Critical Thinking

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive congruence or consonance are the terms used to describe when alignment exists between what you think and believe, and what you say and do. When cognitive congruence exists, you will be able to commit fully to whatever task, activity, or relationship you are involved in. This differs from cognitive dissonance which exists when your thoughts, beliefs, speech, and actions are at odds with each other.

Cognitive dissonance tends to occur when you hold two contradictory but related beliefs or cognitions, at the same time and is characterised as the ‘discomfort’ felt due to this misalignment.

Cognitive dissonance is not a disease or illness. It is a psychological condition that can happen to anyone. American psychologist Leon Festinger first developed the concept in the 1950s.

Anecdotally, cognitive dissonance occurs much more frequently than you might imagine, especially when individuals feel compelled to support things they really don’t believe in and disagree with. This can be the case in their work, in law, in religion, or even as part of a group they belong to.

An obvious example of cognitive dissonance is when someone works out to maintain their health, yet smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol knowing these products pose serious negative health consequences. A less obvious example is someone who wants to save the planet from climate change yet frequently flies to conferences in highly polluting aircraft.

What causes cognitive dissonance?

We all have our own values, beliefs, and heuristics, many of which form when we are very young and may be inherited from our parents or learned at school or from our peers. Our experiences, our culture, and even when we grew up all contribute to who we are, what we believe, and how we feel about certain issues. Cognitive dissonance can be caused by the actual or perceived need to act in a way, or agree with an ideology or decision, that does not align with our embedded beliefs or values.

When cognitive dissonance occurs, you feel torn between what you believe and what you have to do or say, and how you have to act. For example, you may be responsible for implementing guidelines or policies you do not believe in, or agree with, due to it being your job, due to peer pressure and group-think, or the fear of the punitive ramifications of speaking out. It could be that you need to abide by policies, rules, and laws, for fear of being punished, losing your job, or in today’s society, being de-platformed or cancelled.

Silently coping with your cognitive dissonance is a burden that can literally drive you to distraction and cause you quite a bit of mental anguish. Keeping your dissenting views bottled up and to yourself allows them to fester and gain weight beyond their metaphoric mass. They can cause you to become tainted, disaffected, and disengaged. They can affect your behaviour and performance and cause you to act out, particularly when your beliefs are being directly challenged and you’re under stress. The turmoil caused by your internal conflict can push you to snap and lash out at the situation, the system, or even an individual.

What can you do to overcome the internal turmoil and discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance?

First, you can acknowledge your feelings and internal conflict. Next, you need to recognise what’s causing the conflict, and why you feel strongly opposed to whatever is causing it. Then you can determine what options are available to you. Ideally, at this stage, it’s wise to fully discuss your dilemma and preferred option(s) with a trusted confidant or possibly even a professional such as a psychologist. You are then best equipped to decide how to deal with your internal struggle.

Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox, was first penned by Professor Jerry B. Harvey in 1974 in an article entitled “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement”. Much later, in 1988 Prof Harvey published a book on the topic entitled “The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management”.

The Abilene Paradox describes a group of people who collectively decide to take a trip from their home in Coleman, Texas to Abilene, some 53 miles away, to partake in a meal at a quaint local diner The premise of the paradox is that in agreeing to act on the idea and take the trip, put them on a course of action that was counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group.

The following passage is taken from Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, pp. 17–43. © 1988 by the American Management Association, New York – All rights reserved; and was reprinted with permission, by the Aspin Institute.

