink a week, and the “light” between one and seven drinks. “Moderate” drinkers had between seven and 14 drinks a week for women, and between seven and 21 drinks for men. Men who had 21 or more drinks per week, and women who drank 14 or more, were classified as “unsafe” drinkers.

The participants had brain scans once (at the 30-year point) and neuropsychological testing five times over the 30 years.

What did it find?

The main difference between the drinking groups was a smaller hippocampus – the area of the brain important for learning, memory and spatial awareness – in people who drank more.

Compared to “abstainers”, people who drank an average 30 or more drinks a week over the 30 years were more likely to have a smaller hippocampus. But even those drinking between 14 and 21 drinks a week had, on average, a smaller hippocampus.

The Conversation, CC BY-ND

How should we interpret the results?

There are a few reasons to be cautious about these results. The study looked at brain function (how well the brain works, measured by neuropsychological tests) over time. But researchers measured brain structure (the physical make-up of the brain) with a brain scan only at the end of the study.

Although the hippocampus was smaller in the heavier drinking groups, alcohol consumption did not seem to affect the function of the brain. There was no alcohol-related decline in measures of memory and executive functions (such as planning, problem solving and impulse control). These are usually the cognitive domains most sensitive to effects of alcohol and most likely to show the negative impact of hippocampal shrinkage.

Not having scanned the brains of participants at the beginning of the study means researchers did not know the original size of their hippocampi. They visually assessed the size of brains from the scans and compared them to expected brain size, using an established scale for that purpose. Around 65% of people who drank 14 to 21 drinks a week showed a smaller hippocampus, but even 35% of the abstainers had “hippocampal atrophy”.

The study used many measures of brain functioning (visual and verbal memory, executive function and working memory), but it found alcohol-related decline in only one function – verbal fluency (the ease with which we can retrieve words). And none of the groups were particularly impaired overall compared to people in the general population of the same age and education level.

Researchers scanned participants’ brains only once, at the end of the study. from shutterstock.com

What else should we take into account?

In a study with a moderate number of people like this, it can be harder to assess brain differences because it is difficult to properly take into account other important factors such as age, gender, mental health problems and other drug use.

It seems logical that something like alcohol, which has a strong short-term impact on the brain, might have longer-term effects, and this study adds to the growing evidence that alcohol can impact brain structure. But we are still some way off knowing how much moderate alcohol consumption affects the brain and whether that translates to a functional impairment.

Alcohol is implicated in a number of physical and mental health problems and should be used occasionally and within recommended limits. Studies that have reported health benefits of moderate drinking in the past have now been shown to be methodologically flawed.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on alcohol consumption recommend that adults (both men and women) should drink a maximum of two standard drinks a day to maintain long-term health and no more than four drinks on one occasion to prevent short-term harm. – Nicole Lee and Rob Hester

---

Peer Review

I agree with the observations made in this Research Check. There are several other factors to consider when interpreting this study.

Firstly, the researchers found a decline in verbal fluency, as well as atrophy of the hippocampus in participants. But (as Figure 7 in the study shows) there is no pathway between hippocampal volume and verbal fluency decline. Verbal fluency is usually associated with an area of the brain called the frontal lobe, while the hippocampus is associated with memory.

And apart from differences in verbal fluency, the researchers found no other differences between groups on tests associated with the hippocampus, such as those for learning and memory. In the absence of changes to other executive and memory tests, it is uncertain what the clinical and functional significance of a reduction in verbal fluency means.

Further, it’s unknown how the participants spaced out their alcohol intake. There is new evidence showing moderate drinking in a “binge” fashion could be dangerous to cognitive ability. The researchers did not distinguish between those who drank two standard drinks per day throughout the week and those who saved their 14 drinks for a single session on the weekend. This could also be mediating their results.

There is also evidence that abstinence from alcohol can improve brain structure and cognitive performance, even after a few months. So don’t be too alarmed when reading these results. – Travis Wearne

---

This article has been amended to say that the NHMRC guidelines recommend adults drink no more than four drinks on one occasion.

"Are You Drawn to Narcissists?" / Dan Neuharth, PhD, MFT

Are You Drawn to Narcissists?

By Dan Neuharth, PhD MFT 
~ 2 min read

Have you found yourself more than once drawn to narcissists, only to regret it? Do you have a number of narcissistic people in your life?

If so, it is important to figure out why.

Some narcissistic people can initially seem charming, entertaining, even seductive. When you first meet them and they turn their focus on you, you may momentarily feel like the most important person in the room for them. Such experiences can be compelling.

