|
Hello Dear Readers, Welcome back to your Sunday Synapse. Here I share my ideas based on the knowledge I have and how I choose to use it. Hearing the ideas of others is the best way to work your intellectual mind. New ideas, opposing ideas, and different ideas we have never thought of trigger our synapses to fire up. This space is dedicated to getting you thinking. Inside this email, right here, you are inside one of my lectures or lessons. Thought 1: Philosophical Quote “Babies and young children are like the research and development division of the human species, and we [adults] are the production and marketing.” (Alison Gopnik, The Philosophical Baby).
Thought 2 Why You DO Need to Learn HOW to Think I was trained to know how to think. My role in the classroom is to connect theoretical concepts to real-world examples to encourage students—citizens and future workers in the system—to apply knowledge meaningfully. So I am now doing the same thing through these letters as well as through my social media and online education platform which is currently in the making. My aim is not to tell students WHAT to think but rather, to help activate and use the natural faculties they already possess: curiosity, wonder, ambiguity, openness, and complexity. This encourages higher-order critical thinking. The only way I can describe this is that I am re-teaching them HOW to use their natural thinking skills. I have realised with all my reading on thinking, that we are best served if we stay true to our natural thinking faculties with a combination of learning how to be more systematic and deliberate with our thinking. If we leave it up to nature, it will get pretty wild out there—Exhibit A: comment threads on social media. So we do need to learn how to think. My decision to use the word learn “how” to think is often contested, and rightly so. I will try to back up my claim as any healthy thinker should. Occasionally, I post statements on social media to draw attention to what I do, hoping to promote good thinking practices in a world that desperately needs them. I often use a familiar statement, “During my PhD, I was taught HOW to think.” Some less disagreeable people usually accept what I might mean, while others challenge my use of the word “how,” asserting that everyone already knows how to think and we do not need to teach it. This is a very fair critique. I have reflected on this a great deal and I need to respectfully agree AND disagree—not because I deny that we possess innate faculties which assist us with making choices and that we already know how to think, but because societal conditioning through various structures often erodes our confidence in using these natural and effective abilities. Societal conditioning is not always a bad thing. But here in this modern time, we need to be able to know what is good and what is not so good. We have to re-learn how to think using critical thinking and to be able to do something we haven’t practiced in a while, we often need to be shown HOW. Social Conditioning of Thought We are conditioned from an early age on how to think and sometimes, depending on what it is, we need to unlearn this. Consider, for example, the industrial-age model of education and schooling which emphasises rote learning like those my two older children and many of yours attend—a model still common within many government-run education systems. These schools often prioritise obedience, rigid rules, memorisation, strict adherence to curriculum standards, and high-stakes testing over critical engagement, creativity, or independent thinking. In these schools, parents are often led to believe that the focus should be
on high grades and that failure is an indication of a failing person not ready
for success in society. This approach, along with the teachers' daily approach to learning, who are themselves under pressure from this system, begin to influence the way my children thought. I am not blaming teachers at all, remember this is a model that pushes all people to adhere to the requirements of the institutions that pay the bills. My kids went to these schools. They would stress over the rules and worry when their work was incomplete, even when the workload was unreasonable. As a sociologist and critical thinking educator, this was unacceptable and I thought deeply about what was happening for a long time. Recently, we moved them to a school that explicitly prioritises critical thinking. The change has been transformative. I want to reinforce though that the strongest influence over your children’s thoughts will be from their caregivers (you). So please know that the way you share your CT education will be the strongest influence. While kids are naturally curious, they will often settle on an idea if the social environment appeals to their need for community. So, they might think, “I need this community and these people, and this is what they believe. If I adopt these ideas, I reflect on what matters to them.” Social Conditioning, Politics & Society Another example of social conditioning is in my experience teaching at an Australian university. I sometimes had classes composed of up to 85% of Chinese international students. The remaining 10% of Australian students often expressed dissatisfaction and frustration at this, feeling the class turned into a translation session rather than a true educational experience—understandably so. They were often afraid to raise this issue, fearing they would come across as racist. This is a representation of the universities prioritising profit over learning but let’s leave that for another day. Back to the point, I observed that many Chinese students displayed a reluctance to engage in critical thinking. They genuinely had no idea what I was asking their minds to do, and the discomfort was intense. This behaviour may reflect the broader cultural and political influences from their home country, showing how social constructions shape thinking but also how social practices appeal to human psychology for a reason. In China, respect for hierarchy, collective harmony, and adherence to authority are deeply ingrained values rooted in Confucian traditions and reinforced by the Communist Party. However, the problems with thinking in a university classroom was reinforced practically when I often had to encourage my Chinese students to believe they had a right to think independently. I explained that this was the purpose of this university degree, their assignments, and their group work. Many were hesitant to challenge me or others or express their own views,
their eyes darting nervously! But I could almost see their minds opening as we
