|
|
| (190 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | =Critical Thinking Study Question Collaboration=
| |
| − |
| |
| | ==Chapter 1: Thinking about Thinking== | | ==Chapter 1: Thinking about Thinking== |
| | | | |
| | ===What are some of the opportunities and obstacles of trying to become a better critical thinking in the information age? === | | ===What are some of the opportunities and obstacles of trying to become a better critical thinking in the information age? === |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | The information age provides many obstacles and opportunities for becoming a better critical thinker. With the information age knowledge is more readily available and ways of research (gaining knowledge) have improved. With more education and greater availability of knowledge come more knowledge workers and more data to study. Thus, many kinds of research have become less expensive and once again the "production" of information benefits. However, this "knowledge industry" is attempting to answer some very difficult questions and often falls short. This idea of fast results, due to the demand for more information, proves to be one of the downfalls with the information age. Things have become oversimplified, largely by the media, in attempts to keep up with all of the information. With this oversimplification, information has become distorted. Therefore, despite the progress of research, the accuracy and truth in information is much harder to sort out. -Allie
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The "information explosion" has lead to an increase in the amount of data we have on "social phenomena such as health, safety and economic well being" due to new technology that provide cheaper and faster methods of obtaining information. The increase of information, however, increases ambiguity. "The research results and theoris generated by the explosion of the knowledge industry do not always cohere or lead to stable theories"
| |
| − | --Katie F
| |
| | | | |
| | ===How has the progress of research and "knowledge work" contributed to and complicated the pursuit of truth?=== | | ===How has the progress of research and "knowledge work" contributed to and complicated the pursuit of truth?=== |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Understand and explicate terms and phrases such as: the Mozart effect, birth order theories, thinking in stereo, emotional flooding, and terms related to describing reflective style and persona.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Mozart Effect: In 1993, a study was published that showed that listening to 10 minutes of Mozart increased one's scores on spatial aptitude test. The results implied that people could get as much as a 9 point boost on an IQ test from listening to Mozart. The controversy is over whether or not this "mozart effect" is scientifically accurate. It makes a good case study of the information explosion, hilighting the role of content producers (researcher and marketers) in complicating the task of making good rflective choices. -Nicole
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Birth order theories: the idea that the order in which siblings are born affects their personalities including school performance, intelligence, sexual orientation, allergies, and civil disobedience. For example, first borns tend to be more conservative and obedient of authority than last borns, who tend to be rebellious. - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Thinking in stereo: thinking about your thoughts, thinking about whether this thought is relative (the meta level), and asking questions about the object of thought (making the object of thought an object of thought)-Nicole
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Emotional Flooding: When studying arguments between men and women, men are more likely to concede but believe they have actually won the argument rather than handle the emotional aspect of the argument. Emotional flooding is when arguments incorporate emotion. Gender factors into how the argument is handled. -Kendra
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Reflective style: Reflective thinkers think “in stereo”, they are not only aware of what is being discussed, they are aware of how the topic is being addressed. Your unique approach to reflective discussion might be called your reflective style. -Nicole
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===What is epistemology? What are some of the values and limitations of logic in becoming a better thinker? What is the relationship between logic and good thinking? ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Epistemology: the study of the origins and grounds for knowledge - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There are several values and limitations of logic in becoming a better thinker. Some values are the precision and rigor which logic allows in arguments, which are essential portions of good, truth seeking, and reflective discussion. Ultimately, this leads to better thinking. However, some limitations of logic include cultural boundaries because the definition of logic can vary. Likewise, these differences, both in culture and definition, require interpretation to understand and cannot be settled with logic alone. Thus, thinking logically, or "rationally," as well as "reasonably," leads to good thinking. -Allie
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===What does it mean to make your thought an object of thought? ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To think "in stereo" on a meta-level by asking critical questions about what you are thinking about - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Making one's thought an object of thought means to practice thinking "in stereo." That is, to include influences, explanations, motivations, and interpersonal effects in one's thinking about whatever is being discussed. -Allie
| |
| | | | |
| − | To, in simple terms, think of your thoughts and the thoughts of others on a wide scale as you create and have a functional conversation. -Rachel
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===How can we describe thinking in ways that seem compatible with what we are learning from research on cognition and social conflict?===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | NOT ON THE EXAM!
