Critical and Analytical Thinking Is Vital to Find Truth In a World of Dis-information

by

       M. Richard Maxson

       My family delights in pointing out times when I make really dumb mistakes. What does it mean to be intelligent? The most widely known measure of intelligence is the intelligence quotient, more commonly known as the IQ test, which includes visuospatial puzzles, math problems, pattern recognition, vocabulary questions and visual searches. The advantages of being intelligent are undeniable. Given all the advantages of intelligence though you may be surprised to learn that several large-scale studies have failed to find evidence that IQ impacts life satisfaction. This requires more than intelligence. 

      The ability to think critically has been associated with wellness and longevity. Though often confused with intelligence, critical thinking is not intelligence. We all probably know someone who is intelligent but does surprisingly stupid things. Is it better to be a critical thinker or to be intelligent? The latest research pitted critical thinking and intelligence against each other to see which was associated with fewer negative life events. People who were strong on either intelligence or critical thinking experienced fewer negative events, but critical thinkers did better.

      Critical thinking is a collection of cognitive skills that allow us to think rationally in a goal-orientated fashion and a disposition to use those skills when appropriate. Critical thinkers are amiable skeptics. They are flexible thinkers who require evidence to support their beliefs and recognize fallacious attempts to persuade them. Critical thinking means overcoming all kinds of cognitive biases (for instance, hindsight bias or confirmation bias). Critical thinking predicts a wide range of life events.

      We everyone to complete an inventory of life events and take a critical thinking assessment (the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment). The critical thinking assessment measures five components of critical thinking skills, including verbal reasoning, argument analysis, hypothesis testing, probability and uncertainty, decision-making and problem-solving. Critical thinking is necessary for having strong analytical skills.

      You use analytical skills when detecting patterns, brainstorming, observing, interpreting data, integrating new information, theorizing, and making decisions based on multiple factors and options available. You must learn more about a problem before solving it. You will have to first collect data or information before analyzing it. Therefore, an important analytical skill is being able to collect data and research a topic.

      We, at the American Constitutionalist, have repeatedly called on you to use both critical and analytical thinking in attempting to circumvent agendas and find real truth in our world. There is a difference between to two. Analytical thinking describes a thinking style that enables a person to break down complex information or a series of comprehensive data. It uses a step-by-step method to analyze a problem and then come to an answer or solution. In essence, analytical thinking represents a cause and effect style of looking at a problem, and is sometimes referred to as perceiving something through multiple lenses or looking at something from different points of view. Critical thinking has to do with evaluating information that is fed to you, and determining how to interpret it, what to believe and whether something appears to be right or wrong. Critical thinking also takes outside information into account during the thought process. Rather than sticking strictly with the information presented, critical thinking lets the thinker explore other elements that could be of influence.

      Combining the two you get critical/analytical thinking. The purposes of critical thinking and analytical thinking are not the same. You do not employ critical thinking strategies to figure out the solution to a complex question or to problem-solve. Rather, analytical thinking is used for this purpose. However, you would not use analytical thinking if your main goal was to come up with a belief or perception about something. In this case, you would use critical thinking methods.

       Using this technique is critical for finding truth in what you read, see, or hear in a world fraught with agenda driven news and subtle propaganda. In critical thinking you attack the information to see if it stands up to extreme scrutiny. Then, using analytical thinking, you use the facts facts to build on information and support evidence that leads to a logical conclusion. Let us use an example on how this technique works. You read a news story and start to decipher it.

1. Is it true?

      Consider everything to be false. Then look at facts, but be aware that those facts be used for different purposes.

2. Are the quotes accurate or are they taken out of context?

      Examine the entirety of the remark.

3. Is there an agenda?

      Is there a history of the source slanting or omitting items? You use analytical skills when detecting patterns.

      Reaching your conclusions and finding real truth may bring you into conflict with those who read, hear, or see something and take it at face value and parrot it rather than using their intellect to reach their own conclusions. It is vital to everyone's mental health and happiness in life to find real truth. Repeatedly, we found that critical and analytical thinkers experience fewer negative life events. This is an important finding because there is plenty of evidence that critical thinking can be taught and improved with training, and the benefits have been shown to persist over time. Anyone can improve their critical thinking skills. Doing so, we can say with certainty, is a smart thing to do.

