Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Critical Thinking: Pearson New International Edition: Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life (Print Replica) (Ebook PDF
Critical Thinking: Pearson New International Edition: Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life (Print Replica) (Ebook PDF
Elder
Charge of Your Learning and Your Life
Richard Paul Linda Elder
Third Edition
Third Edition
ISBN 978-1-29202-714-2
9 781292 027142
I N T R O D U C T I ON
Consider for a minute all of what you have learned in your life: about sports,
money, friendship, anger and fear, love and hate, your mother and father, nature,
the city you live in, manners and taboos, human nature, and human behavior.
Learning is a natural and inevitable process. We learn in many directions. One
direction in which learning is not natural is inward learning—self-knowledge,
knowledge of the workings of our own mind, of how and why we think as we do.
Begin by answering these—rather unusual—questions: What have you
learned about how you think? Did you ever study your thinking? What informa-
tion do you have, for example, about the intellectual processes involved in how
your mind thinks? More to the point, perhaps, what do you really know about
how to analyze, evaluate, or reconstruct your thinking? Where does your think-
ing come from? How much of it is of high quality? How much of it is of poor
quality? How much of your thinking is vague, muddled, inconsistent, inaccurate,
illogical, or superficial? Are you, in any real sense, in control of your thinking?
Do you know how to test it? Do you have any conscious standards for determin-
ing when you are thinking well and when you are thinking poorly? Have
you ever discovered a significant problem in your thinking and then The best thinkers make the
changed it by a conscious act of will? If someone asked you to teach study of thinking second
him or her what you have learned about thinking thus far in your life, nature.
would you have any idea what that was or how you learned it?
If you are like most people, the honest answers to these questions run along
the lines of: “Well, I suppose I don’t know much about my thinking or about
thinking in general. I suppose in my life I have more or less taken my thinking for
granted. I don’t really know how it works. I have never studied it. I don’t know
how I test it, or even if I do test it. It just happens in my mind automatically.”
Serious study of thinking, serious thinking about thinking, is rare in human
life. It is not a subject in most schools nor a subject taught at home. But if you
focus your attention for a moment on the role thinking is playing in your life, you
may come to recognize that everything you do or want or feel is influenced by your
thinking. And if you become persuaded of that, you will be surprised that humans
show so little interest in thinking. What is more, if you start to pay attention to
thinking in a manner analogous to the way a botanist observes plants, you will be
on your way to becoming a truly exceptional person. You will notice what few oth-
ers notice. You will be the rare person who is engaged in discovering what human
thinking is about. You will be the rare person who knows how and why he or she is
thinking, the rare person skilled in assessing and improving how he or she thinks.
Some things you will eventually discover are: All of us, somewhere along the way,
have picked up bad habits of thinking. All of us, for example, make generalizations
when we don’t have the evidence to back them up, allow stereotypes to influence our
thinking, form some false beliefs, tend to look at the world from one fixed point of
view, ignore or attack points of view that conflict with our own, fabricate illusions
and myths that we subconsciously confuse with what is true and real, and think de-
ceptively about many aspects of our experience. As you discover these problems in
your thinking, we hope you will begin to ask yourself some key questions: Is it pos-
sible for me to learn to avoid bad habits of thought? Is it possible for me to develop
good habits of thought? Is it possible for me to think at a high or, at least, higher level?
3
I N T R O D U C T I ON
These are problems and questions that few discover or ask. Nevertheless, every
major insight you gain into good or bad thinking can enhance your life significant-
ly. You can begin to make better decisions. You can gain power, important power
that you presently lack. You can open new doors for yourself, see new options,
minimize significant mistakes, maximize potential understandings. If you’re going
to live your life as a thinker, why not get good at thinking about thinking?
S ee whether you can identify any discovery you made about your thinking before you
started to read this book. If you can’t think of any, write out your best explanation of why
not. If you do think of something, explain what you learned about your thinking.
4
I N T R O D U C T I ON
Rather
The way you shop, teach, learn, vote, relate, evaluate, and so on
5
I N T R O D U C T I ON
S ee whether you can think of a time in which you “misused” an important concept.
Hint: Think of an idea you commonly use in your thinking, such as friendship, trust,
truthfulness, or respect. Have you ever implied you were someone’s friend but acted against
that person (such as gossiping behind that person’s back)? Write out or orally explain your
answer.