“The July afternoon in Coleman, Texas (population 5,607) was particularly hot— 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen’s Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, the wind was blowing fine-grained West Texas topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable—even potentially enjoyable. There was a fan going on the back porch; there was cold lemonade; and finally, there was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the conditions. The game required little more physical exertion than an occasional mumbled comment, “Shuffle ‘em,” and an unhurried movement of the arm to place the spots in the appropriate perspective on the table.
All in all, it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday afternoon in Coleman—this is, it was until my father-in-law suddenly said, “Let’s get in the car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the cafeteria.” I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?” But my wife chimed in with, “Sounds like a great idea. I’d like to go. How about you, Jerry?” Since my own preferences were obviously out of step with the rest I replied, “Sounds good to me,” and added, “I just hope your mother wants to go.” “Of course I want to go,” said my mother-in-law. “I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”
So into the car and off to Abilene we went. My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of dust that was cemented with perspiration by the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials.
Some four hours and 106 miles later we returned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Then, both to be sociable and to break the silence, I said, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law said, with some irritation, “Well, to tell the truth, I really didn’t enjoy it much and would rather have stayed here. I just went along because the three of you were so enthusiastic about going. I wouldn’t have gone if you all hadn’t pressured me into it.”
I couldn’t believe it. “What do you mean ‘you all’?” I said. “Don’t put me in the ‘you all’ group. I was delighted to be doing what we were doing. I didn’t want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you. You’re the culprits.” My wife looked shocked. “Don’t call me a culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the ones who wanted to go. I just went along to be sociable and to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat like that.”
Her father entered the conversation abruptly. “Hell!” he said. He proceeded to expand on what was already absolutely clear. “Listen, I never wanted to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play another game of dominoes and eat the leftovers in the icebox.”

What the Abilene Paradox highlights is an almost universal feeling of needing to propose ideas thought to be desired by others, which are then agreed with, to “not rock the boat”.

This Abilene Paradox seems to play out regularly today by a libertarian society laser focussed on innovation and change, encouraged by a mainstream who desire harmony and are opposed to confrontation. The result is bad ideas supported by people who oppose them but do not feel empowered to speak up for fear of being at odds with the group and needing to back their conviction, possibly through confrontation and debate.

The Abilene Paradox highlights what can happen in business when there is an inability to manage agreement rather than conflict. Couple this with a lack of psychological safety to speak your mind and today’s regression of freedom of speech and this is once again the single most pressing issue facing modern organisations.

Knowing about the Abilene Paradox and that it is prevalent in many group discussions ranging from the example above to the board room and even social and political reform, will hopefully allow you to empathise with others and feel what they feel. While you can never truly know another’s mind, you should always feel empowered to authentically express how you feel without fear of offending others or of their potential ridicule, knowing they are possibly more in agreement with your view than you think.

What is Critical Thinking?

The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Critical thinking is the ability to consistently apply sound judgment based on reliable information for the purpose of making good decisions. The best way to think about critical thinking is that it’s the type of thinking that should be applied to solving complex, complicated, and ‘wicked’ problems where finding the best solution is critical to success.

Before deep-diving into Critical Thinking, it’s useful to understand that there are other forms of thinking, the application of which are often more appropriate than critical thinking. This is because critical thinking is more difficult than non-critical thinking, can require significant research and time, and is often not warranted as the problems being solved are simple and their solutions are of little consequence. For example, you wouldn’t normally use critical thinking to help you decide whether you should choose coffee or tea for your morning beverage. The effort-to-reward ratio doesn’t stack up.

Some other forms of thinking include automatic thinking, which is often based on heuristics and applied to simple, everyday decision-making tasks such as coffee vs tea. Automatic thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘system one thinking’ thanks to the success of Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’. Other forms of thinking include analytical, design, systems, creative, abstract, and convergent and divergent thinking. These are all valid forms of thinking that when applied in the right circumstance help to inform decisions.

Critical thinking is a process-oriented approach to thinking that can help almost anyone be better at solving problems, rendering judgments, and making good decisions.

In simple terms, Critical thinking is a three-step process involving clarity, conclusion, and decision.

Critical thinking cannot, however, make you smarter as your innate Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is relatively fixed. Critical thinking can, however, help you to form better conclusions and make better decisions, maximising your mental capability and capacity which results in far better outcomes attributed to you. Consistently applying critical thinking to solve complex problems can be your superpower that allows you to surpass those with higher IQs who do not apply the critical thinking process, resulting in less consistent outcomes.

Before we delve into finding clarity, drawing conclusions, and making sound decisions, it’s important to understand logical reasoning.

