Critical Thinking 4 - Checklist for Students

ChatGPT

Here's a checklist of questions that students can follow when attempting a critical thinking question:

1. Understanding the Question:

• Have I fully understood the question and its requirements?
• Can I identify the key concepts and terms in the question?

2. Gathering Information:

• What relevant information or data is provided in the scenario or prompt?
• Do I need to research additional information to understand the context?

3. Identifying Assumptions and Biases:

• Are there any underlying assumptions in the question or scenario?
• Can I recognize potential biases in the information or sources provided?

4. Analyzing Arguments:

• What are the main arguments presented in the scenario?
• Are there any logical fallacies or weaknesses in the arguments?

5. Considering Multiple Perspectives:

• Have I considered various viewpoints on the issue or topic?
• What are the potential pros and cons of each perspective?

6. Evaluating Evidence:

• Is the evidence presented reliable, relevant, and sufficient?
• Can I verify the credibility of the sources mentioned?

7. Identifying Factors and Causes:

• What factors or causes contribute to the situation described?
• Are there underlying factors that might not be explicitly mentioned?

8. Recognizing Consequences:

• What are the potential short-term and long-term consequences of different decisions or actions?
• Can I anticipate unintended outcomes or effects?

9. Creative Problem-Solving:

• Can I generate innovative solutions to address the challenges presented?
• Have I considered alternative approaches beyond the obvious ones?

10. Ethical Considerations:

• Are there ethical dilemmas or considerations involved in the situation?
• How might different decisions impact various stakeholders?

11. Logical Reasoning:

• Is my line of reasoning logical and coherent throughout my response?
• Have I used valid deductive or inductive reasoning when applicable?

12. Applying Relevant Concepts:

• Have I applied relevant concepts, theories, or principles to support my analysis?
• Can I provide examples from real-world situations that relate to the scenario?

13. Constructing a Well-Structured Response:

• Is my response organized in a clear and structured manner?
• Do my paragraphs flow logically and connect to each other?

14. Considering Context and Timeframe:

• How does the historical, cultural, or social context impact the situation?
• Are there considerations related to short-term vs. long-term effects?

15. Reflection and Revision:

• Have I taken the time to reflect on my response before finalizing it?
• Can I identify areas where my response could be improved or clarified?

Encourage students to use this checklist as a guide to systematically approach critical thinking questions. Remind them that critical thinking is an ongoing skill that improves with practice and thoughtful engagement with the material.

Critical Thinking 3 - How to teach Critical Thinking

ChatGPT

Case Scenario:

The country of Prosperia has experienced consistent GDP growth over the past decade. However, despite this growth, concerns have arisen about whether the average citizen's standard of living, as measured by per capita income, has improved. The government is seeking to understand the dynamics between GDP growth and per capita income.

---


Here's a comprehensive list of exercises you can assign your students to enable a critical evaluation of the case involving the relationship between GDP growth and per capita income in Prosperia:

1. Analysis and Understanding: 

Read the case scenario and identify the key economic indicators involved (GDP growth and per capita income).
Define GDP growth and per capita income, explaining their significance in assessing a country's economic well-being.
Summarize the concerns raised in the case about the potential disparity between GDP growth and per capita income.

2. Questioning and Curiosity: 

List questions that arise from the case, such as "Why might per capita income not reflect GDP growth?" or "What factors could influence this discrepancy?"

3. Data Examination: 

Analyze the historical data provided on Prosperia's GDP growth and per capita income over the past decade.
Critically assess the reliability and sources of the economic data, discussing any limitations.

4. Bias and Assumptions: 

Discuss potential biases in how economic data is presented by the government, considering whether certain aspects might be highlighted or downplayed.

5. Factors Analysis: 

Identify and explain at least three potential factors that could contribute to the discrepancy between GDP growth and per capita income in Prosperia.
For each factor, discuss how it might influence the relationship between the two indicators.

6. Counterarguments and Differing Views: 

Prepare arguments supporting the idea that higher GDP growth doesn't necessarily lead to improved per capita income.
Prepare arguments against the above idea, emphasizing the positive relationship between GDP growth and per capita income.

