I don't see much evidence of what I consider to be critical thinking. I think your ability to dismiss new information, adjusting your position only enough to accommodate it, inconsistent with someone who is thinking critically. I think your ability to hold a position while almost everyone disputes it also inconsistent as someone thinking critically is more likely to consider that they, rather than everyone else, is wrong.

I was asked at age 9 in 1978 what party I would vote for in the up coming general election. I remember being asked and, to my shame, I remember my answer. I don't think it was evidence of me thinking critically I do know when I was arrested at age 8 I knew what I was doing I also knew I'd done wrong before it being explained to me.

I've readily admitted to my kids that I'm as susceptible to biases as anyone else but that I'm aware of some of them and try to overcome them. I think that in itself is setting a good example.

My favourite quote at the moment is 'when in doubt, gather more data'. I think that's a great concept.

Of course I consider that I might be wrong, but I think this claim is a bit too general and non-specific to really mean anything because you don't know me IRL, you have a very small sample set in very limited context, and you have no idea how many posts I haven't made because doubts I have. I've been in the minority lots of times in my life and been proven right but I don't assume that means that I'm always right anymore than I assume that it should mean that I'm wrong if 'most' people disagree with me.

The context, the nature of the discussion, the number of people disagreeing with me and more importantly, their knowledge and the caliber of their intellect are all factors I take into account. I've got quite good at asking myself 'is it me?'.

Do you think 10 year olds should be given the vote and that adults should be allowed to influence their political views (i.e. tell them what is right and what is wrong)? If not, why not?

(This may seem like a leading question and to a point it is, because I think I've described the situation that occurs with religion and that I'm pointing out that the same behavior in a different context might be considered unacceptable.)

I'm speaking to the evidence I have available over a couple of thousand posts over 18 months or so, yeah it's a limited sample and I don't know you in person but it seems strange that someone who, I believe, demonstrates a lack of critical thinking here is a paragon of it elsewhere.

I don't think 10 year olds should vote though I'd be okay with reducing the age from 18.

As for whether I think adults should be allowed to influence kids views I don't know what you mean by allow. Consider the alternative how do you disallow a parent from telling their kids that there is a God or that David Cameron is a good PM, or that they should do their homework?

So the two (somewhat extreme) options are 'lack of critical thinking here' and 'paragon of it elsewhere'? ... At least I've learned to recognise a false dichotomy (also known as the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization) since I started posting here.

You have failed to recognise that I'm capable of critical thinking. I suspect that you're guilty of confirmation bias here.

Why shouldn't 10 year olds vote?

I retract the word 'allow, and substitute 'should it be considered acceptable'. It's not really a question of 'disallowing' it, since that wouldn't ever be possible I suspect. It's more an issue of highlighting that a type of behaviour is acceptable in one context and not in another, and I think that there's a double standard there.

Let me ask the question in a more direct way, do you think it acceptable for a parent to urge on a young child (under the age of 10 for example) a particular political philosophy as being 'right' where all others are wrong?

How often do posters you respect agree with you?

I am subject to confirmation and expectation bias, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It may be I've failed to recognise it because it hasn't been particularly clear.

Often. Those would be one of the types of threads that I tend not to get involved in that I mentioned earlier. If Zumby or Orp, for example, have made a post I agree with, or that supports a position that I hold, I generally don't think I'd be able to add anything useful so I stay out of it. I usually only post when I disagree with something, that's useful to me, agreeing isn't.

There's an awful lot of criticising me going on in this exchange and very little of you answering the questions I've asked you. If you're not interested in answering the questions and actually discussing the topic (instead of you attacking my 'critical thinking' stance by trying to prove that I'm not doing as I say) then perhaps you might just keep your criticisms to yourself because the balance is somewhat skewed and that's not very helpful. You think I'm guilty of mostly not thinking critically. Noted.

If you are interested in answering my questions, these are the ones I'd be interested to hear your opinion on:

Because you make claims regarding critical thinking and I think there's either a disconnect between how you post here and how your critical thinking manifests elsewhere or what you think critical thinking is and what I do.

