socture (so-sure)

Study calls critical thinking into question

I don’t think that this should be a big surprise. Have you seen what passes for modern discourse? We are flooded with too much information and opinion to process so we fall back on blind faith in what we think we know and how we want it to be and abdicate our responsibility to question, challenge, and analyze the problem, facts, and options available to us.

I doubt the problem is that people can't learn to think critically.

I believe that the real problem is that critical thinking isn’t a valued trait or ability. Who wants critically thinking individuals? Not marketers, not governments, not politicians, not fundamentalists (of any stripe) – basically, not anyone that wants mass order and adherence to their way of behavior and thinking.

Western News - Study calls critical thinking into question

Buy the book from Amazon.com

Rasmussen Poll Finds Little Support For Net Regulations

The Rasmussen Poll is a classic example of ask the wrong question and get the wrong answer.

It is very easy to create biased responses to polls and surveys. In fact, it is very hard not to create created biased responses.

Make sure you read to the end.

America’s Health Rankings 2010 Results (By State)

The United Health Foundation has published the 2010 Edition of America’s Health Rankings.

It ranks the US states according to their overall combined health determinant score. Vermont ranked number 1 and Mississippi ranked number 50.

In addition to their ranking they also provide tools for individuals, community leaders, employers, health professionals, and elected officials to take action and improve the nation’s collective health.

The rankings consist of both core and supplemental measures. The core measures are:

• Behaviors
• Prevalence of smoking
• Prevalence of binge drinking
• Prevalence of obesity
• High school graduation
• Community and Environment
• Violent crime
• Occupational fatalities
• Infectious diseases
• Children in poverty
• Air pollution
• Public and Health Policies
• Lack of health insurance
• Public Health funding
• Immunization coverage
• Clinical Care
• Early prenatal care
• Primary care physicians
• Preventable hospitalizations
• Outcomes
• Poor mental health days
• Poor physical health days
• Geographic disparity
• Infant mortality
• Cardiovascular deaths
• Cancer deaths
• Premature death

How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation

In a paper titled, "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea (PDF)," Wharton operations and information management professors Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich argue that group dynamics are the enemy of businesses trying to develop one-of-a-kind new products, unique ways to save money or distinctive marketing strategies.

("How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation", Knowlege@Wharton, 5/12/2010)

This research was concerned with comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to brainstorming in developing innovative ideas. Specifically, comparing the traditional team process with a hybrid process where the individuals develop their initial list prior to the team exercise.

They found that the hybrid process resulted in higher quality outcomes because group dynamics didn't kill the new ideas before they had a chance to be vetted and considered.

In addition to idea quality, the researchers also tried to measure one of the predispositions of group dynamics that they believe creates a roadblock to innovation -- build-up, or the tendency of people to suggest ideas similar to one that has already been proposed, and embraced by, the unit. They found that ideas built around other ideas are not statistically better than any random suggestion.

Build-up, Terwiesch believes, "is a social norm showing that you listened. If a group is working together on an idea that's already on the table, you're wary of coming in with your own agenda because you might be seen as selfish and not a team player. So you build on the idea that is currently on the table."

("How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation", Knowlege@Wharton, 5/12/2010)

Based on my experiences with team problem solving and brainstorming I am not surprised by these findings. I believe that the more homogeneous and team oriented the groups are the more pronounced these group dynamics are going to be.

While working within a large research and development facility we dealt with these issues in a number of ways:

• We used a process closer to the hybrid model because each researcher was consistently developing new ideas on their own and taking different approaches to elaborate on those ideas. Therefore, they already had been working on the problem independently before working on it as a team.
• We had researchers with varied backgrounds, expertise and viewpoints working on the same project. This generally prevented "group think" situations.
• The researchers were competitive in the idea phase and they were rewarded for original and successful ideas. They cooperated and collaborated during the implementation phases because the overall project was comprised of ideas from everyone on the team. In other words, no one person was responsible for all of the ideas and decisions on the project. This competition for ideas helped prevent the "build up" issue.
• When evaluating the ideas presented to the group some researchers had developed emotional attachments to the ideas that they had developed independently. This could make it difficult to discuss the idea independently of the researcher. To detach the idea from the person we used the "precious piggy" concept. Each researcher had a physical manifestation that represented their individual idea or ideas. When evaluating and discussing the ideas as a team everyone had to let go of their "precious piggy" and put it in the middle of the table. This symbolized that the idea had to stand on its own and was open to honest discussion.

Baroque Classical Music May Improve Reasoning

According to Dr. Lakhani, "studies have correlated baroque classical music with improved spatial reasoning, attentiveness and concentration."

More information on Dr. Lakhani's research can be found in:

ScienceDaily (2009-04-26) -- Baroque classical music in the reading room can help improve radiologists work lives, potentially improving diagnostic efficiency and accuracy, according to a study performed by researchers at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, Md., Harbor Hospital in Baltimore, Md., and the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia, Pa.

Baroque Classical Music In The Reading Room May Improve Mood And Productivity, http://www.sciencedaily.com

Myth of Objectivity

Researchers and decision makers claim objectivity behind their findings and decisions.