7. Policy Solutions: 

Brainstorm and propose policy solutions that the government could consider to bridge the gap between GDP growth and per capita income, considering the identified factors.

8. Ethical Considerations: 

Discuss the ethical implications of prioritizing GDP growth over improving per capita income and citizens' well-being.

9. Data Analysis in Context: 

Analyze news articles or reports discussing similar cases in other countries, identifying any logical fallacies or biased claims related to GDP growth and per capita income.

10. Alternative Indicators: 

Research and propose alternative indicators beyond GDP and per capita income that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of citizens' well-being.

11. Reflective Discussion: 

Reflect on how your perspective on the relationship between GDP growth and per capita income has evolved throughout the case study.
Share insights gained about critical thinking in economic analysis and real-world policy decisions.

12. Final Research Paper: 

Compile all the exercises and insights into a comprehensive research paper that critically evaluates the relationship between GDP growth and per capita income in Prosperia, incorporating evidence, counterarguments, and ethical considerations.

Debunking the Myers-Briggs personality test

By Anthony Zurcher Editor, Echo Chambers 

The popular Myers-Briggs personality test is a joke, writes Vox's Joseph Stromberg. While it might be a fun way to pass the time, he says, it has about as much insight and validity as a Buzzfeed quiz.

The test, taken by an estimated 2 million people each year, has been around since the 1940s and is based on the observations of psychologist Carl Jung. Through a battery of 93 questions, it classifies test-takers into one of 16 personality types based on four sets of binary characteristics: introvert/extrovert, intuitive/sensory, feeling/thinking and judging/perceiving.

"Several analyses have shown the test is totally ineffective at predicting people's success in various jobs, and that about half of the people who take it twice get different results each time," Stromberg writes.

Stromberg says one of the key flaws to the test is that it relies on "limited binaries". Most humans, he says, fall along a spectrum and are not easily classified into opposite choices. People aren't exclusively extroverts or introverts - and where they fall on the spectrum can fluctuate widely based on how they are feeling at the moment.

Most psychologists have long since abandoned Myers-Briggs, if they ever gave it any credence at all, Stromberg continues.

Instead, he says, Myers-Briggs lives on as a revenue generator for CPP, the company that owns the rights to the test. It makes an estimated $20m (£11.6m) a year by charging people $15 to $40 to take the survey and certifying test administrators for $1,700.

Stromberg explains why people are willing to pay such a steep fee to get the official Myers-Briggs imprimatur:

"Once you have that title, you can sell your services as a career coach to both people looking for work and the thousands of major companies - such as McKinsey & Co., General Motors, and a reported 89 of the Fortune 100 - that use the test to separate employees and potential hires into 'types' and assign them appropriate training programs and responsibilities."

Even the US government, including the state department and the Central Intelligence Agency, uses Myers-Briggs - a waste of taxpayer money, Stromberg says.

He concludes:

"It's 2014. Thousands of professional psychologists have evaluated the century-old Myers-Briggs, found it to be inaccurate and arbitrary, and devised better systems for evaluating personality. Let's stop using this outdated measure - which has about as much scientific validity as your astrological sign - and move on to something else."

In a statement provided to the BBC, CPP president Jeffrey Hayes defends the test's validity.

"It's the world's most popular personality assessment largely because people find it useful and empowering, and much criticism of it stems from misunderstanding regarding its purpose and design," he says. "It is not, and was never intended to be predictive, and should never be used for hiring, screening or to dictate life decisions."

He says that organisations rely on the test "for its practical benefits in career development, conflict-handling, team building and leadership development".

Was the Petrol Price rigged too?

By Rowena Mason, Emma Rowley in The Telegraph

9:00PM BST 15 Jul 2012

Concerns are growing about the reliability of oil prices, after a report for the G20 found the market is wide open to “manipulation or distortion”.

Traders from banks, oil companies or hedge funds have an “incentive” to distort the market and are likely to try to report false prices, it said.

Politicians and fuel campaigners last night urged the Government to expand its inquiry into the Libor scandal to see whether oil prices have also been falsely pushed up.