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The FMRI allows us to observe changes in brain function that are connected to changes in blood flow within the brain. If you ask a variety of subjects the same kinds of questions and notice that different or overlapping areas of each subjects brain lights up, you might be able to make inferences about how thinking is or is not localized in the brain. This information can help us speculate about how the work of thinking id divided and executed in a conscience brain. Not only does there appear to be no logic center of the brain, but there appears to be no one center of brain activity associated with cognitive functioning in general. In actual argumentative discussion, many areas of the brain are activated, including regions of the prefrontal lobe which regulate emotions. There is some evidence that the left side of the prefrontal lobe is more involved with reasoning than the right, and that area is also more active during experiences of positive emotions. Negative emotions can impair cognitive functions, and research has corroborated this. Good reflective practitioners should be aware of the way emotions are triggered in themselves and others during discussions and that attending to and responding to emotions during a discussion can affect the quality of that discussion.---Erin Conklin
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===What is a persona and how does your persona affect the quality of your deliberations? ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A dimension of our reflective style concerns the persona we tend to adopt in reflective discussions. Some of us “hold forth” and like to be the center of attention while we elaborate lengthy positions on the topic. Others like to “hold the fort,” defending a view in spite of evident weaknesses pointed out by others. --Cierra <p>
| |
| − | Perhaps your persona is listening carefully for much of the discussion but then interjecting a particularly insightful or disarming question or series of questions. You persona may be the person who tries to put pieces of others’ view together in a new view, or maybe you are “the bystander,” who primarily observes but participates through body language.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Simply, persona is the role we play in discussions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Persona affects the quality of our discussions because it hopes to mask some of our true feelings and emotions in order to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment. Thus, it does not allow us to represent our inner personality and who we really are. Think of persona like a mask one wears or façade. ---Cierra
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===What are the three main critical thinking virtues?===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The three ideals are: "sympathetic understanding", "seeking knowledge", and "inviting appraisal." - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sympathetic Understanding- enter into empathetic understanding, asking questions, repeat the person's positions back to them to make sure they understand what they are saying, as well as yourself.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Putting the viewpoints of others in your own words. Reconstructing ideas of others, entertaining opposing ideas. This is dificult, because we fear by sypathetically understanding the views of others we may "diminish the strength of our own convictions"
| |
| − | -Katie F
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Seeking Knowledge- Stating you don't know something or questioning that something is wrong, or intruducing that you want to know something more about the topic.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Asking the three questions "what is known?" "who knows it?" and "what is knowable?" The first two can be answered by research, the third requires we recognize the limits of seeking knowledge, especially on complex issues.
| |
| − | -Katie F
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Inviting Appraisal- Asking "Do you agree?" etc. -Steph
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Being open to critical appraisals-both in giving and recieving them. Welcoming re-examination of your own views is a part of inviting appraisal.
| |
| − | Katie F
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Chapter 2: Making Reflective Moves==
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Understand and explicate terms and phrases such as: presumption, conversational implicature, burden of proof, rationales, claims, and logic chopping===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Presumption: a commonly held belief or a claim that is taken or implied to be true within the context of the deliberation; determined by the interests and sociological and historical factors of the individuals participating in the deliberation; presumptions should be questioned but not immediately (it will kill the conversation)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Conversational implicature: the idea that words alone do not determine what is actually being conveyed; we imply more than we actually say; do not assume that someone is implying something - seek clarification
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Burden of proof: the obligation of a speaker (or a writer) to provide credible reasons for the claims he or she makes; it can shift like a tennis match; the shifts depend on whether the individuals accept, modify, or reject a claim
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Rationales: premises or reasons that imply or explain a conclusion
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Claims: statements that are either true or false
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Logic chopping: when a person strips another's speech down to only the main points and ignores everything else (context, the speaker's tone/feelings/experiences) - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Explain and be prepared to distinguish arguments from explanations.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Arguments: when the conclusion is in doubt; justify beliefs by asking the question "Why should I believe this?"
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Explanations: when the conclusion is not in doubt; show how something came to be/the cause of something by asking the question "Why did this happen?" - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Arguments: Evidences-->Belief. <br>Trying to establish the truth of a claim you are unsure about/you are justifying a belief and the rationale is an argument. --Cierra
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Explanations: Cause-->Fact<br> When you explain some conclusion…you are giving an explanation, not an argument. You are trying to understand how the conclusion came about or why it is the case.