Researchers believe that their findings are objective facts and they represent the truth about the subject they are studying.

Likewise, decision makers believe that their decisions are based on facts and are not influenced by the opinions and beliefs of themselves or others.

According to Daniel Gilbert, "Research suggests that decision-makers don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors."

As Jonah Lehrer explains:

The reason we're so resistant to anomalous information - the real reason researchers automatically assume that every unexpected result is a stupid mistake - is rooted in the way the human brain works. Over the past few decades, psychologists have dismantled the myth of objectivity. The fact is, we carefully edit our reality, searching for evidence that confirms what we already believe. (Lehrer 2010, 83)

According to Harper and Huh, "no inquiry or assessment approach— quantitative, historical, qualitative, or multimethod—can be completely objective."  (Harper, 6)

As Janesick (2000, 385) put it, “There is no value-free or bias-free design . . . the myth that research is objective in some way can no longer be taken seriously. At this point in time, all researchers should be free to challenge prevailing myths, such as the myth of objectivity”.

In "Ten myths of science" by William McComas:

Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.

According to Liam Marsh:

Objectivity is also a powerful myth that prevails over the world of science and, hence, that of psychology. There is a belief that there is a static reality outside of ourselves that exists on its own, independent of observers. From this comes the idea of truth; the idea that there is somehow a right answer; a way the world truly is. The whole idea of scientific methodology and experimentation exists to serve this fantasy, that there is a method which will give to us the truth, the real nature of things. A theory can be shown irrefutable and certainty can be obtained. The unknown can become known. The question, answered. Woven into this story is the assumption of natural laws. The idea that there are rules or laws which all things abide by. These laws of nature are reliable as well for they never change and always applies. In the stories of science are many peculiar beliefs which purport the unbelievable.

This is why we need to utilize tools and disparate viewpoints to help us make objective and optimized decisions. Tools that enable us to uncover and understand our biases. Alternate viewpoints that balance our biases.

Stay tuned as we explore some of these tools and ways to utilize they within our social networks.

References:

1. Gilbert, Daniel. I'm O.K., You're Biased. The New York Times. 4/16/06.(NY Times)
2. Gillispie, C.C. The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas (Google Books)
3. Harper, S.R and G.D. Huh. "Myths and Misconceptions About Using Qualitative Methods in Assessment", New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 136, Winter 2007, Wiley.
4. Hodson, D. (1986). "The mature of scientific observation." School Science Review, 58(242), 17-28.
5. Janesick, V. J. “The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design.” In N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage, 2000.
6. Lehrer, Jonah. Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up. Wired. Jan 2010. (Wired)
7. Lehrer, Jonah. How We Decide. Houghton Mifflin 2/9/09.
8. Marsh, Liam. The Fantasy of Science: Psychology's Struggle with a Persona. 1996. The Ares Press. (text)
9. McComas, William, "Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know....," Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10. (text)
10. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
11. Porter, T.M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. 1995. Princeton University Press, Princeton. (text)
12. Scheffler, I. (1967/1982). "Objectivity Under Attack" (pp. 1-19). In Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill. (text)

Book Review: Problem Solving 101

I just finished reading Problem Solving 101: A Simple Book for Smart People by Ken Watanabe.

From the inside flap:

Problem Solving 101 started out as a simple guide to teach Japanese schoolchildren critical thinking skills. But it quickly became an adult bestseller, thanks to the powerful effectiveness of Ken Watanabe's problem solving methods.

The tools in this book come from the author's experience as an elite McKinsey consultant. But you don't need an MBA to use them. You'll learn how to broaden and organize your thinking about a problem so that more possible solutions become clear.

This book is 111 pages and is a quick and easy read (part-time over a weekend).

I enjoyed the book and recommend it to anyone that isn't already very experienced using traditional problem solving and critical thinking methodologies. Unfortunately, being an engineer and consultant with significant experience solving problems and developing and evaluating proposals I did not learn any new techniques in this book.

The various problem solving methodologies that he explains and demonstrates are:

• Logic tree
• Yes/No tree
• Root cause analysis
• Problem solving design plan (a modified version of the scientific method)
• 2 x 2 grid (I must admit I am impressed how he incorporated this and made it seem so simple)
• Gap analysis
• Action plan
• Pros and Cons: Criteria and Evaluation

My next test of this book is to give it to my 15 year old, who hates to read, and see how much he can learn from it.

Verdict: If you aren't already familiar with the problem solving methodologies that I listed about then you should read this book.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BC to 399 BC. He uttered this during his trial for undermining state religion and corrupting young people. Along with this he also said, "... things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man..." In these statements he is both defending his philosophical inquires as being for the good of mankind and saying that he would rather die than stop. He was eventually found guilty and put to death.

Socrates paid the ultimate price for his commitment to philosophical inquiry and reasoning.

Today you are more likely to suffer if you don't commit to a lifetime of inquiry, reasoning, and critical thinking.

We are surrounded by so many voices pouring out of limitless channels that we need to be able to differentiate between those that are founded on knowledge and those that are founded on ignorance.

And, as we add our voice to the din we need to ensure that our arguments are based on examination, reasoning, and knowledge.

This is our goal. To help you become better at examination, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, problem solving, and research.