spoke. Profoundly and sadly, some voiced concerns that these classes had ‘done something big’—changed their thinking—and they feared the repercussions of this kind of mind in a society like Communist China. These were their words, not mine. This is evidence of how social structures can replace natural curiosity with fear. We see this everywhere not just China. While the influence of social conditioning and fear of critical thinking can pose significant challenges within the Chinese system, it is also worth considering that Confucianism's emphasis on moral leadership and societal harmony offers distinct advantages, such as fostering a sense of collective responsibility and respect for educational attainment, which are sometimes lacking in Western individualistic models. However, this story was to demonstrate how culture shapes thought despite natural human faculties and these experiences highlight that while people naturally possess the capacity for exploratory and inquisitive thought, social conditioning often suppresses these abilities. This suggests we do need to re-learn how to think. Democratic Thought So what is the right way to think and who should teach it? Being a mentor of good thought requires a deep commitment to knowledge ethics, the balance of wisdom, fairness, and honesty. It is a challenging task for anyone to genuinely claim they are free from bias or unaffected by their own ego-driven motivations, which might lead them to impose their ideas on others. This is precisely why individuals must retain the democratic right to choose whom they listen to and how they define truth. It is up to you to decide who to believe. Just make sure you know how to make good decisions. Too often, we see individuals telling others what the “right” way to think is. True critical thinking involves taming our emotions, understanding their origins, and knowing when they are interfering. We need leaders of thought, but this leadership must be rooted in a philosophy that upholds wisdom and embodies the type of goodness and integrity others can respect and aspire to. Basically, follow those who promote democratic thought. They are actually quite easy to find. A Biologist, Psychologist, and Sociologist Walk into a Bar Okay, let's use critical thinking to explore why there can be tension between our natural ways of thinking and how we adapt them to fit into society over time. I’m going to select three authors—not for any particular reason except that they have proven themselves to be credible to many people, and therefore their ideas are worthy of respect. As always, I try to use an interdisciplinary approach to examine phenomena. Why? Because this is critical thinking in action. I worked in a hospital for ten years, where we would often sit around the table—professionals and patients alike—representing diverse perspectives, and discussing issues in an interdisciplinary manner. It is powerful, effective, and fundamental for good thinking practices. We held one another accountable; it was built into the thinking model. You need to do this with your mind as standard practice. 1. Biological Perspective: Alison Gopnik Gopnik is an American behavioural and cognitive scientist and philosopher who discusses from a biological perspective why our brains change from a biological lens. She highlights the brain’s adaptability and evolution. Our neural pathways are shaped by experiences and interactions particularly during childhood when our brains are flexible and open to new information (why it is so easy to convince children about virtually anything). As we age the brain becomes more efficient but less open, influenced by social and cultural conditioning that can reinforce norms and limit certain types of thinking. Gopnik would emphasise that while we have innate faculties like curiosity and reasoning, social conditioning interacts with our biology to shape how we think and see the world. Changing perspectives is not purely a choice but a dynamic interaction of biological and social influences. This work reinforces to me how fundamental it is that we create environments and engage with people places and ideas which encourage open-mindedness and critical thinking throughout our lives. 2. Social Perspective: Michel Foucault I know Foucault very well as I studied his ideas for seven years. He was a French philosopher and social theorist. His work suggests how social structures and power dynamics within those systems shape and regulate human thought and behaviour. He would argue that our thinking is not purely our own and it is molded by the social norms and expectations created by power dynamics embedded in societal institutions. In his book Discipline and Punish he suggests schools; the criminal system and everyday social interaction enforce conformity and regulate what is considered acceptable thought and behaviour and what is not. He especially talks about the concept of knowledge-power which illustrates how power is exercised through control of knowledge (think media, Government, policy, law, education) shaping what we believe and how we perceive things. Psychological Perspective: Erich Fromm
From a psychological standpoint, Erich Fromm, a German psychoanalyst, explores the psychological roots of how we relate to the world through conformity. He states that individuals often sacrifice their autonomy and critical thinking in exchange for security, belonging, and the stability offered by adhering to group norms and external authorities. Fromm argues that while humans have a natural drive for freedom and self-expression, this freedom can also produce anxiety, isolation, and uncertainty. To cope with these overwhelming feelings, people often choose to submit to established norms, ideologies, and figures of authority. Conclusion My final note this week is to remind you that there is a healthy way to think, and you already possess the foundational faculties to do so. Over time, social environments can cloud this natural capacity, making it difficult to see clearly. In this week’s letter, I explored the phenomenon of why we think the way we do through a three-pronged perspective, demonstrating critical thinking in action. I didn’t propose a singular way of understanding it; in fact, the process is inherently complex and nuanced. While I used intellectuals’ ideas to bring attention to this, this is really not necessary. We all have practical wisdom we can use and the knowledge is all around us to take. We just have to notice it. Bring diversity to your understanding of issues by simply listening to people’s varied experiences. Through this, you may hear one person narrate a story rooted in biology, another from a psychological standpoint, and yet another shaped by sociological influences or a little bit of each in every story. Different experiences illuminate different aspects, and no single perspective is identical to another. Thought 3 CT Activity this Week I would like you to apply the bio-psycho-social approach which I used above to an issue you are facing, or a topic of conversation this week. This does not have to be with someone else it can be alone but talking it out or writing it is better as ideas become more sophisticated as we practice with them. That is it from me for today! Please send me an email if you have any comments, ideas, epiphanies, stories, or feedback, or please just send mail to say hello as I love to hear that you are out there! Until next week… Esha. References Bell, D. A. (2015). The China model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton University Press. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975) Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart. Gopnik, A. (2009). The Philosophical Baby: What Children's Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Martin-Sanchez, M., & Flores-Rodriguez, C. (2018). Freedom and obedience in Western education. Journal of Pedagogy, 9(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2018-0011
|