I also didn't ask how often you agreed with posters you respect I asked how often they agreed with you. It's kinda easy to read what the smart posters here post and think yeah that's right, that may support your judgement but it doesn't support your claims to thinking critically. How often you construct an argument that gets the support of those posters may do.

I don't think those questions are particularly interesting. However, I don't think 10 year olds are mature enough to vote though I'm open to it being reduced to 16. I don't have a problem with a parent telling their kids that certain beliefs are right or wrong, dependent on the belief.

So I could tell my 10 year old that the Conservatives are the best party, that they're 'right' and that anyone who disagrees is is wrong and that they should become life long supporters of the Conservative party, but if they then tell you what I've just taught them to believe, you'd think that they're not mature enough to have that opinion? What make a child mature enough to hold such views, what are you looking for?

Or, you say that it's 'dependent on the belief'. What types of belief would be ok for a parent to convince their child of, and which ones wouldn't be ok?

That's just rude. You don't know if he is ugly.

I'm not looking for anything, I'm alright with you as a parent saying that despite me thinking you're wrong and I'm okay with the kid not being able to act on it till they are older.

I was delivering leaflets in the 1983 election fwiw I was 13.

There are other ways of teaching somebody what is right.

I think at least that you must be looking for 'maturity' since you said "I don't think 10 year olds are mature enough to vote". So what in your view makes a child 'mature' enough to hold a view on which political party they should affiliate themselves with? How are you identifying their level of 'maturity', or 'immaturity'?

To clarify, you're 'alright' with me urging on a child a belief that you don't think that they're mature enough to act on?

Parents try to teach their children concepts like "share" and "don't hit" far before the children are mature enough to make the connection to such concepts. Implicitly, those concepts are loaded with beliefs like "sharing is good" and "hitting is bad."

You urge on them the belief they should do there homework.

But you don't you don't make them believe they should do their homework you just make them do it.

Any age I give is going to be arbitrary and I'm waiting for you to tell me I don't understand because I'm not a parent, I'm not interested in your parenting I'm interested in whether you are consistent or display critical thinking and I've insufficient evidence to suggest you are/do either.

Increasingly, 21-24 year olds aren't mature enough to vote.

I could make some comment about it being adults that elected Reagan and Thatcher and we should probably give the 10-16's a chance.

I'm not asking for an age, I'm not interested in whether or not you're a parent and you're consistently failing to answer what I think are quite clear and straightforward questions.

We've established that you're looking for a maturity and that there's some relationship for you between the child's age, what a child has been told to believe and them acting on that belief, but I'm not getting anywhere trying to explore your views on those claims. Am I asking the wrong questions? Can you answer the ones below?

Wow... that's an awful and grotesquely incomplete definition. It's a good thing that that's only the first sentence of a long article, and that your usage of it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

I can look at a person and conclude he's not trustworthy based on the color of his skin. I've decided my claim about him is absolutely true, and by this "definition" that counts as critical thinking. I have "a" way of deciding the truth value of my claim.

I think you're asking the wrong questions. The premise

is wrong, I'm okay with kids being politically active much earlier than I think they should vote, it's not that I think their immaturity precludes their involvement only that I don't think we should be bound by them. Also kids are really different and progress at different ages.

I acted on my beliefs when I put leaflets through letterboxes that's not the same as being allowed to vote.

And for the second question yes I'm good with urging on kids the importance of doing their homework even when they are too immature to know why

So all teachers have to be an authority ( whatever that means) on any subject they teach?

This just seems like a fudge, to allow you to avoid the word teach.

plus "choosing their own preferred value" has no value if you dont actually let them choose it?

I was being a bit facetious

I'm not sure critical thinking is a tool by which people can choose their own preferred value

Well, Im still not entirely sure what critical thinking actually is, whether everyone in the thread is meaning the same thing, and how you would go about teaching such a thing, so I would kind of agree with you

Yeah nor me

In the wiki article linked by MB it suggests CT a tool by which people can come to reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process which really isn't the same