They warned any efforts to rig the oil price would affect how much drivers pay at the pump, which soared to a record high of 137p per litre of unleaded earlier this year.

Robert Halfon, who led a group of 100 MPs calling for lower fuel prices, said the matter “needs to be looked at by the Bank of England urgently”

“We need to know whether the oil price has been manipulated in a similar way to Libor,” the MP for Harlow said. “This impacts on millions of people all round the country concerned about the price of petrol at the pumps.”

Petrol retailers use oil price “benchmarks” to decide how much to pay for future supplies.

The rate is calculated by data companies based on submissions from firms which trade oil on a daily basis – such as banks, hedge funds and energy companies.

However, like Libor – the interest rate measure that Barclays was earlier this month found to have rigged – the market is unregulated and relies on the honesty of the firms to submit accurate data about all their trades.

This is one of the major concerns raised in the G20 report, published last month by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).

In the study for global finance ministers, including George Osborne, the regulator warns that traders have opportunities to influence oil prices for their own profit.

It points out that the whole market is “voluntary”, meaning banks and energy companies can choose which trades to make public.

IOSCO says this “creates opportunity for a trader to submit a partial picture in order to influence the [price] to the trader’s advantage”.

In an earlier report, the regulator concluded: “It is open to companies to report only those deals that are in their own best interests for the rest of the market to see.”

The price reporting agencies, Platts and Argus, argue they employ journalists to weed out false data submitted by oil traders.

IOSCO says reporters are “well-aware that traders have an incentive to push the market one way or another and do not generally believe everything they are told”.

However it points out this system is heavily reliant on the “experience and training” of journalists to make a judgement about what the oil price should be.

Further alarm bells are being sounded by US regulators, who have already pointed out the rate-rigging scandal could spread to the oil market.

Scott O’Malia, a top official at the US Commodities Futures Commission, has drawn attention to the “striking similarity” between the potential for manipulating oil and Libor.

British regulators carrying out the Wheatley Review into the Libor scandal have this week signalled they will look into whether other markets were skewed.

Paul Tucker, the Bank of England’s deputy governor, told MPs that Barclays’ abuse of the Libor system may be only one part of the banks’ dishonesty over crucial financial information.

Politicians last night called on the Bank of England and the Government to take heed of IOSCO’S finding about the oil market to prevent another crisis of confidence in the banks.

Lord Oakeshott, the former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said the oil price system ought to be examined in the wake of the Libor scandal.

“Clearly it’s right we must shine a light on how other crucial benchmark prices are reported, especially when they affect the cost of living for millions of motorists,” he said.

Brian Madderson, chairman of the Petrol Retailers’ Association, also called for an investigation into the “alarming” conclusions of the G20 report.

“All the petrol retailers buy their products based on Platts prices,” he said. “If IOSCO thinks the price is open to manipulation it could well be and that would affect prices on the forecourts.”

Banks are also calling for reform of the oil price system, amid fears that it is open to abuse by a minority of traders.

Simon Lewis, chief executive of the Global Financial Markets Association, has raised concerns about the “opaque” way the oil price is worked out.

In a letter to IOSCO, he said price reporting agencies may not be as impartial as they claim, because they take fees from banks and oil companies to provide information.

“Incentives may arise to favour those who pay greater subscriber fees or provide greater access to market information,” he said.

Some experts, such as Raymond Learsy, a former commodities trader and author of Oil and Finance, have been warning for years that the oil market is open to corruption.

“Given how important Libor is, if that can be manipulated, then why can’t oil be manipulated?” he said. “The price lends itself to manipulation. The oil price is not a true reflection of supply and demand.”

The reporting agencies have hit back at claims their prices are open to distortion. In a joint statement, Platts and Argus said there are “fundamental differences” in the way Libor and oil prices are reported.

“Independent price reporting organisations are independent of and have no vested interest in the oil and energy markets,” they said. “Their ownership is transparent, and strict internal governance separates editorial and commercial functions. Independent price reporting organisations are not market participants, nor providers of transaction execution, clearing or settlement services.”

Platts added that there are four main differences between oil prices and Libor – the quality of its data, its independence, competition between reporting agencies and the transparency of its methodology.