| |
| − | Trying to understand something you already know to be the case/you are trying to understand a face and the rationale you offer is an explanation. --Cierra
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Review the key features of basic reconstructions and be prepared to give a basic reconstruction of a short argument.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A reconstruction represents, in a concise fashion, the rationales in a piece of writing or a speach. (Rationales have reasons and explanations) The goal of a reconstruction is to check understanding. The Steps are as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1.Identify the general conclusion
| |
| − |
| |
| − | State the simple conclusion and then refine.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It is usually stated in your own words.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2.Identify and organize sub-arguments
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What is a reason for what?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Everything should point to something else as a reason or explanation for that view.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 3. Write up the reconstruction in a good, clear, logical prose.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Keep your personal views and opinions out of the reconstruction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --Steph
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Review the principles of fair interpretation.=== | | ===Review the principles of fair interpretation.=== |
| − |
| |
| − | Reconstructions depend on interpretation, as well as original text and key points; there is also an element of inference involved.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Principle of Charity: expresses the obligation to present the view or argument of the author in its best light; the best representation is more important than determining how well the author understood or adequately represented his or her view
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Principle of Fidelity: exposes the importance of being "faithful" to the text; avoid making inferences about the author's meaning without good textual and contextual evidence
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Principle of Inclusion: emphasizes that the gol of a reconstruction is to incorporate all of the relevant information into an argument; the core of an argument is based on as much information as possible
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Note: Good interpretation requires various moral virtues. Also, a common interpretive problem is "logic chopping." -Allie
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Understand the difference between Conversational Interpretive Strategies and Rationale Engagement Strategies and be prepared to apply them in particular cases.=== | | ===Understand the difference between Conversational Interpretive Strategies and Rationale Engagement Strategies and be prepared to apply them in particular cases.=== |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | Conversational Interpretive Strategies (CIS) - the dynamics of the group/people; the "moves" you need to/should make in a reflective deliberation
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Rationale Engagement Strategies (RES) - concerns the actual reasoning of the deliberation; there are three ways to do this:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1. Questioning the truth of premises
| |
| − | 2. Questioning the connection between the premises and conclusion
| |
| − | 3. Reframing the argument
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Conversation Interpretive Strategies include:
| |
| − | -State your view
| |
| − | -Questions people about their views, invite people into the conversation
| |
| − | -Paraphrase their/your view back to them
| |
| − | -Monitor your nonverbal behaviour, express your reactions
| |
| − | -Show awarenes of similarities and differences of particpants and clarify the differences
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -Nicole
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Chapter 3: Sherlock’s Logic – Deductive and Inductive Inferences in Everyday Reflection== | | ==Chapter 3: Sherlock’s Logic – Deductive and Inductive Inferences in Everyday Reflection== |
| | | | |
| | ===Understand and explicate the terms and phrases such as: === | | ===Understand and explicate the terms and phrases such as: === |
| − | deductive argument, inductive argument, validity, the Principle of
| |
| − | Induction, categorical logic, propositional logic, the square of opposition, truth tables
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Deductive argument - used when the conclusion has absolute certainty; structure is as follows:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1. If A, then B
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2. A
| |
| − |
| |
| − | C. B
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Inductive argument - used to show the probability/likelihood that the conclusion is true; often utilizes past experiences, memories, and patterns (ex: the sun rising every day)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - Kat
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I agree with kat. great explanation, just like what we were taught in class. -Rachel
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Within categorical logic, understand and apply terms such as: contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, subalterns.=== | | ===Within categorical logic, understand and apply terms such as: contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, subalterns.=== |
| − | Contradictories: have opposite truth values. If one is true, the other must be false
| |
| − | Contraries: cannot both be true, but can both be false
| |
| − | Subcontraries: cannot both be false, but can both be true.