These are the keys:

  1. Gather relevant information

  2. Focus on facts and evidence

  3. Examine chunks of data or information

  4. Identify key issues

  5. Use logic and reasoning to process information

  6. Separate more complex information into simpler parts

  7. Sub-divide information into manageable sizes

  8. Find patterns and recognizing trends

  9. Identify cause and effect

10. Understand the connections and relationships

11. Eliminate the extraneous information

12. Organize the Information

13. Then draw your appropriate conclusions

The First American Spies

By

       M. Richard Maxson

      In the fall of 1774, Paul Revere founded one of the first spy rings in America, the Mechanics, to keep track of British troop movements. Many years later Revere recalled that

“in the Fall of 1774 and Winter of 1775, I was one of upwards of thirty, chiefly mechanics, who formed ourselves into a committee for the purpose of watching the movements of the British soldiers, and gaining every intelligence of the movements of the Tories. We held our meetings at the Green Dragon Tavern.” Unbeknownst to them the Mechanics were eventually infiltrated by a British spy working for General Thomas Gage. Although Revere never discovered the identity of the spy at the time, it was later revealed to be Dr. Benjamin Church. He gave information to the British on where they could find the rebels, their plans, and their arms stash. They sent the troops.

      His group had been compromised and on the evening of April 18^th 1775, multiple riders, including Paul Revere, went by horseback from Charleston, just outside Boston, to Lexington to warn of the British troop movements that were coming to take into custody leaders of the American rebellion. They were coming to seize the weapons stores in Concord and to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Revere and William Dawes were met en route by Samuel Prescott. After passing through Lexington the three rode towards Concord but they were stopped by British troops. Dawes and Prescott escaped, but Revere was detained and questioned. This is his own account - “When we had got about half way from Lexington to Concord, the other two stopped at a house to awake the men, I kept along. When I had got about 200 yards ahead of them, I saw two officers as before. I called to my company to come up, saying here was two of them, (for I had told them what Mr. Devens told me, and of my being stopped). In an instant I saw four of them, who rode up to me with their pistols in their bands, said ”G—d d—n you, stop. If you go an inch further, you are a dead man.” Immediately Mr. Prescot came up. We attempted to get through them, but they kept before us, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out, (they had placed themselves opposite to a pair of bars, and had taken the bars down). They forced us in. When we had got in, Mr. Prescot said ”Put on!” He took to the left, I to the right towards a wood at the bottom of the pasture, intending, when I gained that, to jump my horse and run afoot. Just as I reached it, out started six officers, seized my bridle, put their pistols to my breast, ordered me to dismount, which I did. One of them, who appeared to have the command there, and much of a gentleman, asked me where I came from; I told him. He asked what time I left. I told him, he seemed surprised, said ”Sir, may I crave your name?” I answered ”My name is Revere. ”What” said he, ”Paul Revere”? I answered ”Yes.” The others abused much; but he told me not to be afraid, no one should hurt me. I told him they would miss their aim. He said they should not, they were only waiting for some deserters they expected down the road. I told him I knew better, I knew what they were after; that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were caught aground, and I should have 500 men there soon. One of them said they had 1500 coming; he seemed surprised and rode off into the road, and informed them who took me, they came down immediately on a full gallop. One of them (whom I since learned was Major Mitchel of the 5th Reg.) clapped his pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, and made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid.”

      Then escorted by gunpoint by three British officers back to Lexington. In the scuffle, Dawes lost his horse. Of the three riders only Prescott arrived in Concord in time to warn the militia there. The next morning was the iconic “Shot Head around the World.” That phrase comes from the opening stanza of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Concord Hymn" (1837) and refers to the first shot of the American Revolution at the Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, where the first British soldiers fell in the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Historically, no single shot can be cited as the first shot of the battle or the war. Shots were fired earlier that day at Lexington, Massachusetts, where eight Americans were killed and a British soldier was slightly wounded, but accounts of that event are confused and contradictory. The North Bridge skirmish did see the first shots by Americans acting under orders, the first organized volley by Americans, the first British fatalities, and the first British retreat. 

      The towns of Lexington and Concord have debated over the point of origin for the Revolutionary War since 1824, when the Marquis de Lafayette visited the towns. He was welcomed to Lexington hearing it described as the "birthplace of American liberty", but he was then informed in Concord that the "first forcible resistance" was made there. The debate continues to this day.

A National Lock-down is Un-Constitutional

By

       M. Richard Maxson

      During the world’s current crisis there are calls from one side of the political spectrum for the federal government to “do something.” The are constant criticisms of the national plan or lack thereof from the executive branch. The Left seems to forget that this nation is a federal republic, a federation of states with a republican form of government. The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Federal government. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;

3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court;

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money;

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;

8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.

      Those are the only prerogatives of the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. “Reserved to the states” is the key phrase here. The Federal government is not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states. The Constitution gives the federal government (i.e. the President and the Congress) very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated. The states are required to be republics (Article IV, Section 4) and were independent of the federal government except for the powers given it listed in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18.