Two kinds of logical reasoning are often distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence, and a rule or material condition that implies the conclusion given the precondition, one can explain the following.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. For example: “When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore; when it rains, the grass gets wet.” Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. For example: “The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains.” This type of reasoning is commonly associated with generalization from empirical evidence. While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning sometimes called inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. For example: “When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained.” This kind of reasoning can be used to develop a hypothesis, which in turn can be tested by additional reasoning or data. Diagnosticians, detectives, and scientists often use this type of reasoning.

Within the context of a mathematical model, these three kinds of reasoning can be described as follows. The construction/creation of the structure of the model is abduction. Assigning values (or probability distributions) to the parameters of the model is induction. Executing/running the model is deduction.

There are numerous other forms of reasoning, however, for the purposes of getting started with critical thinking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning are the most widely used forms of reasoning and work to solve most problems. The image below details the basic steps involved in applying deductive and inductive reasoning to either validate a premise based on a sound conclusion or vice versa.

Almost all problems have some form of argument or premise that either validates the conclusion or is validated by the conclusion. We apply reasoning to validate the conclusion and/or premise. To help do this we can use a tool that can be remembered by the acronym FOEBA. FOEBA stands for Facts, Observations, Experiences, Beliefs, and Assumptions. We use FOEBA to perform research to help clarify the argument and ensure we have defined the problem correctly.

Facts

The facts of an argument contribute significantly to supporting or not supporting the premise and/or conclusion. It is important to perform sufficient research from a wide variety of sources to ensure you have all the relevant facts. You also need to ensure you understand the facts and how they apply in the context of the argument. Sometimes, facts can be difficult to find or prove for specific situations. This can be true for instances where the facts are unknown, some are missing, or they do not support a strong conclusion such as during an air crash investigation where the ‘black box’ failed.

Observations

Observations are useful in the absence of facts or when there are insufficient, known facts to fully support the argument. Using the crashed aircraft as an example, observing flames coming from one of its engines and flocks of albatross flying in the area might be a powerful observation that could contribute to solving the question of what happened. Equally, investigators’ observations at the crash site could help them establish that the aircraft hit a flock of albatross due to the presence of albatross feathers at the site.

Experience

Your experience and heuristics are very valuable assets as they are your firsthand account of similar situations and contribute to your knowledge, hence, your experience can also help you solve a problem. The closer your experience aligns with the problem you are trying to solve the more likely your experience will help. However, your experience can also lead you to make incorrect determinations as it is based on your past and the problem being solved may exist in the future where the situation is unknown. An example where your experience may be a powerful influence on you would be if you went to a restaurant and ended up with food poisoning. Your experience might cause you to conclude that eating in that same restaurant in the future will result in you getting sick again. You can see how this could be a biased presupposition based on your previous experience. Many changes may have occurred since you last ate at the restaurant, but I’ll bet you would find it hard to disagree with your experience and decide to eat there again in the future. The takeaway here is that your experience can have a positive or negative impact on your decisions so it’s always wise to understand this when using experience to help make decisions.

Beliefs

Like your experience, your beliefs can be a powerful influence on your decision-making. However, unlike your experience, your beliefs are much less likely to evolve over time and are much more likely to cause biases. Beliefs are established during your formative years and play a major role in your view of the world, circumstances, and situations and they can strongly influence your decisions. You only need to look through history to understand how people’s beliefs led to racist, homophobic, religious, and misogynistic policies and decisions that have resulted in mass oppression and wars. Having said that, belief in sound principles such as ‘fair play’, the proper uses of logical reasoning, and the truth of facts will likely be a positive influence on your decisions.

Assumptions

Solving complex and complicated problems is challenging. One of the main challenges is not having sufficient facts, observations or experiences, or beliefs to draw a valid conclusion. This is where assumptions can be used to fill the gaps in your hypotheses. Assumptions are thoughts you have that you presume to be correct. Based on your assumptions you can come to a conclusion. This is where you can fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are correct. When using critical thinking, you must always ask “how do I know my assumptions are correct”? The best approach to assumptions is to not make them without knowing how you arrived at them and if you cannot validate them.

