The original pamphlet with more illustrations can be found on the internet archive.
 

Peer Review Issue 01 Transcript

What is critical
thinking...

Some writers and
philosophers have approach defining it broad strokes: Robert Ennis,
who spent six decades writing about the topic, claimed that critical
thinking is simply “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused
on deciding what to believe or do.” (1991, p. 8). Similarly, Sharon
Bailin and her colleagues identified only three characteristics that
make thinking critical: (1) it is done to determine what to believe
about something, (2) the thinker is trying to meet some standards of
adequacy in their thinking; and (3) the thinker does meet those
standards to an appropriate degree (1999).

Others have focused
more specifically on critical thinking as applied to argumentation.
Mark Battersby, for example, defines it as “the ability and
inclination to assess claims and arguments” (2016, p. 7), and
stresses the importance of evaluating evidence to expose false
claims. Regardless of whether the definition is generic or specific,
though, most writers agree that critical thinking is a habit that
requires practice to master.

..and why should
you

give a fuck?

Far from a bourgeois
ideology, critical thinking is a necessary tool for anarchists.
Anarchism demands that individuals be able to think accurately and
effectively. From being able to spot exploitative power structures to
understanding the minutiae of alternative economic theories,
anarchism is far more than just tossing pipe bombs at cop cars. Even
the most aware anarchist is in danger of falling for misinformation,
conspiracy theories, and cults of personality— and before you think
you're immune, remember that you have identical brain structures to
the people who fall for it all the time. To avoid those traps,
anarchists need to be able to think for themselves. When done right,
critical thinking is a necessary step in the path to liberated,
individual thinking.

Here’s the plan

There’s a
longstanding debate about whether critical thinking skills are
generalizable (in that there is a single skillset that applies to all
areas of inquiry) or if it’s domain-specific (in that each
discipline—math, science, history, philosophy, etc.—has its own
set of critical thinking skills). I’m choosing to split the
difference. In Part One, we'll address two generalizable
skills: first, we'll discuss evidence gathering and assessment, and
second, we’ll talk about heuristics, biases, and fallacies. In Part
Two, I'll present a guide to critical thinking specifically
designed for anarchists, based on Daniel Willingham’s 2019 paper
“How to Teach Critical Thinking.” Willingham outlines four steps
that should be taken when teaching critical thinking about any topic:
first, identify what “critical thinking” means in that domain;
second, identify the knowledge that is necessary for each
understanding of critical thinking, third, create a sequence in which
that knowledge should be learned; and fourth, revisit and relearn.
With that, let’s get started.

PART ONE GENERALIZABLE SKILLS

1. EVIDENCE

When assessing any proposition, argument, or problem, a good thing
to ask is: how good is the evidence? Every argument requires
evidence: if someone were to claim that leprechauns are real, we
shouldn’t take their claims at face value. Rather, we should ask
for the proof. After that, we should assess if the evidence they
provide is adequate.

In his book Is That a Fact? Mark Battersby divides
the assessment process into two steps. First, ask if the evidence
supports the determination. He uses the example of a letter to the
editor published in 7ime, in which the author claims that her
“85-year-old mother powerwalks two miles each day, drives her car
(safely), climbs stairs, does crosswords, reads the daily paper and
could probably beat [your columnist] at almost anything.” Thus, so
the writer believes, people in this era must be “living to a
healthy and ripe old age” (2016, p. 14). As Battersby points out,
however, just because the writer’s grandmother does these things
does not mean that all elderly people can do these things—the
premise does nothing to support the conclusion. Whether or not the
evidence is true, you should be skeptical of an argument if the
evidence doesn’t provide any basis for the conclusion. Second, you
should ask if the evidence is credible. If the above mentioned writer
had cited a study instead of using her own grandmother as an example,
you should ask if the sample size was adequate and if the study was
funded by organizations that may have an interest in promoting its
conclusion. Or if she had cited a poll conducted among senior
citizens, you should pay attention to question bias (when the
phrasing of the poll questions influences the responses) and context
bias (when the context of the poll, such as a preliminary
introduction by the researchers or the environment of the responder,
influences the responses) (Battersby, 2016, pp. 29 & 52). Above
all, you should seek to verify that the information being given to
you is correct—if the premise is false it could point to an invalid
or unfounded conclusion.