It is only when the darker side emerges that many of us re-evaluate the connection. Narcissists’ charm turns to control, their entertaining turns to demanding self-centeredness, and their seductiveness reveals a shallow ability for real intimacy. The feeling of being the only other person in the room becomes fleeting as a narcissist’s attentiveness washes in and out like the tide.

For many of us, the draw of narcissists may go deeper. When we knowingly or unconsciously allow a narcissistic person to get close, doing so may reflect the hope that if we can find a narcissist who treats us well, it will make up for what we didn’t get years ago from a narcissistic parent or lover.

Such a longing to right the wrongs of the past is understandable. But relationships with narcissists are frequently disappointing and time wasting because narcissists care little about treating others well.

Of course, I am not suggesting that if you know one or more narcissistic persons, that you necessarily sought them out or somehow attracted them to you. There are likely more than 100 million people with narcissism on Earth, so the odds are that many of us will come across narcissists from time to time just in the process of living.

But if you feel unfulfilled in a relationship and wonder if a friend or partner is a narcissist, ask yourself:

1. Why am I with them?
2. Does this relationship remind me of any earlier relationship with a narcissistic person?
3. Do I hope to change or reform them?
4. Do I keep hoping they will someday see how good I am and appreciate, love, and accept me?

If you notice a pattern of consciously or unconsciously allowing narcissistic people into your life who treat you in unhealthy ways, this can be an important wake-up call.

Recognizing this pattern is nothing to feel ashamed about. It may reveal deep unmet needs from your past.

Human beings are inherently self-healing. Physical injuries, such as a cut in your finger, heal with little conscious effort on your part.

In the same way, our hearts and psyches are inherently self-healing. The more we protect them from further assault and seek out new, healthy experiences, the more readily we can recover from emotional and psychological wounds.

If you had multiple open wounds, you’d go to a hospital, not a landfill.

So when it comes to healing the wounds of past relationships with narcissistic people, why do we sometimes seek relationships that are more like landfills, full of risk for further injury and infection, rather than seeking healthier relationships that offer safety and care?

One reason may be that pursuing relationships with narcissists postpones facing a heartbreaking recognition:  Your narcissistic parent or other important person in your life wasn’t there for you, couldn’t be there for you, and will never be there for you.

Accepting and mourning that painful reality can allow you to focus on what is best for you and pick healthier people to be around, rather than trying to fight and win the last war.

Critical for Parents: The Blue Whale Challenge"

The Blue Whale Challenge is Real, Sad, & Frightening

By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. 
~ 3 min read

A “game” played on social media called the Blue Whale Challenge tests teenagers’ and young adults’ ability to follow a set of steps that eventually leads to them dying by suicide. The #bluewhalechallenge has been questioned by some authorities as to whether it really exists, but it’s clear that some teens are taking their own lives due to the game.

What is the Blue Whale Challenge and how can you stop your child or teen from taking part in it?

The “game” is simply following a set of fairly dumb directives given to the teen or child by a “curator.” The curator is one of the game’s organizers and leaders; twisted individuals who reach out to children, teens, and young adults via social media. Teens are usually the ones to make first contact, due to suicidal feelings they are experiencing. People who play the game are known as “whales.”

I say “dumb,” because the directives involve unoriginal cutting and self-harm activities to show your loyalty and commitment to the game and your curator. In fact, out of the supposed 50 steps involved in the game, the game designer became so lazy he just made steps 30-49 the same generic thing:

Everyday you wake up at 4:20 am, watch horror videos, listen to music that “they” send you, make 1 cut on your body per day, talk “to a whale.”

This is not exactly a directive that demonstrates much in the way of creativity (then again, neither is choosing the color “blue” for the whale). It shows a significant laziness in the game’s design. The originator of the game probably thought something along the lines of, “I need to get to Step 50, but don’t have enough ideas for all 49 intervening steps… so we’ll just do this instead.”

Is it Real?

Yes. One of the game’s steps is to post the “#i_am_whale” hashtag on the social media account of players. A quick search on this term finds thousands of occurrences of it on Twitter, VKontakte, Instagram, and other social networking websites. This makes the game very much a real phenomenon, but we don’t yet know how many teens have actually taken their lives trying to follow all 50 steps of the game.

The Psychology of the Blue Whale Challenge

The psychology behind the blue whale challenge is simple — find victims, create an emotional bond with them through an arbitrary set of steps demanding completion in order to move forward in the game, and then hope they follow through to Step 50, “Jump off a high building. Take your life.”

This is the creation of someone who is likely a psychopath or sociopath, or has significant tendencies of psychopathy. This “game” isn’t really a game at all. It’s simply a control and manipulation scheme directed toward vulnerable people who have serious thoughts of suicide, loneliness, and death.