The figure below shows the relationship between a premise, FOEBA, and the conclusion.

We hope this post has provided some valuable insights into the critical thinking process. Good luck incorporating critical thinking into your decision-making at work and in life more generally.

Locus of Control

If — by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Locus of Control

The world is not out to get you, in fact in the big scheme of things you really don’t matter at all. There are currently some 7.9 billion people on the planet which is more people than have existed throughout all time in history. Of this all most uncomprehendable number, there are only a few thousand notable individuals who have made their mark in the annals of history. Hence, it’s unlikely that very many of us will be shortlisted to notoriety. Most of us will not write a best seller, star in a block buster movie, be president of a country, a company or even a local football club, and most of us won’t retire wealthy with a holiday house in the Bahamas. In fact, for most of us, the best we can hope for is to live a rewarding life without suffering too many significant losses and to die at a ripe old aged surrounded by our loved ones.

But maybe the world is being unfair to us. Maybe if it just through us the occasional bone, or gave us a handout every so often, we would feel and do so much better and achieve so much more!

But the reality is the world doesn’t owe us anything, nor do any of the billions of other temporary occupants of the planet and to think otherwise is naive.

Quote by Mark Twain

“Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

So, should we just accept our fate and give up now, or to we get angry and rebel against the establishment, and demand to be given the same outcome as those few who we deem to be privileged?

Or is there an alternative to this drama. An alternative to why we feel so oppressed and victimised? And, if the world truly isn’t out to get us, are there things we can do to get ahead and arrest this feeling of victimisation.

Is it possible that our situation is not the result of an oppressive world, and that other people are struggling just as much as we are to get ahead and have the best life they can? Sure, the world is full of difficulties and prejudices, but is it possible that everyone is going through something, and you are not unique in how you feel?

What if your inability to succeed was all in your head? What if you are discriminating against yourself by believing you are unable to get a head because no matter how hard you try the world is against you? Do you think this mindset would be helpful or would it predispose you to think, feel and believe, it’s all hopeless and everything is out of your control?

If two equally qualified, competent people of the same age, race, gender, and orientation, interviewed for a job you would assume they would both have an equal chance of winning it, right?

Wrong. One of the biggest discriminators in this and many other situations in life is the mindset of the individuals. If one person believes that they have no control over the outcome and that it is solely upto others to decide if they are worthy, they will present with ‘tells’ that will be picked up upon; whereas, if the other person presents with confidence and a mindset that they are in control of their future this will also be evident and in a close competition will likely be the difference between being selected or not.

This is often best seen in sporting competitions where competitors are so closely matched that the result cannot be predetermined. In this scenario, it will almost always be the individual with the superior mindset who will win.

In life, we ultimately hit what we aim for. If our focus is on being victims, then that is what we will become. In 1954 Julian B. Rotter’s research identified what he called people’s Locus of Control. What he discovered was that those who believe they are in charge of their own destiny have what he referred to as an Internal Locus of Control, whereas those who believe that outside factors control their destiny have an External Locus of Control.

A person’s “locus” (place or location) is conceptualized as Internal, when they believe they can control their own life, or External, when they believe life is controlled by outside factors they can’t influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives.

Having an Internal Locus of Control, believing you set your own destiny, will allow you to focus your attention on succeeding rather than obsessing about the world being against you and ultimately leading you to failure.

Internals believe that their hard work will lead to positive outcomes. They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen, and it depends on them if they want to have control over them or not.

Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an External Locus of Control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control, and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, and the influence of others. They believe the world is too complex to predict, or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for the outcomes in their lives. People with an External Locus of Control also tend to be more stressed, neurotic, and prone to clinical depression.

This simple shift in mindset from an External Locus of Control to an Internal Locus of Control could make all the difference to how you live your life and therefore what you get back in return.

Believing you are in control of your own destiny comes with the added benefit of contributing to your general wellbeing and happiness and surely that alone is worth striving for.

Cognitive Dissonance

What causes cognitive dissonance?

What can you do to overcome the internal turmoil and discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance?

Abilene Paradox