Philosophical razors are rules of thumb that can be used to
metaphorically “shave off” unlikely premises and conclusions. The
principle of parsimony, for example, holds that explanations
should be as simple as possible. The most famous formulation of it,
Occam’s Razor, states that we should only accept the more
complicated theory if the simpler one cannot explain the event
(Battersby 2016, p. 23). If you hear a crash, walk upstairs, and see
a baseball, broken glass, and a group of kids with bats and mitts
running away, the most likely explanation is that they were playing
baseball and hit a ball through your window. The theory that aliens
broke your window and planted the baseball there to frame the
innocent kids should likely be rejected unless the first explanation
doesn’t account for some aspect of the situation.

Similarly, the Sagan Standard, attributed to Carl Sagan in
his book Broca’s Brain, holds that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence (1979, p. 73). The claim that a
new treatment will cure any type of cancer in less than twenty
minutes requires much more proof than the claim that diet and
exercise help you lose weight. There are many other philosophical
razors in existence, but a word of caution: while razors provide good
bases for ruling out bad arguments, they are not foolproof. Though it
is overwhelmingly unlikely, perhaps aliens did plant that baseball,
and that new treatment does cure cancer. So, while they may provide a
quick-and-easy method of detecting bullshit, they are not infallible.

2.HEURISTICS BIASES AND FALLACIES

Heuristics

Human beings (yourself included) are prone to biases, fallacies,
and unclear thinking. The work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman
(1974) showed that we tend to rely on quick rules of thumb, called
heuristics, when making probability judgments. While useful
when making quick decisions, heuristics are prone to error, as when
one estimates the probability of a heart attack occurring among a
certain age group based on how many people they know have had heart
attacks. Who you know that has had a heart attack has no bearing on
the actual percentage of people that do, similar to how Battersby’s
writer assumed that all elderly people are fit and healthy because
her grandmother is.

Cass Sunstein (2005) extended Tversky and Kahneman’s work to
include moral judgments, identifying a list of heuristics that tend
to guide us when making ethical decisions. He includes, for example,
the Betrayal Heuristic (in which an offense that includes a betrayal
of trust is often judged as more immoral than one that does not
include treachery, such as a close friend stabbing someone in the
back rather than a known rival) and the Outrage Heuristic (in which
most people’s judgment of how harsh a punishment should be is
related to how outraged they are by the offense). Like Tversky and
Kahneman, he argues that these rules of thumb are prone to giving
inconsistent or incorrect guidance. One thing to watch out for when
assessing claims (especially your own claims!) is the underlying
heuristics that the claimant is using.

Biases

A number of other cognitive biases exist, too. Confirmation
bias is the tendency for individuals to unconsciously reject
information that doesn’t align with their existing beliefs. As
Margit Oswald and Stefan Grosjean put it, confirmation bias means
that “information is searched for, interpreted, and remembered in
such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that the
hypothesis can be rejected” (2004, p. 79).

Framing effects occur when individuals draw different
conclusions from the same information depending on how that
information is presented. People are more likely to buy yogurt that
is advertised as “92% fat free” than they are yogurt that is
advertised as “8% full fat” even though they are the same
product. This is because the advertiser is “framing” the first
with positive language and the second with negative. Problematically,
this means that “people will choose inconsistently in the sense of
making different and opposed choices in decision problems that are
essentially identical” (Kamm, 2007, p. 424)—in other words, how a
problem is framed will affect what people decide to do about it, even
though the framing doesn’t actually have anything to do with the
problem.

Finally, the illusory truth effect occurs when continued
repetition of a claim causes it to seem truer than alternatives, even
if it is false. First identified in a 1977 paper by Lynn Hasher,
David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino, they found that their test
subjects rated a statement as more likely to be true if it was
repeated to them rather than if they read it once. Importantly, this
is a prominent reason why propaganda techniques such as the Big
Lie (like Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election) and the
firehose of falsehood (like Trump’s constant and endless
lying) work.