When a person is suicidal, they feel most of all alone and worthless. The game creator understood these feelings (probably having felt them themselves at some point in their lives), and is taking advantage of these kinds of feelings.

What better way to make someone feel like they are together with others than have them identify as an arbitrary mammal (a whale)? And what better way to make them feel a little less worthless than have them succeed at a series of tasks anyone could perform?

What You Can Do About It

You can tell someone is playing the game pretty easily, as they will have cuts on their hands with either the number 57 and/or 40 on them. You can check their social media accounts (the game says to use VKontakte, but users are using whatever social media they are currently on) and see if they’ve posted anything similar to #i_am_whale, a hashtag used in one of the steps of the game.

The game is easily defeated by talking to your teen, child, or young adult about their suicidal feelings, and encouraging them to reach out to get help for them through psychotherapy or counseling. It’s not an easy conversation to have, but it may be a life-saving talk.

Teens and young adults need to understand — you’re at the very beginning of your life. No matter how bad you feel right now (and I understand, as I felt as bad or worse than you when I was a teen), it will get better. You may not believe me, but why take the words of a stranger in the first place — whether it’s to play a dumb game or something else? Reach out to your friends (or an adult, if you can) and see if you can find a different way to cope with these feelings.

And remember, don’t throw away your shot.

If you or anyone you know is having suicidal thoughts, please reach out to National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-TALK (8255) or text “help me” to the Crisis Text Line at 741741.

Daddy Issues: How Daughters of Narcissistic Fathers Can Cope/ Shahida Arabi

By Shahida Arabi, Bestselling Author 
~ 4 min read

Those who have had a narcissistic parent can testify how damaging it can be to one’s psyche. Narcissistic parents lack empathy, show a severe sense of entitlement to micromanage the lives of their children, and may even subject their children to neglect, as well as emotional and/or physical abuse.

Daughters of narcissistic fathers face all the common challenges of having an unempathic, cruel and abusive parent, but along with these they may also encounter unique triggers and obstacles on the path to their healing journey. Here are five common challenges daughters of narcissistic fathers experience and tips on how to overcome them on the healing journey. Sons of narcissistic fathers may also be able to relate to these.

(1) The grandiose self-image and reputation of their fathers rarely matched the coldness and indifference behind closed doors, habituating their children to accept interpersonal danger as the norm.  Narcissists are masters of impression management and the charismatic narcissistic father is no different. As the daughter of a narcissistic father, you may have noticed that your father prioritized his reputation in the community above the happiness or wellbeing of you and your family members (Banschick, 2013).

Your father was most likely known as generous, friendly and exceptionally charming to all those who knew him in public; yet behind closed doors, he was verbally, emotionally and/or physically abusive to his spouse and children. This is not uncommon in households with a narcissistic parent; their ‘false self’ is rarely a match for the true self within the realm of the family unit.

As a result, daughters of narcissistic fathers are likely to have been silenced should they ever have attempted to speak out against the abuse or speak ill of the father within the household or in public.

Combined with gender roles and expectations for young women to be quiet, demure and polite, daughters of narcissistic fathers may have been conditioned to adapt to danger rather than to protect themselves from it.

That is why dangerous situations and people with a Jekyll and Hyde personality – people who are rarely consistent in their character or integrity – feel like an oddly familiar unsafe comfort zone to daughters of narcissistic fathers in adulthood.

What to do:

Validate and acknowledge the experiences you had with your narcissistic parent and don’t allow the opinions of others detract from the reality of the abuse you experienced. It is common for survivors of any form of abuse to doubt and question themselves about the horrific violations they experienced.

This is especially true when their abuser is a loved figure in the community or projects a charitable and loving image to the world.

They may have also experienced an enormous amount of gaslighting from their abusers or enabling family members or friends of the family (Canonville, 2015). Survivors of narcissistic abuse tend to ‘gaslight’ themselves into believing their experiences were not valid, due to the reputation of their abusers.

If the abuse is taking a severe toll on your mental health and well-being, consider limiting contact with your narcissistic parent to only holidays and special occasions. Limited contact enables you to take your power back, as you can control the frequency with which you interact with the parent and walk away from potentially threatening situations before they escalate.

Some survivors find that their particular situation warrants going No Contact with their abusive parents; if that is the case, know that you do not have to feel guilty or ashamed. You have every right to protect yourself from dangerous people, even if they share your DNA. 

Learn constructive ways to self-validate. Journal or speak with a counselor about the abuse you endured to reconnect with its reality. Confer with validating family members or friends who were also recipients of the abuse and do not minimize it. Honor what you experienced and recognize that you did not deserve it, in any shape, way or form.