Only by applying the fundamentals to a wide range of human problems can one begin to
appreciate their power and usefulness. Think of it this way. If we were coaching you in tennis,
we would remind you again and again to keep your eye on the ball. Could you imagine saying to
your coach, “Why do I have to keep my eye on the ball? I already did that once.” The same logic
applies to the principles of skilled thinking. If you want to be proficient, you have to redirect
your eyes to the fundamentals, again and again and again.
The Problem:
Everyone thinks. It is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased,
distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that
of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought.
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought,
however, must be systematically cultivated.
To assess thinking:
Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and
fairness.
6
I N T R O D U C T I ON
EXHIBIT 3 Continued
The Result:
A well-cultivated critical thinker
■ raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
■ gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively;
■ comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against
relevant criteria and standards;
■ thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and
assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical conse-
quences; and
■ communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
E xhibit 3 shows that a big part of “the problem” critical thinking addresses is that “much
of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright preju-
diced.” Make a list of five significant problems in human life. Then see if you can identify the
problems in thinking that led to those problems. Be as specific as possible.
7
I N T R O D U C T I ON
8
I N T R O D U C T I ON
EXHIBIT 5
THREE LEVELS OF THOUGHT
Level 3:
Highest Order Thinking
• Explicitly reflective • Highest skill level
• Routine use of critical thinking tools in
analyzing and assessing thinking
• Consistently fair
Level 2:
Higher Order Thinking
• Selectively reflective • High skill level
• Lacks critical thinking vocabulary
• Inconsistently fair, maybe
skilled in sophistry
Level 1:
Lower Order Thinking
• Unreflective • Low to mixed skill level
• Frequently relies on gut intuition
• Largely self-serving/
self-deceived
9
I N T R O D U C T I ON
habits of thought and about what you are striving for: good habits of thought. At
whatever level you think, you need to recognize that you can learn to think better.
Creative improvement is the end for which critical thinkers strive.
C onsider your thinking in personal relationships, in dealing with friends, in relating to roman-
tic partners, in sports, as a reader, as a writer, as a listener to lectures, as an employee, in
planning your life, in dealing with your emotions, and in figuring out complex situations.
Complete these statements:
1. Right now, I believe my thinking across all domains of my life is of ____________
quality. I base this judgment on ______________.
2. In the following areas, I think very well:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
3. In the following areas, my thinking is okay, not great, but not terrible either:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
4. In the following areas, my thinking is probably poor:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
10
I N T R O D U C T I ON
To learn at a deeper level, you need to get powerful leverage on learning. You
need a clearer perspective on what you should be striving to achieve, and you need
powerful tools for upgrading your thinking and learning.
Critical thinking works. It is practical. It will enable you to be more successful,
to save time and energy, and to experience more positive and fulfilling emotions.
It is in your interest to become a better critic of your own thinking as a student,
scholar, parent, consumer, and citizen and in other roles as well. If you are not
progressively improving the quality of your life, you have not yet discovered the
true power of critical thinking. We hope this text will serve as an impetus for this
shift. Good thinking works—for everyone.
H ave you ever changed a habit as a result of your conscious effort and planning? What
do you have to do to change a habit? Is it easy? If not, why not? What do you think you
would have to do to change habits of thought? Write out your answer or explain orally.
11
I N T R O D U C T I ON
who put things together in their minds, who figure things out for themselves, who
create connections among important ideas. They are people who believe in the
power of their own minds. They are people who appreciate the struggle inherent
in substantive learning and thinking.
Consider how Darwin (F. Darwin, 1958) articulated his own struggles with
learning:
I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this
difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time, but it has had the compensating
advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus
I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of
others. (p. 55)
Einstein (Clark, 1984), for his part, performed so poorly in school that when his
father asked his son’s headmaster what profession his son should adopt, the answer
was simply, “It doesn’t matter; he’ll never make a success of anything.” He showed
no signs of being a genius and, as an adult, denied that his mind was extraordinary:
“I have no particular talent. I am merely extremely inquisitive” (p. 27).
T hink back to your previous school or college experience. Which pattern have you typically
fallen into?
1. The quick student to whom teachers typically are drawn because you can answer the
factual questions they think are important.
2. The student who has difficulty remembering facts so that learning has been more
difficult for you.
3. The student who does pretty well because, although you are not the quickest at remem-
bering facts and answering factual questions, you still have a pretty good memory so you
have done okay in school.
4. A different pattern entirely.
12
I N T R O D U C T I ON
4. To the extent that I see myself as incapable as a student, I can begin to change this view
of myself by realizing:____________________________________________________
13
I N T R O D U C T I ON
The best thinkers are those who systematically and carefully reason their way
through problems. They ask questions when they don’t understand. They don’t al-
low other people to define their level of intelligence. They don’t allow intelligence
tests or other standardized tests to define their level of intelligence. They realize
that, no matter how difficult or easy it is for them to “remember” facts for tests,
the real work of learning requires perseverance and commitment. The real work
of learning requires skills of mind that you can develop, if and when you decide
to. Learning these skills of mind is precisely what this book is all about.
Remember, the race is to the tortoise, not the hare. Be the tortoise.
R ead through this chapter again, highlighting the points made in the chapter that relate
directly to the definition of critical thinking. Then complete these statements:
1. To me, critical thinking means: _____________________________________________
14
BECOME
A FAIRMINDED
THINKER
I
t is possible to develop as a thinker and yet not develop as a fairminded thinker.
It is possible to learn to use one’s skills of mind in a narrow, self-serving way;
many highly skilled thinkers do just that. Think of politicians, for example,
who manipulate people through smooth (fallacious) talk, who promise what they
have no intention of delivering, who say whatever they need to say to maintain
their positions of power and prestige. In a sense, these people are skilled thinkers
because their thinking enables them to get what they want, but the best thinkers
do not pursue selfish goals. They do not seek to manipulate others. They strive to
be fairminded, even when it means they have to give something up in the process.
They recognize that the mind is not naturally fairminded, but selfish, and they
recognize that to be fairminded, they also must develop specific traits of mind—
traits such as intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, intellectual courage, intel-
lectual autonomy, intellectual empathy, intellectual perseverance, and confidence
in reason.
In this chapter, we introduce what “fairminded” means, and we discuss the
traits of mind that accompany fairmindedness. If you are to develop as a fair-
minded thinker, you will have to “practice” being fairminded. You will have to
catch yourself in acts of selfishness and begin to correct your behavior. You will
have to become committed to living a rational, compassionate, contributory life,
to look outside yourself and see how your behavior affects other people. You will
have to decide, again and again, that being fairminded is crucial to your identity
as a person.
From Chapter 1 of Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Third Edition.
Richard Paul, Linda Elder. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
C
ritical thinking can serve two incompatible ends: self-centeredness or fair-
mindedness. As we learn the basic intellectual skills that critical thinking
entails, we can begin to use those skills in either a selfish or a fairminded
way. For example, when students are taught how to recognize mistakes in reason-
ing (commonly called fallacies), most students readily see those mistakes in the
reasoning of others but not in their own reasoning. Using their understanding of
fallacies, students develop some proficiency in making their opponents’ thinking
look bad, but they typically don’t use their understanding of fallacies to analyze
and assess their own reasoning.
Liberals see mistakes in the arguments of conservatives; conservatives see
mistakes in the arguments of liberals. Believers see mistakes in the thinking of
nonbelievers; nonbelievers see mistakes in the thinking of believers. Those who
oppose abortion readily see mistakes in the arguments for abortion; those who
favor abortion readily see mistakes in the arguments against abortion.
We call these thinkers weak-sense critical thinkers. We call the thinking
“weak” because, although it is working well for the thinker in some respects, it is
missing certain important, higher-level skills and values of critical thinking. Most
significantly, it fails to consider, in good faith, viewpoints that contradict its own
viewpoint. It lacks fairmindedness.
Another traditional name for the weak-sense thinker is sophist. Sophistry is the
art of winning arguments regardless of whether there are problems in the think-
ing being used, regardless of whether relevant viewpoints are being ignored. The
objective in sophistic thinking is to win. Period. Sophistic thinkers use lower-level
skills of rhetoric, or argumentation, by which they make unreasonable thinking
look reasonable and reasonable thinking look unreasonable. This form of think-
ing is evident in the arguments of unethical lawyers, prosecutors, and politicians
who are more concerned with winning than with being fair. They use emotional-
ism and trickery in an intellectually skilled way.
I n the next week, read articles in newspapers, news magazines, and similar sources for the
purpose of identifying intellectual sophistry at work. Look for situations in which someone
deliberately hides or distorts information in pursuing a goal. Note whether the person gets away
with the sophistry.
16
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
the fair and just. These thinkers strive always to be ethical—to behave in ways
that do not exploit or otherwise harm others. They work to empathize with the
viewpoints of others. They are willing to listen to arguments they do not neces-
sarily hold. They change their views when faced with better reasoning. Rather
than using their thinking to manipulate others and to hide from the truth (in a
weak-sense way), they use thinking in an ethical, reasonable manner. Almost
a century ago, William Graham Sumner (1906) depicted strong-sense critical
thinkers. He said they
cannot be stampeded . . . are slow to believe . . . can hold things as possible or prob-
able in all degrees, without certainty and without pain . . . can wait for evidence and
weigh evidence . . . can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices.
We believe that the world already has too many skilled selfish thinkers, too
many sophists and intellectual con artists, too many unscrupulous lawyers and
politicians who specialize in twisting information and evidence to support their
selfish interests and the vested interests of those who pay them. We hope that you,
the reader, will develop as a highly skilled, fairminded thinker, one capable of ex-
posing those who are masters at playing intellectual games at the expense of the
well-being of innocent people. We hope as well that you develop the intellectual
courage to argue publicly against what is unethical in human thinking. We write
this text with the assumption that you will take seriously the fairmindedness im-
plied by strong-sense critical thinking.
To think critically in the strong sense requires that we develop fairminded-
ness at the same time that we learn basic critical thinking skills and, thus, begin to
“practice” fairmindedness in our thinking. If we do, we avoid using our skills to
gain advantage over others. We treat all thinking by the same high standards. We
expect good reasoning from those who support us as well as those who oppose
us. We subject our own reasoning to the same criteria we apply to reasoning to
which we are unsympathetic. We question our own purposes, evidence, conclu-
sions, implications, and point of view with the same vigor we question those
of others.
Developing fairminded thinkers try to see the actual strengths and weak-
nesses of any reasoning they assess. This is the kind of thinker we hope this text
will help you become. From the beginning, then, we are going to explore the char-
acteristics required for the strongest, most fairminded thinking. As you read the
rest of the text, we hope you notice how we are attempting to foster strong-sense
critical thinking. Indeed, unless we indicate otherwise, from this point forward,
every time we use the words critical thinking, we mean critical thinking in the
strong sense.
In the remainder of this chapter, we explore the various intellectual virtues
that fairminded thinking requires. Fairmindedness entails much more than most
people realize. Fairmindedness requires a family of interrelated and interdepen-
dent states of mind.
One final point: In addition to fairmindedness, strong-sense critical think-
ing implies higher-order thinking. As you develop your reasoning abilities and
internalize the traits of mind in this chapter, you will develop a variety of skills
and insights absent in the weak-sense critical thinker.
17
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
Intellectual
Intellectual integrity Intellectual
autonomy humility
Intellectual
Intellectual
confidence in
fairmindedness
reason
18
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
EXHIBIT 2 These are the opposites of the intellectual virtues. Our natural
disposition to develop them is an important reason we need to develop
countervailing traits.
Intellectual
hypocrisy
Intellectual Intellectual
conformity arrogance
Intellectual Intellectual
distrust of disregard for
reason justice
T
o be fairminded is to strive to treat every viewpoint relevant to a situation
in an unbiased, unprejudiced way. It entails a consciousness of the fact
that we, by nature, tend to prejudge the views of others, placing them into
“favorable” (agree with us) and “unfavorable” (disagree with us) categories. We
tend to give less weight to contrary views than to our own. This is especially true
when we have selfish reasons for opposing views. If, for example, we can ignore
the viewpoint of the millions of people in the world who live in extreme poverty,
we can avoid having to give up something to help them. Thus, fairmindedness
is especially important when the situation calls on us to consider views we don’t
want to consider.
Fairmindedness entails the predisposition to consider all relevant viewpoints equally, without refer-
ence to one’s own feelings or selfish interests, or the feelings or selfish interests of one’s friends,
community, or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual standards (such as accuracy, sound log-
ic, and breadth of vision), uninfluenced by one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s group.
The opposite of fairmindedness is intellectual unfairness. To be intellectually
unfair is to lack a sense of responsibility to represent accurately and fairly view-
points with which one disagrees. When we are intellectually unfair, we almost al-
ways see ourselves as right and just. Our unfair thoughts and actions typically
have an element of self-deception. We justify ourselves, rationalize our behavior,
convince ourselves that we are “right.”
19
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
20
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
21
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
N ame a person you think you know fairly well. Make two lists. In the first list, include
everything you know for sure about the person. In the second list, include everything you
know you don’t know about him or her. For example, “I know for sure that my grandmother
liked to cook, but I’m also sure that I never really understood what her fears and personal
desires were. I knew many superficial things about her, but about her inner self I knew little.”
Be prepared to back up what you claim with an explanation of your thinking.
I ntellectual humility involves the ability to distinguish between learning that is deep and
learning that is superficial. In this activity, we ask you to test your ability to do this. Think
of a course you completed in which you received a high or fairly high final grade. On a blank
sheet of paper, write and elaborate on, without consulting any sources, answers to the follow-
ing questions: What is (name of subject—for example, history, biology)? What is the main
goal of studying this subject? What are people in this field trying to accomplish? What kinds
of questions do they ask? What kinds of problems do they solve? What sorts of information or
data do they gather? How do they go about gathering information in ways that are distinctive to
this field? What is the most basic idea, concept, or theory in this field? How did studying this
field change your view of the world?
22
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
If you find it difficult to answer these questions, consider the hypothesis that you might
have received your high grade by cramming for tests or by some other means of superficial
learning. Are you able to identify the difference between what you have learned superficially
and what you have learned deeply?
23
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
mean questioning who we are as persons. The intensely personal fear we feel keeps
us from being fair to opposing beliefs. When we “consider” opposing ideas, we
subconsciously undermine them, presenting them in their weakest forms so we can
reject them. We need intellectual courage to overcome self-created inner fear—the
fear we ourselves have created by linking our identity to a specific set of beliefs.
Another important reason to acquire intellectual courage is to overcome the
fear of rejection by others because they hold certain beliefs and are likely to reject
us if we challenge those beliefs. This is where we invest others with the
The best thinkers do not power to intimidate us. Many people judge themselves according to the
connect their identities to views of others and cannot approve of themselves unless others approve
their beliefs. of them. Fear of rejection often lurks in the back of their minds. Few
people challenge the ideologies or belief systems of the groups to which
they belong. This is the second form of intellectual cowardice. Both forms make it
impossible to consider either our own or others’ ideas fairly.
Instead of forming one’s identity according to one’s personal beliefs, it is far
better to define oneself according to the processes by which one formulates beliefs.
This is what it means to be a critical thinker. Consider the following resolution.
I will not identify with the content of any belief. I will identify only with the way I come to my
beliefs. I am a critical thinker and, as such, am willing to examine my beliefs and abandon any
that cannot be supported by evidence and rational considerations. I am ready to follow evidence
and reason wherever they lead. My true identity is that of being a critical thinker, a lifelong learn-
er, a person always looking to improve my thinking by becoming more reasonable in my beliefs.
When we refuse to connect our identity with our beliefs, we become more
intellectually courageous and, by implication, more fairminded. We are no longer
afraid to consider beliefs that are contrary to our present beliefs. We are
The best thinkers follow
not afraid to be proven wrong. We freely admit to having made mistakes in
evidence and reason the past. We are happy to correct any mistakes we are still making: “Tell me
wherever they lead. what you believe and why you believe it, and maybe I can learn from your
thinking. I have cast off many early beliefs. I am ready to abandon any and
all of my present beliefs that are not consistent with the way things are.” Given this
definition, how many people do you know who have intellectual courage?
S elect one group to which you belong. Complete the following statements:
1. One main belief common to members of this group that might be questioned is . . .
(here you want to identify at least one belief that may lead group members to behave
irrationally)
24
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
INTELLECTUAL COURAGE II
T ry to think of a circumstance in which either you or someone you know defended a view
that was unpopular in a group to which you belonged. Describe the circumstances and,
especially, how the group responded. If you can’t think of an example, what is the significance
of that realization?
25
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
within the viewpoint of others is not easy, though. It is one of the most difficult
skills to acquire.
To develop your ability to empathize with others intellectually, practice using
the following strategies:
1. During a disagreement with someone, switch roles. Tell the person, “I will
speak from your viewpoint for 10 minutes if you will speak from mine. This
way, perhaps we can understand one another better.” Make sure you are
representing one another’s viewpoint accurately.
2. During a discussion, summarize what another person is saying, using
this structure: “What I understand you to be saying is ______. Is this
correct?”
3. When reading, say to yourself what you think the author is saying. This will
enable you to bring ideas concretely into your mind so you then can think
accurately within the author’s viewpoint. Only then are you in a position to
critique the author’s viewpoint.
T ry to reconstruct in your mind the last argument you had with someone (friend, parent,
intimate other, supervisor). Reconstruct the argument from your perspective as well as
from that of the other person. Complete the statements below. As you do, take care that you
do not distort the other person’s viewpoint. Try to enter it in good faith, even if it means you
have to admit you were wrong. (Remember that critical thinkers want to see the truth in the
situation.) After you have completed this assignment, show it to the person you argued with to
see whether you have represented that person’s view accurately.
1. My perspective was as follows (state and elaborate your view in detail):
2. The other person’s view was as follows (state and elaborate the other person’s view
in detail):
INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY II
T hink of an international political leader who is represented negatively in the news (for
example, Castro in Cuba). Gather enough information about that person to be able to
explain how he or she might defend himself or herself against the charges made in character-
izing that person as “evil.” Then ask yourself if you have ever seriously considered the pos-
sibility that any of the “enemies” of the United States might be more justified in opposing
us than we are in opposing them. If you have never heard the defense of a national “enemy”
from that person’s point of view, how might that affect your ability to empathize with that
person?
26
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
Intellectual integrity means striving to be true to one’s own disciplined thinking and holding
oneself to the same standards that one expects others to meet. For example, it involves holding
oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one’s antago-
nists. It means practicing daily what one advocates for others. It requires honestly admitting
discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action and identifying inconsisten-
cies within one’s thinking.
27
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
America) how to torture prisoners to get them to disclose information about their
associates. To appreciate how such disclosures reveal hypocrisy, we have only to
imagine how we would respond if another nation were to attempt to assassinate
our president or train American police or military in methods of torture. Once
we imagine this, we recognize a basic inconsistency in our behavior and a lack of
intellectual integrity on the part of those who plan, engage in, or approve of this
kind of behavior.
All humans sometimes fail to act with intellectual integrity. When we do, we
reveal a lack of fairmindedness on our part, and a failure to think well enough to
detect internal contradictions in our thought or life.
D iscuss a dimension of your life that you suspect holds some inconsistencies or contradic-
tions (where you probably are not holding yourself to the same standard to which you
hold someone else). Think of a situation in which your behavior contradicts what you say
you believe. This might be in an intimate relationship, for example. Complete the following
statements:
1. The context within which I fail to have intellectual integrity is . . .
2. In this context, I would (or do) expect others to behave as follows (though I am not willing
to behave in the same way myself) . . .
3. The reason I fail to have intellectual integrity in this situation is . . .
4. To change this situation, I need to . . .
28
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
Intellectually quick students are often the same students who give up when
the intellectual task becomes difficult. They see themselves as capable of getting
the “right” answer quickly and without intellectual pain. When the “right” answer
does not come immediately and painlessly, they frequently blame the teacher
for giving a “dumb assignment.” Indeed, these students often fail to recognize
that every question doesn’t have a “right” answer; some instead have only better
and worse answers, and there is no effective way to work through these complex
questions simply and easily.
How does a lack of intellectual perseverance impede fairmindedness?
Understanding the views of others requires intellectual work. It requires intel-
lectual perseverance—insofar as those views differ from ours or are complex in
nature. If we are unable or unwilling to work through the views of others, to con-
sider the information they use and how they interpret that information, to look
closely at their beliefs and analyze those beliefs for ourselves, to understand what
29
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
they are trying to accomplish and how they see the world, we will not be able to
think fairly within their viewpoint.
For example, suppose we are Christians wanting to be fair to the views of
atheists. Unless we read and understand the reasoning of intelligent and insight-
ful atheists, we cannot be fair to those views. Some intelligent and insightful athe-
ists have written books to explain how and why they think as they do. Some of
their reasoning is complicated or deals with complex issues. It follows that only
those Christians who have the intellectual perseverance to read and understand
atheists can be fair to atheist views. Of course, a parallel case could be made for
atheists’ understanding the views of intelligent and insightful Christians.
M ost people have much more physical perseverance than intellectual perseverance. On the
one hand, most are ready to admit “No pain, no gain!” when talking about the body. On
the other hand, most give up quickly when faced with a frustrating intellectual problem. Think-
ing of your own responses, especially in classes, how would you evaluate your own intellectual
perseverance (on a scale of 0–10)? Explain to a classmate how you would support your score.
On what do you base your conclusion?
30
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.