Fallacies

Unlike heuristics and biases, which affect how people process
claims, fallacies are mistakes made in the reasoning behind claims.
There are hundreds, but below are some of the more common ones:

• Sweeping generalization — The arguer expands a
  specific case into a general principle that does not always apply.
  For example, claiming “People from that city are always rude”
  takes what may be true of some residents (rudeness) and generalizes
  it to all residents.

• Begging the question -The arguer leaves out an
  important premise to their argument, usually because they assume
  that it is settled and does not need to be addressed. The claim
  “Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder should be illegal.
  Therefore, abortion should be illegal” leaves out the
  controversial premise “abortion is murder.”

• Ad hominem – The arguer attacks the character of
  their opponent rather than discussing the issue at hand. For
  example, claiming, “You don’t know anything about climate
  change, you’re too young and inexperienced” avoids engaging with
  the hypothetical young person’s argument by dismissing it based on
  their youth.

• Straw man – The arguer takes another’s argument,
  extends it to an extreme, and then easily dismisses it. This makes
  it seem as if the arguer succeeded in defeating the original
  argument, but they have only torn down the extended version of it.
  For example, the claim “My opponent wants to reduce carbon
  emissions. Clearly, what he really wants is to ban all cars and shut
  down factories” takes a reasonable argument (reduce carbon
  emissions) and blows it up into an extreme not found in the original
  argument (banning all cars and shutting down factories).

PART
TWO

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SKILLS

1. APPLICATIONS

Now that we’ve covered some general critical thinking skills,
let us turn to Willingham’s plan to teach domain-specific skills.
The first step is to identify what critical thinking means for
anarchists. So, what should anarchists be able to do with their
thinking? While this list is by no means exhaustive, below are some
ideas.

Power & Hierarchy

Key to an anarchist evaluation of the existing social norms is the
identification of existing hierarchies. After all, one of the core
axioms of anarchism is that people have no obligation to follow those
in power (Crowder, 2005). This set of skills may include spotting
classism/racism/sexism/ableism, identifying structural violence, and
recognizing cults of personality. Bonus points for assessing the role
of police, politicians, and judges in perpetuating injustice.

Economics

Economic theory is one of the cornerstones of anarchist thought.
It is not only important to learn and understand anarchist models
(anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc.) but also to study the
captalist model that anarchism is working to overthrow. Skills in
this area include the ability to discover and analyze labor
exploitation and the basic knowledge required to understand the
foundations of neoliberalism, communism, and socialism.

Media

Media can be both a tool of the state and a source of the truth.
On the one hand is the corporate media that, as Peter Gelderloos has
pointed out, exists only to “fatten the wallets of their executives
and shareholders” and maintain social control (2004). On the other
is, well, this zine! Skills in this area include identifying
propaganda, discovering the sources behind specific information and
narratives, and uncovering media bias in all of its forms (cf.
Chomsky & Herman, 2002).

Organization

What’s the point of being an anarchist if you aren’t willing
to act? Critical thinking skills in this area include identifying
methods to engage with activists in other spheres, organizing
protests, and advocating for alternative systems. Also included in
this area are skills related to the history and praxis of anarchism,
especially learning from past and present successes and failures.

2. CONTENT

Now that the goals of anarchist thinking have been identified, the
second step in the process is to gather the knowledge necessary to
reach those goals. Every problem requires the requisite
background information in order to solve it. The example Willingham
uses is a historical letter: to analyze a letter written by a
sergeant before a battle, one needs to know the context in which the
letter was written, the role of sergeants in the military, and
knowledge of the war in general (2019).

There is quite a bit of knowledge that is necessary for anarchists
to think critically. Existing anarchist theory provides a solid
foundation: a working knowledge of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman,
Zerzan, Marx, and others is _ indispensable. With this theory in
hand, anarchists can learn to identify exploitation, material and
social inequalities, and the class-based structures inherent to
capitalism. An understanding of the ideological details of fascism
and other ideologies opposed to anarchism can help with spotting
propaganda as well, especially if that propaganda is particularly
subtle (it doesn’t have to be the Two Minutes Hate to be
propaganda).