Find ways to give yourself the emotional nourishment you needed but didn’t receive in childhood. ‘Re-parent’ yourself with the soothing words, actions as well as acts of radical self-care that can combat some of the destructive conditioning you may have faced in your childhood (Cooney, 2017; Markham, 2014). Connect with your inner child through visualization, meditation and self-soothing whenever you’re in emotional distress (Jenner, 2016). We will talk more about specific healing modalities in Part 3 of this series.

Identify and consider limiting contact with any people you currently have in your life who also have a ‘false self’ that do not align with their true ones.

Often when we’ve been raised by a father figure like this, we tend to gravitate towards people who feed us empty words and false promises, or who are also emotionally unavailable. No wonder: our early role models for relationships also lacked emotional depth and an inability to connect with us emotionally.

We can become ‘tone-deaf’ to verbal and emotional abuse as well (Streep, 2016). That is why it is important to recognize any toxic patterns of communication we may also be tolerating from our other family members, friends, acquaintances and dating partners and to set firmer boundaries that honor how we deserve to be treated.

Finally, ensure that you’re in touch with your authentic self – honor all of the facets of your identity that make you who you are. Know that you don’t need to hide your true self from others and that you don’t have to follow in your narcissistic father’s footsteps in excessively depending on external validation.

Self-validation and connecting with your true self is key on the healing journey. We may not be able to change the narcissistic parent, but we can take steps to ensure that we ourselves are living authentic lives and not modeling the parent’s destructive ways of behaving and relating to the world.

Soulshaping Humanifest/Jeff Brown

Soulshaping Humanifest

At the heart of the SOULSHAPING philosophy is the belief that every individual came into this life with divine purpose, however humble it may outwardly appear. We are not random concentrations of stardust, nor are we accidental tourists. We are divinely inspired, purposeful, and essential to the dance of sacred imagination that is this life. Satisfying our purpose is entirely dependent on our ability to recognize and honor our soul-scriptures for this lifetime. Our soul-scriptures are the unique combination of experiences, callings and archetypal pathways that live at the heart of our transformation. They are the lessons we came here to learn, the soulshape we are here to grow into. When we embody our scriptures, we expand our soul one step closer to wholeness.

We made it through because we are needed here. We are each here to participate in this sacred dance, stepping on each other’s toes and turning each other toward God one clumsy step after another. Although the ultimate romance is with your own soul, it is our experiences together that give birth to the essential lessons. Every soul-scripture is a buried treasure, essential to the advancement of the collective soul. If we get off the dance floor, we postpone others’ lessons too.

Through this lens, we endeavour to make the presumption of essence in those we encounter. We look beyond the disguises and defenses, and honor the precious being living at the core. Rather than judging our seeming differences, we celebrate them as archetypal way-stations, unique and essential learning posts on the path to wholeness. There is a place for everyone on the trailways of transformation, in every soulshape, at every stage of karmic expansion.

Standing in our way are many factors that blind us to who we really are. They include our adaptations and disguises, unresolved emotions, misguided self-concepts, patterns of self-distraction. They also include external influences: an over-stimulating culture, economic reality, others’ opinions, the weight of the world. There can be a lot in the way. We have to be realistic about this, otherwise our spirituality will be ungrounded and our moments of ascension soon followed by a harsh thud on Mother Earth. We need to ascend with both feet on the ground, with one eye on the sky and another on the earth. From sole to soul.

It is my mission to help others identify and clear the obstructions in their way. It is my mission to remind others of their inherent magnificence and encourage them in the direction of their true-path. It is my mission to invite others to trust their truth-aches, excavate their soul-scriptures, answer the soulular phone whenever it rings. It is my mission to use my gifts as fodder for the mill of human expansion, to provide karmic nourishment to those who have momentarily forgotten their significance.

If my time at the School of Heart Knocks (the school of life) has taught me one thing, it is that we are so much more than we know. How small we sometimes imagine ourselves, how quickly we hide our light under a bushel of shame. Yet beyond the echo of our egoic distortions lives a bounty of wonder. We are each so brilliant, so gifted, libraries of unlimited possibility, soul-scriptures waiting for us on every inner shelf. Our divine purpose may be hidden from view, it may be covered in dust, but its’ still in there, sparkling with infinite possibility. We may have to work hard to bring it to light (divine perspiration!), but we must never lose faith in our brilliance, no matter what the world sends our way. When you are ready, look inside and your magnificence will rise to the surface on the wings of the inner dove. I tell you, it’s that close…After years spent traveling on the pathways of self-avoidance, I am delighted to be embodying and humanifesting my divine purpose. If my work can help to remind you of your own, then I have lived well. I am grateful for the opportunity.

Jeff Brown's Bio:

http://soulshaping.com/jeffs-bio/