      On the whole, the Constitution is a marvel of principles and restraint, a unique compass designed to keep the nation both pointed in the right direction and stable in the face of unknowable change in the future. The Constitution was so well designed, as written, in solving controversies or problems. Reading and understanding it you quickly discovered that there were no issues that could not be resolved. The overall principle of free government and the Constitution as written is to never elevate to a higher level that which can be resolved at a lesser level. Problem solving should begin with the individual and proceed in sequence from him to the family, city, county, and state and elevated only if a lower level of government could not do it. This is why the President, during this crisis, has been encouraging more state involvement. Federal involvement in our lives is supposed to be minimal. During this crisis, under the Constitution, he is just about at the limits of his powers.

      Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans. The advantages of federalism are enormous. States serve as laboratories of experimentation. States look to sister states for models and borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation benefit everyone.

      In the case of the coronavirus, the federal government, led by President Trump, controls the border under common defense—those coming in. He used his authority almost immediately as the threat appeared on the horizon. Regardless of what many may want, President Trump is not constitutionally empowered to mandate national behavior. Constitutionally states have borders and manage themselves. Taxing powers enable them to fund anything they wish and governors have broad powers to experiment, or not, on different solutions.

      Under Federalism, states individually have the responsibility to be prepared for emergencies and have in place their own programs of assistance and funding. Ronald Reagan said it best during his First Inaugural Address: “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.”

A Democrat Finds True Patriotism

by

       Zeno Potas*

      I think those of us on the left need to take a long look in the mirror and have an honest conversation about what’s going on. I was active part of the Democratic Party apparatus during the first decade of this century. I was one of those Democrats who considered anyone who voted for Trump a racist. I thought they were horrible (yes, even deplorable) and worked very hard to eliminate their voices from my social media by unfriending or blocking people who spoke about their support of him, however minor their comments. I was too influenced by the news media and the books and articles I had read over the years. I watched a lot of MSNBC, was convinced that everything he had done was horrible, that he hated anyone who wasn’t a straight white man, and that he had no redeeming qualities.

      During the early years of the Obama administration I saw firsthand how the optimism and hope that brought Obama to office soon began to turn to resentful hatred of conservatives and worsened as time went on. Nowadays this new visceral hostility has led many on the left to paint even the most mundane policy action by Republicans as “racist” or “killing people.” This was a standard liberal talking point. I’ve seen almost every Democratic candidate in person and noticed that their messages were almost universally one of doom and gloom, not only focusing on the obvious disagreements with Donald Trump, but also making sure to emphasize that the country is a horribly racist place.

      When I stopped to take note of the sheer magnitude of hate coming from the left, I started to question everything. I started making a proactive effort to break my echo chamber by listening to voices I thought I would disagree with. I wanted to understand their perspective, believing it would confirm that they were filled with hate for anyone who wasn’t like them. That turned out not to be the case. The more voices outside the left that I listened to, the more I realized that these were not bad people. They were not racists, nazis, or white supremacists. We had differences of opinions on social and economic issues, but a difference of opinion does not make your opponent inherently evil. And they could justify their opinions using arguments, rather than the shouting and ranting I saw coming from my side of the aisle.

      I started to question everything. How many stories had I been sold that weren’t true? I had heard about #WalkAway movement but MSNBC told me it was fake and a bunch of Russian bots. What if my perception of the other side is wrong? I started to meet real people who had been Democrats and made the decision to leave because they could not stand the way the left was behaving.

      How is it possible that half the country is overtly racist? I watched town halls they held with different minority communities and I saw sane, rational discussion from people of all different races, backgrounds, orientations, and experiences. I joined the Facebook group for the community and saw stories popping up daily of people sharing why they are leaving the Democratic Party. This wasn’t fake. These people are not Russian bots. Moreover, it felt like a breath of fresh air. There was not universal agreement in this group — some were Trump supporters, some weren’t — but they talked and shared their perspective without shouting or rage or trying to cancel each other.

      So, I had to ask myself the biggest question of all and it was this: Was it possible that Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing, and had I been suffering from it for the past three years? Did I hate Trump so much that I wanted to see my country fail just to spite him and everyone who voted for him?

      I have gotten away from the pablum of the party and it's supporting media. I have opened my eyes to critical/analytical thinking and have come to a rational conclusion. The Democratic Party I see today is very different from the one I knew and worked for in my younger years. It is not the party of hope, it is the party of negativity. Instead of seeking support from the center of the political spectrum it has moved ever leftward, embracing positions that leave millions of Americans feeling left out.

      I no longer want to be as negative, support rioting and violence, be disrespectful, pretend to be patriotic while subverting the laws of the land, protect illegal criminal immigrants, and support Democrats, who I helped elect to Congress, who are not working for the people but are working for their own personal gains. If they really cared about the people, they would try to work with the Republicans and help make America great again. I am not surprised by the negative response President Trump has received when he asks for unity for the American people - it is expected from the Democrats as they continue to destroy themselves.

       It took 36 years for me to see through the Democratic mystique of what the Republican Party is. As the late Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

*As told to the American Constitutionalist