| |
| − | Subalterns: From a true A or E proposition, you can infer a true I or O proposition. - Erin C.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Within propositional logic, understand the main components of the logical system (claims or propositions, connectives, parentheses, brackets, and braces), the five main valid argument patterns, and how the valid argument patterns determine validity.=== | | ===Within propositional logic, understand the main components of the logical system (claims or propositions, connectives, parentheses, brackets, and braces), the five main valid argument patterns, and how the valid argument patterns determine validity.=== |
| | | | |
| | ===In propositional logic, apply the valid argument patterns to simple formalized arguments to determine validity.=== | | ===In propositional logic, apply the valid argument patterns to simple formalized arguments to determine validity.=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===From the part of the chapter on induction, describe the difference between inductive argument structures and deductive ones. In what situations would one choose inductive reasoning over deductive? What is a hasty generalization?=== | | ===From the part of the chapter on induction, describe the difference between inductive argument structures and deductive ones. In what situations would one choose inductive reasoning over deductive? What is a hasty generalization?=== |
| − | Hasty generalization-arguments that make a generalization on the basis of inadequate evidence. Erin C.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Explain the nature and structure of analogical arguments. How do they persuade? === | | ===Explain the nature and structure of analogical arguments. How do they persuade? === |
| − | Analogical arguments are arguments that try to convince an audience to adopt a particular viewpoint about an issue (disputed case) because it is similar to another issue that they already hold a viewpoint on, or a justified belief ("analogue")The form of an analogical argument is this:
| |
| − | 1) Give examples that prove that the disputed case resembles the analogue
| |
| − | 2) Justify the beliefs about the analogue
| |
| − | C) It is justified to then hold similar beliefs about the disputed case
| |
| − | They persuade by using 2 principles (norms of rationality) that deal with thinking about similarities. 1)Principle of Induction - nature has uniformities, 2) Claim that we should think about "like cases alike"
| |
| − | -Katie G.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Chapter 4: Tell me Why . . .Or How . . . Explanation and Causation in Reflective Practice== | | ==Chapter 4: Tell me Why . . .Or How . . . Explanation and Causation in Reflective Practice== |
| Line 221: |
Line 34: |
| | | | |
| | ===Give examples of the wide range of types of explanatory questions.=== | | ===Give examples of the wide range of types of explanatory questions.=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| | ===What are the main features of good explanations?=== | | ===What are the main features of good explanations?=== |
| − | The main features of good explanations are clarity, understanding, and examples to show proof of understanding. -Rachel
| + | |
| − | The main features of good explanations are:
| + | |
| − | 1) Internal Coherence - they have to make sense on their own terms, avoid contradiction, and are plausibly related. 2) External Coherence - must be consistent and compatible with our background knowledge of the world. 3)Testability - done by making predictions about the explanation, and then setting up a situation where the prediction can be either confirmed or disconfirmed. ex) Retro Diction - predictions about the past. 4) Satisfy Reasonable Doubt - very subjective, must ask yourself if the explanation you are considering leaves you with unanswered questions that it shuold have been able to answer
| |
| − | -Katie G.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===What are the competing explanatory accounts of the redness of Mars?=== | | ===What are the competing explanatory accounts of the redness of Mars?=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===What’s the difference between a “why” question and a “how” question?=== | | ===What’s the difference between a “why” question and a “how” question?=== |
| | | | |
| − | It is the way you try to understand or explain a question. Many scientists will view questions as "how" questions and answer them using facts and so on. Many philosophers will view questions as "why" questions and answer them using reason. For example, trying to explain the purpose of human life on earth. Scientists would look for how explnations about how humans got on earth and philosophers would use why explanations for why humans are on earth. -Kendra
| + | ===Do explanations need to connect to “ultimate purposes”? Be prepared to present both points of view.=== |
| | | | |
| − | ===Do explanations need to connect to “ultimate purposes”? Be prepared to present both points of view.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===Can you see “causation”?=== | | ===Can you see “causation”?=== |
| − | You can't see causes, but you can assign causes to events on the basis of how we believe events are related. We use the word cause when perceptions reliably and habitually follow one another. - Katie G.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ===What’s the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition?=== | | ===What’s the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition?=== |
| − | '''Necessary Condition''' - A condition that must be present in order for the consequent condition to occur. '''Sufficient Condition''' - A condition that makes a consequent condition possible, not the only possible cause. - Katie G.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Identify four of Mill’s methods and be prepared to explain each. === | | ===Identify four of Mill’s methods and be prepared to explain each. === |
| − | There are 5 Methods that attempt to distinguish causal factors from causal patterns. They are 1)Method of Agreement - There is a common factor that achieves a consequent condition, and they always agree. 2) Method of Difference - When an antecendent and a consequent are present adn with the removal of one, a different consequent condition occurs. 3) This is a combination of the Methods of Agreement and Difference, "Distinct Method" (?)- when you compare results of each method against each other and the difference you notice will become the consequent condition. 4) Method of Residues - When you have a set of antecedent conditions that you believe are causally related to consequent conditions, and you remove one of the antecedent conditions, you are left to observe what happens to the consequent condition. 5) Method of Concomitant Variation - when you have a set of antecedent conditions, and if you increase or decrease the amount of influence they have in a situation, and you observe a change, then you may assume that the antecedent and consequent conditions are related causally and can affect each other in the final consequent condition. - Katie G.
