“What we need to get rid of is critical thinking.” That statement made by Patrick Finn during a TedX speech nearly made me lose my lunch. Who says something like that? Who could possibly believe that it is logical and rational thought is a bad thing?
Well, Patrick Finn, a professor at the University of Calgary, characterizes critical thinking as “19th century” and “violent” thinking and equates critical thinkers to “angry monkeys.” If those statements alone aren’t cringe-worthy enough, watch his full TedX presentation for a few more shocking opinions.
What Finn proposes instead of critical thinking is “loving communication” where “hate” (i.e. criticism) is not allowed. If everyone listens to every idea and instead of disagreeing with an idea they say “yes, and…” then the best ideas will float to the top. Do you see where we’re going here? Yes, this is one more instance of someone who incorrectly believes that critical thinking and criticism are the same thing.
Before we dive further into Patrick Finn’s idea of “loving communication” concept let’s first define what Critical Thinking is and isn’t.
- Critical Thinking is actively thinking about the way that one thinks.
- Critical Thinking is not linear thinking.
- Critical Thinking is not negative thinking.
- Critical Thinkers question assumptions and implications.
- Critical Thinking is a structured mode of analyzing information.
- Critical Thinking does not seek to crush ideas.
- Critical Thinking requires analysis and observation.
- Critical Thinking is not hate-motivated.
- Critical Thinking is deep thinking.
- A Critical Thinker tests ideas to evaluate possible conclusions.
- A Critical Thinker is not closed-minded.
- A Critical Thinkers seeks out alternative options/viewpoints while gathering information.
- Critical Thinking is informed.
- Critical Thinking is not pessimistic thinking.
Does that clear things up?
Where Patrick Finn’s “Loving Communication” train derails is when he improperly defines the construct of Critical Thinking. Perhaps he did so on purpose. By saying “critical thinking” is 19th century, it definitely caught my eye much like I’m sure the title to this blog post did for you. We all try to catch our readers/viewers attention with outrageous statements from time to time. Patrick never actually says that rational thought is a bad thing, what he advocates is brainstorming. That’s it. His ground-breaking idea is that when we need new ideas we shouldn’t censor ourselves and we should build on each other’s ideas and be contributive.
Note: This is not ground-breaking. (Read my posts on creative thinking/brainstorming here and here).
But guess what, Patrick Finn? What do you do after all of the ideas are on the table? Do you compare ideas and evaluate which one is the best based on evidence, experience, implications, assumptions, arguments, and logic? How do you decide which ideas necessitate action? Critical thinking, maybe?
You see, creativity and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive concepts. They go hand-in-hand. They’re both necessary. Creative Thinking is the cheese to the Critical Thinking macaroni.
What I find really interesting is that Patrick Finn seems to believe that because his college course is popular, that means his idea is good. You know what else is popular among college students? Binge drinking. The most popular elective course when I was in college was one on Sex. Shocking, right? That class filled up within minutes each semester and people even sat in the aisles to listen to the lecture (and watch the videos) despite the fact that they weren’t officially enrolled. Here’s some critical thinking for you Patrick, popularity does not automatically imply quality or correctness.
Watch the video below and tell me what you think of the TedX presentation.
Editor’s Note: Breanne Harris is the Solutions Architect for Pearson TalentLens. She works with customers to design selection and development plans that incorporate critical thinking assessments and training. She has a Master’s degree in Organizational Psychology and has experience in recruiting, training, and HR consulting. She is the chief blogger for Critical Thinkers, Now You’re Thinking, and occasionally posts at ThinkWatson. Connect with her on LinkedIn and Twitter for more of her thoughts.
Did you know critical thinking was rated the NEW #1 workplace skill? Download our paper: 
Breanne, you make excellent points here as does Patrick Finn. Check out how attack tone (many call critical thinking) from educated commenters killed deeper discussion at a brain series on PBS recently. http://twurl.nl/zw8r2y Critical thinking – as we use it, is too often based on a very outmoded notion of what it means to be smart. Sadly it comes with horric results for truncating brilliant or shared thought-building.
What we are calling critical thinking too often rolls out as kill all that you do not understand or originate. In fact there are several sacred cows higher education teach that fit better into former times – if at all.
Patrick Finn pointed out what tis is critical to revisit and I have been writing about it for several years as part of the brain research here at Mita International Brain Center.
Here at Mita we suggest lateral thinking where folks disagree while at the same time building goodwill with those who disagree. We teach a tone skill that prevents cynicism that tosses into the mix and reduces innovative IQ. We teach how to engage opposing views and run with common ground that offers more mutual benefits.
ThanksBreanne for raising this discussion – with an openness to discuss issues in a civil way – to see (and learn from) angles we miss under the guns of attack and kill the other side.
Hi Ellen,
Thank you for your comment. I think you really highlight the true problem here- an inaccurate definition of critical thinking. Much like how Patrick Finn lumped together negativity, violence and critical thinking, you do the same when you equate “attack tone” and cynicism with critical thinking.
Critical Thinking does not have a tone. It is a mental process by which we analyze our thoughts, arguments, a situation, etc. Communication has a tone. A Critical Thinker can present an argument in a thoughtful/constructive way or in a snarky way. Snarkiness does not imply critical thinking, nor does critical thinking require snark.
What you (and Patrick Finn) appear to dislike is negative/non-productive communication. And I would agree with both of you in that respect. When we hear one another and respect each other’s ideas we respond more thoughtfully. That doesn’t mean “critical thinking” is outdated, violent, cynical, etc…that means we must learn better communication styles.
Good catch Breanne. Patrick Finn’s description of critical thinking is scary. It’s no wonder that he is against critical thinking, given his explanation of what critical thinking is. However, what he is promoting as his innovative idea is really at the the core of true critical thinking. That is, having openness to other points of view and pursuit of all of the facts you can gather that are related to your topic of interest, without prejudgement. The anger that he describes and the killing of alternate points of view is more accurately described as “egocentric thinking”, which is the antithesis of critical thinking. Unfortunately, universities are filled with skilled egocentric thinkers, and as Dr Finn describes they model a type of martial arts of the mind. But, that is not critical thinking as many of understand it.
Breanne, thanks for your comment, and we agree on several factors, especially that approaches can be defined differently. We also agree that what gets rolled out is what often departs from original intention of the critical thinking paradigm.
Perhaps it is time to step back and rethink dynamics about how we use tone, how we use shared thought, and how we question former processes of deep thinking – in light of new discoveries about how brains work.
Thanks for the way you facilitate ideas on the other side here, Breanne, because it often takes a wider diversity of input for innovative approaches to emerge beyond constraints that some see in how critical thinking too often rolls out.
It only makes sense to retink how we think, since we have redefined how the brain grows IQ. Great discussion – and a critical one for the coming era. So glad you raised it.