Shaping our Thinking
In an article in Psychology Today, Mark Sherman writes about the idea of the “fundamental attribution error”. He describes the way that, when “we see someone doing something, we tend to think it relates to their personality rather than to the situation the person might be in.”[1]
The opposite can also be true, in that, when we evaluate ourselves and the way we think, reason, talk or approach a problem, we often give ourselves a pass or the benefit of the doubt about our own internal motivations. This shows up when somebody is late to a meeting and you think to yourself, “they’re late because they just don’t have time management skills, they don’t value other people’s time, and they’re a little bit lazy.” But then, when you yourself are late, you think, “well, I’m only late because my kids wouldn’t get out of bed on time, and there was that accident on the way here, and otherwise, I would have been on time!”
We give others a full portion of judgment for “who they are” and we give ourselves a pass based on the circumstances that we faced. So, this notion of becoming more self-critical while also extending more grace to others in our conversations is one that strikes me as significant right now.
Inside their pamphlet-sized book about critical thinking, Linda Elder and the late Richard Paul offer a bounty of insights for careful thinking, reading and research. One of the areas that they focus on is this idea of being aware of our own cultural biases, native instincts and even prejudices. They write that we often have an “uncritical tendency to select self-serving positive descriptions of ourselves and negative descriptions of those who think differently from us.”[2]
In my context, working with leaders inside of a local church, this all sounds very familiar to me. We sit down to discuss ideas or issues that need to be resolved, and naturally, we move back into our own corners, or our own way of seeing things.
As a way of developing critical thinking skills, and helping people to come out of their corners, this book offers a number of excellent ideas. One is to begin with “clarity” and “purpose”. When we are clear about what we are doing and why, it can focus our discussion on ways of achieving our shared goals. This makes space for ideas that are different than our own, as well as the chance to examine whether our perspectives are actually helpful in this case.
The human tendency, as exemplified in the “fundamental attribution error”, is to attribute motives and reasons to other people that have to do with their “personality” or “who they are”, rather than engaging with the situation they are in or the ideas that they bring. In the section on “Sociocentric Thinking”, the authors describe this as, “the uncritical tendency to place one’s culture, nation, religion above all others”[3]
In a surprising way, there are a whole set of critical thinking skills that actually relate to conversations about race, privilege and “otherness” within church contexts. While sometimes those conversations are seen as speculative or subjective (as in, “well that’s just how you feel”), it can also be said, that if we are using critical thinking, bringing clarity and self-knowledge to the conversations, then it helps us weed out bias in our thinking.
One example of this would be the way that many Anglo people think about culture. It seems as if everybody else has a “cultural identity”, but for Anglo people, we often see ourselves without one. Or, that we are “just normal”, as in “the norm”. This is what sociocentric thinking looks like. Where, what I am “used to” is how things should be, and if someone with a different background brings an idea, it is because of something about them.
But it turns out that this is not just a case of a difference of opinion. And it’s not just “you are different because you have a cultural perspective”. It is also a place where the critical thinking guidelines about seeing our own cultural perspective, and granting grace to another person (rather than judgment) can help move conversation along.
One way that this material is probably not as helpful, is in a group or a situation where we don’t actually want to have too much purely logical discussion. That could be in a time for dreaming or visioning, where ideas need space to breath before they are subjected to our “the glaring light of logic”. Or, in working with youth or young people, where there needs to be an open space for them to share or talk without being forced to “clean up their thinking”. Or, in an artistic time, working on a project that calls for creativity.
All of those can be times when we want to be “less critical”, but to still be thinking, sharing and extending grace to those around us. The benefit of Paul and Elder’s work is that they set even those dreaming, artistic or other conversations within a place where critical thinking still applies. In the “envisioning critical societies section”, they write that, “close-mindedness is systematically discouraged; open-mindedness systematically encouraged.”[4]
It is my hope to return to this little booklet from time to time. To share some of the nuggets that are here with the leaders in my church, and in times when we need especially clear thinking about a topic, to share this book with those involved. It is small but mighty, and I expect the Critical Thinking guide to continue to be part of the conversation in months ahead.
[1] Sherman, Mark. “Why We Don’t Give Each Other a Break.” Psychology Today, June 20, 2014. Accessed November 2, 2017. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-men-dont-write-blogs/201406/why-we-dont-give-each-other-break.
[2] Paul, Richard. Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. Thinker’s Guide Library. Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, ©2014, 22.
[3] Paul, Richard. Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. Thinker’s Guide Library. Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, ©2014, 22.
[4] Paul, Richard. Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. Thinker’s Guide Library. Tomales, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, ©2014, 23.
About the Author
Dave Watermulder
8 responses to “Shaping our Thinking”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post once again my friend! I love this statement you made… “All of those can be times when we want to be “less critical”, but to still be thinking, sharing and extending grace to those around us. The benefit of Paul and Elder’s work is that they set even those dreaming, artistic or other conversations within a place where critical thinking still applies. In the “envisioning critical societies section”, they write that, “close-mindedness is systematically discouraged; open-mindedness systematically encouraged.” I think our society desperately needs to learn the critical thinking skills in this book and I agree with you that our world needs more grace expressed. I’m curious if you have any ideas of how to carry this out in your world, I am challenged to do the same.
Well done, Dave. And I agree with your gentle criticisms as well. In fact, I found myself wishing I could hear Simon Sinek’s (https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action) response to some of this, because while I agree that critical thinking is vital and that we need more of it, at the end of the day, right, clear, logical thinking does not always translate into decision making, which happens in the limbic area of the brain rather than the neo-cortex. It’s why we can look at all the logic and reasoning and just say, “But it doesn’t feel right!” And often, it is in fact that “gut feeling” that leads us to make better decisions than the logic, ironically. Perhaps this is even more true if we bring in the Holy Spirit, who can lead us to defy logic while moving towards greater truth.
Thanks, Jen!
I enjoyed watching that video– so good! Yes, I also struggle with that place between gut and logic. Or, as he said, “I have a dream” and “I have a plan”…
Hey Dave- your conversation on fundamental attribution error reminded me of a quote from Volf’s “Exclusion & Embrace”: “Forgiveness flounders because I exclude the enemy from the community of humans even as I exclude myself from the community of sinners. But no one can be in the presence of the God of the crucified Messiah for long without overcoming this double exclusion — without transposing the enemy from the sphere of the monstrous… into the sphere of shared humanity and herself from the sphere of proud innocence into the sphere of common sinfulness.” Also, I appreciated your section on having space for non-critical thinking conversations also. Last night I was at a community organizing event to advocate for fair housing policy in our community (there is a black woman in our congregation on section 8 housing who was displaced for just reason as she pays her rent on time and works three part-time jobs…the owner simply wanted to get rid of section 8 residents). While some of the presentations were based on logic and reason to reveal unjust policy and offer new solutions, there were other presentations that were story-sharing from victims of these injustices, including the member of my congregation who shared her story of displacement. I think it’s important to remember that the forming of an idea is not solely an intellectual task, but also an emotional one as well. The problem is when the emotional response contradicts reason, then there is a conundrum to deal with. But when the emotional response coincides with a reasoned argument, transformation can happen. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
Dave,
I wondered about your thoughts regarding periods where logical discussion may inhibit free thinking, particularly in group or youth settings. While young people certainly think very differently than those more experienced with abstract thinking, they retain an amazing ability to challenge our own narrow-mindedness in unexpected ways. I may have misunderstood the end of your post but it seemed to me that you conflated critical thinking with being critical. I think the text by Elder attempted to help process a multitude of situations through the filter of thinking at a ‘higher’ level. My critique of the text was that even with higher level thinking it still tends to be ethnocentric.
Hi Dave,
What a great opening to your blog, “In an article in Psychology Today, Mark Sherman writes about the idea of the “fundamental attribution error”. He describes the way that, when “we see someone doing something, we tend to think it relates to their personality rather than to the situation the person might be in.”
I am very guilty of this. I blame it on the person, not on the situation. Not very full of Grace am I, so I really appreciated your reminder. Well done!
Dave, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Elder’s content on cultural bias. The idea of giving myself a pass and expecting others to be responsible is an area I have thought about a bit, especially in regard to being late. However, I haven’t considered the idea of not having a cultural identity as an Anglo person. It seems that when a group is dominant there is less felt need to identify the things that make them that particular way. Are there ways you see people being able to identify their cultural identity and possible methods for offering grace to those who are different than them? Perhaps there are ways Elder mentions that I am not recalling.
Great post! I was curious how you see the cultural influence on the message of the Gospel.
So here is the question though Dave: in your post you made the difference between close-minded verses open-minded critical thinking; would you consider someone preaching the gospel as open-minded or closed-minded? Fundamentally, we have a need to be open-minded concerning those we are trying to reach, but closed-minded concerning the message itself; do you agree?