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===What is “inverse” and “direct” variation?=== | | ===What is “inverse” and “direct” variation?=== |
| − | '''Inverse Variation''' - As an antecedent condition increases, a consequent condition decreases. '''Direct Variation''' - As an antecedent condition increases, a consequent condition increases. - Katie G.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===What is a “correlation coefficient”?=== | | ===What is a “correlation coefficient”?=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===What is the fallacy of “complex cause”? “common cause”?=== | | ===What is the fallacy of “complex cause”? “common cause”?=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| | ==Chapter 5: “We Don’t Get Fooled Again” – Uses and Misuses of Numerical and Statistical Information== | | ==Chapter 5: “We Don’t Get Fooled Again” – Uses and Misuses of Numerical and Statistical Information== |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | ===What are some of the difficulties that people face when trying to use and discuss numeric and statistical information?=== | | ===What are some of the difficulties that people face when trying to use and discuss numeric and statistical information?=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===What is “innumeracy”?=== | | ===What is “innumeracy”?=== |
| − | lacking knowledge in relationship to math and numbers. -Rachel
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ===Idenify the main kinds of problems understanding and thinking about numeric and statistical information, including problems of context, large numbers, compounding, linearity, baseline, surveys and sampling, odds, probability, correlation, and cause. === | | ===Idenify the main kinds of problems understanding and thinking about numeric and statistical information, including problems of context, large numbers, compounding, linearity, baseline, surveys and sampling, odds, probability, correlation, and cause. === |
| − |
| + | ===Why is it that wasting a billion dollars might not be such a big deal for the Federal Government?=== |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Why is it that wasting a billion dollars might not be such a big deal for the Federal Government?===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===Identify and explain these terms: representative sample, depressive realism, sample space, sampling error, the law of large numbers, gambler’s fallacy, bell curve, multiple regression analysis, === | | ===Identify and explain these terms: representative sample, depressive realism, sample space, sampling error, the law of large numbers, gambler’s fallacy, bell curve, multiple regression analysis, === |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===What is the Sports Illustrated jinx? Do you think it’s real? Why or why not?=== | | ===What is the Sports Illustrated jinx? Do you think it’s real? Why or why not?=== |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ==Chapter 6 – The Way Up is the Way Down – Thinking Through Complexity.== | | ==Chapter 6 – The Way Up is the Way Down – Thinking Through Complexity.== |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | ===Give an example of how sciences simplify things to build models and be prepared to say something about the limits of a simple model of causality.=== | | ===Give an example of how sciences simplify things to build models and be prepared to say something about the limits of a simple model of causality.=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| | ===What is network theory?=== | | ===What is network theory?=== |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| | ===What does “six degrees of separation” mean?=== | | ===What does “six degrees of separation” mean?=== |
| − |
| |
| − | Links, nodes, “weak link” (significance of), Konigsburg Bridge Problem,
| |
| − | Baltimore syphilis epidemic, competing theories, network theory approach, Colorado Springs epidemic, possibilities for intervention, Hush Puppies, sig. of===
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Complex systems: inerrelatedness, 1965 New York City power outage (sig. of), coupling/decoupling.=== | | ===Complex systems: inerrelatedness, 1965 New York City power outage (sig. of), coupling/decoupling.=== |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | ===Be prepared to give your own examples of complex networks. === | | ===Be prepared to give your own examples of complex networks. === |
| − |
| + | |
| − |
| |
| | ===Buffering, redundant systems, pos/neg feedback (examples of). === | | ===Buffering, redundant systems, pos/neg feedback (examples of). === |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===The Beer Game (sig. of), Partner system for police (sig. of).===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Political ideologies as clusters in a political network.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Gottman’s work, significance, critical variables, Intransparency. ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Dorner’s work. Characteristics of good managers===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Chaos vs. Complexity. Characteristics of chaotic system. The weather. ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Practical lessons from chaos theory for critical thinking.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Thin-slicing. Sig. of. ===
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Intuition, sig. and problems of.===
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| + | ===The Beer Game (sig. of), Partner system for police (sig. of).=== |
| | | | |
| − |
| + | ===Political ideologies as clusters in a political network.=== |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:Critical Thinking Study Question Collaboration]]
| + | ===Gottman’s work, significance, critical variables, Intransparency. === |
| | | | |
| − |
| + | ===Dorner’s work. Characteristics of good managers=== |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| + | ===Chaos vs. Complexity. Characteristics of chaotic system. The weather. === |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| + | ===Practical lessons from chaos theory for critical thinking.=== |
| − |
| + | ===Thin-slicing. Sig. of. === |
| | | | |
| − | What do researchers on socio-linguistics and conflict tell us about the role of gender in deliberative communication?
| + | ===Intuition, sig. and problems of.=== |
| | + | [[Category:Critical Thinking Study Question Collaboration]] |