Familiarity with politics, news, and world events is also
essential. The world has seen a resurgence of right-wing populism
recently that is threatening to undermine our collective rights. Any
good anti-fascist should be able to discuss why it has arisen and how
to address it. Knowledge about the struggles of our trans, gay,
disabled, BIPOC, and marginalized brethren is likewise necessary to
dismantle the barriers preventing us from full equality.

This list is not complete and is only meant to point critical
thinkers in the right direction. Remember, knowledge is power, and
power begins with knowledge.

3. SEQUENCE

Willingham’s third step is to identify the order in which
skills should be learned. In most subjects, complex knowledge is
built on a foundation of more basic information: musicians learn
scales before they learn to improvise, artists learn to draw basic
shapes before they draw hands, and math students learn algebra before
they learn calculus. While this sequence can be flexible (as it
should be— everyone learns information differently and at different
rates), here is the sketch of a plan.

Phase I: Foundations

This includes learning about the core concepts of anarchism, such
as anti-authoritarianism, liberty, solidarity, and direct action. One
should practice spotting power structures in daily life, such as
police presences and workplace managerial hierarchies. This stage
should also include practice identifying common statist and
capitalist arguments.

Phase II: Critique

This phase begins applying anarchist ideas from Phase I to
real-life situations. It includes critiquing capitalism, the state,
and the media, analyzing the successes and failures of historical
examples of anarchism, and getting involved in collectives, unions,
and other groups in the anarchist milieu.

Phase III: Praxis

This phase is advanced practice. It includes tackling complex
debates within anarchism (such as violence vs. pacifism and
individualism vs. collectivism), critically assessing both anarchist
and non-anarchist movements, evaluating (and originating) tactics for
organizing, and creating alternative and anarchist media such as
zines, papers, and teachins.

4. REVISIT

Critical thinking is not something that one learns once and can
simply use forever. Rather, it takes continual practice to cultivate.
Willingham stresses that the fourth step is to revisit each
critical thinking skill over time in order to master it. Often
times the application of these skills will change, as new questions
and problems arise in which they are put into use. It helps, however,
to be deliberate about putting these skills into practice.

Engaging with fellow anarchists and others can help to keep
critical thinking sharp. Start a reading group to discuss anarchist
literature or regularly get together with non-anarchists to debate
the merits of decentralized systems. Join a mutual aid organization
in order to help others or plan a protest with other activists. The
opportunities to interact with others are endless.

Critical thinking skills can be honed individually as well.
Regularly challenge your own assumptions and thought processses when
considering important questions or problems. Consider alternate
scenarios to every solution you find and actively test your ideas in
the real world. Resist accepting easy answers, and work to apply
anarchist frameworks to daily life (like using prefigurative
politics to imagine the world as it could be).

Anarchists often rally a round the slogan “No gods, no masters.”
While a great phrase, it shouldn’t mean “no thought” as well.
In fact, anarchism demands more thinking in order to work.
Willingham may show how critical thinking can be taught, but
anarchists must take those skills to go forth and build a world
without domination. In order for this guide to be useful, it should
be used—so please, go forward and practice these skills (for all of
our sakes).

SOURCES

Bailin, 8., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999).
Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
31(3), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133

Battersby, M. (2016). Js that a fact? (and ed.). Broadview Press.

Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. S. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The
political economy of the mass media (and ed.). Random House, Inc.

Crowder, G. (2005). Anarchism. In E. Craig (ed.), he shorter
Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 14-15). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-s003-1

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception.
Teaching Philosophy, 14/1), 5-24.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2

Gelderloos, P. (2004, October). Zhe patriarchal science of
corporate media. The Anarchist Library.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloosthe-patriarchal-science-of-the-corporate-media

Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and
the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1&1), 107-112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80012-1

Kamm, F. M. (2007). Jntricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities,
and permissible harm. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:0so/9780195189698.001.0001

Oswald, M. E. & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R.
F. Pohl (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and
biases in thinking judgement and Iemory (pp. 79-96). Psychology
Press.

Sagan, C. (1979). Broca’s brain: Reflections on the romance of
science. Ballantine Books.

Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 2X4), 531542. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.387941

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 18X4157), 1124-1131.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0767426

Willingham, D. T. (2019). How to teach critical thinking. NSW
Department of Education.
https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/maineducation/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changingworld/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf