Written by: Dr. Jennifer Dean-Hill
Politics, religion, and money are the three taboo subjects to discuss at a party. Reason being? No one thinks critically or fairly about any of those subjects because the passion for their view often replaces all reason. Richard Paul and Linda Elder, authors of Critical Thinking: Concepts & Tools says, “Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or interest.” There is something about these three topics that can hijack the best parties because people seem to throw out all critical thinking skills and lose the fairness of considering another’s perspective.
As I write this, the presidential debate is airing and I am reminded of the lack of fairness being displayed by either candidate as they use persuasive tactics to solicit votes from their audience. It’s as if they have lost all critical thinking skills and the fairness to consider each other’s perspective is of no concern. I wonder what the debates would be like if each candidate drew on the principles Paul and Elder promotes for critical thinking? It’s as if character assassinations are the goal of the debates along with confusing the opposing candidate with a flurry of responses, antics, and interruptions that do not create the coveted clarity needed for a fair debate to take place. When clarity is replaced with confusion…accuracy, precision, depth, relevance, logic and fairness cannot take root.
Clarity is the fertile soil in which a rich conversation can grow and bloom into something we can all relate and connect with as we enjoy developing our understanding. Our energies can go into building and developing instead of attacking and defending, as we allow critical thinking to guide our interactions with one another.
For critical thinking to take place, I was reminded of how important it is to have intellectual development and restraint. Elder gained my admiration and respect when she introduced the two word combinations that captivated my attention and peaked my interest: intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual autonomy, intellectual integrity, and intellectual perseverance. Strong words individually but when combined, presented such a powerful way of thinking and interacting. Again, I cannot help but reference the debates. I would watch in fascination and admiration if the candidates could reflect intellectual humility, where one doesn’t claim to know more than they know. Or intellectual courage, where one can honestly and openly face and fairly address concerns. They would inspire me to participate and use my critical thinking skills instead of watching in horror as I cringe at the immature interactions lacking of intellectual substance. I am confused and bothered by the interactions, and I find myself psychoanalyzing them more than participating in their debate.
Although it is ill-advised to discuss those three taboo party subjects, I find myself secretly longing to participate in a constructive, critical discussion to see if all participants can stay respectful, objective and fair in presenting our perspectives. Passion can easily dismiss critical thinking skills thus soliciting chaotic, biased communication. The next time you find yourself at a party and those cringe-worthy topics come up, practice trying a little intellectual empathy and intellectual humility to prevent unpleasant outbursts. Then switch the topics as quickly as possible to get back to that neutral ground. Avoiding an unnecessary fight is also fair fighting.
Similar to the three party taboo subjects, it reminds me of the three main subjects couples fight about, providing job security for therapists: money, sex, and in-laws. Usually one or all of these subjects can bring the fire and passion out in each person that makes a constructive conversation challenging. Sometimes resolution might be more simply resolved with a mediator.
What would our marriages, families, politics be like if we can fight with more intelligence? We can learn to resolve by using healthy critical thinking skills instead of trying to win an argument or defend our perspective. There is a way to fight fairly. We just have to learn it, then choose it. Applying some intelligence to conflictive topics can get the couple out of egocentric thinking and into respecting each other’s perspectives. But what can be done for our presidential candidates? That’s above my pay grade.
