"The voices of external authorities are loud and sometimes clear but sometimes muddled. Yet even when they are muddled, we seem to think that "they" must know what "they" are talking about, because "they" say it with such authority. When the voices are clear, we simply must do what "they" say; we must feel guilty for not doing it or only partially doing it; or we must overtly or covertly choose not to obey."
"We believe that there's a "they" out there that knows. Whether "they" orchestrate the latest fashions, the coolest social contacts, or media posts; whether "they" are politicians, religious leaders, school authorities, or even mental health practitioners, we tend to believe that "they" must somehow be right. That is too often true, even when we have some niggling doubts about the veracity or consistency of what "they" seem to know."
"Today, however, there are many out there who are asserting that critical thinking is the answer to this dilemma. They propose that we can critically think in such a way that we get to investigate or research the voices of the external authorities and discover something closer to accuracy. But while critical thinking might seem to be a "how to" for helping us figure out what to believe,"
External authorities produce loud, sometimes clear but often muddled voices that push individuals to follow, feel guilt, or resist. People tend to assume an external "they" knows best across fashions, social trends, media, politics, religion, schools, and professional advice, even when doubts arise about accuracy or consistency. Critical thinking is frequently proposed as a remedy to evaluate external claims and approach greater accuracy. However, critical thinking often lacks practical guidance on how to begin the process. Learning to access and risk following an internal authority remains essential for genuine self-guidance and knowing.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]