Sponge Thinking

A few years ago, Han Han made a movie called "The End of Time". There is a line in it that became popular: "I understand a lot of truths, but I still can’t live this life well.” This may sound reasonable at first, but do you really understand what you think you understand? Frankly speaking, I don’t particularly like this kind of words. Apart from providing excuses for people to numb themselves, this kind of words has no positive meaning. Of course, I know that this sentence is a joke, but I still want to ask a hidden fact: Why is this sentence so easy to be accepted by the public?

The "cramming" education we have received since childhood has made us like sponges, absorbing water as long as we encounter it without making any thinking or judgment. Even exams prefer multiple-choice questions with standard answers. I have studied in top universities at home and abroad. Regarding examinations, my biggest feeling is that compared with domestic schools, foreign schools prefer to use subjective essay questions to examine learning results.

"Rethinking" the thinking process

Affected by the sponge thinking mode, when we face anything, we hope to get a certain standard answer. However, "the world of children only distinguishes between right and wrong, and the world of adults only looks at pros and cons." Most things are not black and white. If a person is not a good person, he is not necessarily a bad person. Most of the questions in life are not multiple-choice or true-false questions, but subjective questions. How to solve this subjective question? This requires critical thinking.

To sum up critical thinking in one sentence, it is to "rethink" the thinking process. For example, when playing Go, your thinking process is natural thinking, and your reflection when reviewing the game is rethinking your thinking. Ordinary thinking will always have many deviations and misunderstandings due to related interests, different positions, time constraints and other reasons. As for rethinking thinking, because it is purer, there are often far fewer misunderstandings.

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is different from sponge thinking, which is a comprehensive reception. The former emphasizes questioning, analysis, evaluation, and reflection in the process of absorbing information.

There is a passage that summarizes critical thinking that I find quite interesting and I would like to share it with you: Be skeptical, but do not deny everything; be open, but do not waver; analyze, but do not be critical; be decisive, but do not be stubborn or stubborn. change; evaluate, but not maliciously speculate; be powerful, but not paranoid and conceited. So, what exactly do you do if you want to think critically? I share three tips with you.

First, avoid attribution bias. Some conclusions are fine in themselves, but the reasons supporting the conclusions are inaccurate. Without careful identification, it is easy to make wrong decisions. For example, if a subordinate asks you to resign, saying that he feels too tired and wants to take a break, or that he feels that he is not suitable for this job and hopes to develop in a different industry. And what is the actual situation? There is a famous saying in the workplace: "Join the company, leave the manager." [Illustration] The reason for employees' resignation is either lack of money or problems with their immediate leaders. A smart boss will be able to detect the employee's resignation and make the correct attribution to solve the problem in a targeted manner.

Second, identify fallacies in reasoning. Some of the reasons sound fine, but the conclusions are absurd. For example, "They Taurus are all so stubborn", or "This person is unreliable, you can't believe a word he says". This is a typical reasoning fallacy - generalizing. If it's a casual chat between neighbors, it's okay to talk like this, but if you're serious, you'll lose. There are other common types of inference fallacies. For example, grafting ideas on others is to change concepts from front to back. In the 2016 Liaoning Satellite TV "Spring Festival Gala", there was a sketch called "Eating Noodles". In the sketch, Song Xiaobao ordered a sea cucumber fried rice. After rummaging for a long time, he couldn't find any sea cucumber, so he asked where the sea cucumber was? Then a chef came out and said, "I am the sea cucumber." This is a typical example of grafting new ideas on. Then there is slippery slope reasoning, which is to think that if one thing happens, then other things related to it will definitely happen, turning "possibility" into "inevitability." There is a line called "If I work for a few more years, I will be promoted and raise my salary, become general manager, become CEO, marry 'Bai Fumei', and reach the pinnacle of life. I am a little excited when I think about it." The sentence seems logical, but in fact, the possibility is regarded as a necessity. There is also appeal to authority, which means that anything recognized by authoritative people is reasonable. The most common example is "Experts on TV said that eating more mung beans can prevent cancer."

If you encounter this kind of view again, I suggest you not to take it to heart. Just listen to what he said.

Third, listen carefully to the undertones. There is such a kind of argument, which sounds very reasonable, but I always feel that it is a bit unclear. If I ask you what is unclear, you still can't explain it. For example, "It is helpful to directly experience Shakespeare's works, so all English majors should see at least one of Shakespeare's plays." The reason and conclusion of this sentence are fine, but there are some assumptions implicit in it. The speaker omitted them, so it seems a bit "jumpy". If the omitted assumptions are filled in, the first assumption is that "the performance must be very realistic, which reflects everything Shakespeare advocated", and the second assumption is that "students will understand the play and be able to connect it to Shakespeare." Obviously, only if these two assumptions are true can the reason well support the conclusion. Going back to the opening sentence, "I understand a lot of truths, but still can't live a good life." There is an assumption in this that a life like Jack Ma's can be called a good life. Therefore, even if you understand a lot of principles, you cannot become the next Jack Ma. This is the truth, no problem. But the question is, what does it mean to live a good life? Is this assumption true? I’ll leave this question to you to think about.

Understanding critical thinking in one sentence:

"Rethinking" the thinking process.