Conspiracy Theorists are Lazy Thinkers

I used the term "lazy thinkers" to be provocative.

The truth is that lazy thinking is nothing more than "natural thinking." Every lower animal on the planet operates on intuition, or "what feels right." Humans who have not learned the skills of critical thinking naturally engage in the same thinking patterns as other animals.  

I am attracted to conspiracy theories. There is something about the idea of a conspiracy that titillates a paranoid vein that runs through the human psyche. However, conspiracy theories say much about us and very little about reality. It is not that conspiracies are impossible, just that the likelihood of successfully executing a large scale conspiracy approaches the impossible. The old adage, “Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead,” rings true more often than not.

For any given belief, we will encounter disputing evidence (indicating that the belief is false) and supporting evidence (indicating that the belief is true). Folks with highly developed critical thinking skills approach these two pools of opposing evidence by objectively evaluating the quality and the weight of both pools. The foundation of a developed intellect is the willingness to change positions when disputing evidence clearly outweighs supporting evidence. This requires a great deal of emotional maturity. Our beliefs are rooted in our egos and we are wired to protect our egos at all cost. Shifting positions when disputing evidence outweighs supporting evidence also requires a deep commitment to truth. Truths are often uncomfortable and/or undesirable. Critical thinking requires that objective truth (what is true) must take priority over individual ego needs (what feels true or what we would like to be true).   

The Critical Thinker's thought process looks like this:

The Conspiracy Theorist engages an entirely different process when presented with conflicting pools of evidence. The conspiracy theorist accepts ALL supporting evidence, regardless of quality, and rejects ALL disputing evidence, also regardless of quality. Disputing evidence will either be ignored or the source for the evidence will be baselessly maligned. The ultimate result of this process is the elimination for the opportunity to learn, aka willful ignorance. In the words of Dudley Field Malone, "I have never in my life learned anything from someone who agreed with me."

The Conspiracy Theorist's thought process looks like this:

Identifying Quality Sources of Information:

In the midst of the information age, distinguishing good information from bad information can be extremely difficult. People untrained in recognizing logical fallacies can be easily manipulated to believe even the most absurd claims (examples: The moon landing was faked. Obama is a foreign-born, closet Muslim. The government is hiding UFOs. Hillary Clinton is a serial killer who runs child sex rings. Ronald Reagan was in the Illuminati.). Relying on "reasoning" from outside sources to establish where one stands on the issues is akin to relying on a car salesman to determine which automobile you should buy.

• Despite claims to the contrary, mainstream sources of information tend to be of much higher quality than unconventional sources. Every place in the free world gets pretty much the same news. The mainstream media in the US reflects reputable news outlets in England, France, Germany, India, Australia, Japan, etc. The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, Google News, The BBC, Reuters, and most professional journals are reliable, albeit not perfect sources for accurate news. These sources mirror the news from the rest of the free world. News reported by outlets in countries with authoritarian governments such as those of Iran, Russia, and North Korea, like news reported by Right Wing media outlets and fringe Left Wing outlets in the US, report very different news that is often in direct conflict with legitimate sources.
• News sources from authoritarian regions, as well as, sources from Right Wing and fringe Left Wing American outlets, use the "news" as an instrument for propaganda. However, citizens in countries with authoritarian governments have no choice but to consume fake news, while a huge percentage of mainstream Right Wingers and nearly all fringe Left Wingers in the US avoid legitimate news by choice. THIS is how a narcissistic, predatory, conspiracy theorist, who makes fun of the handicapped and spouts obscene vulgarities, became President of the United States.
• 

  Mathematics and scientific research represents the gold standard for quality information at this time. The statement, "any position can be proven with statistics," is patently false. It is true that statistics can be used by dishonest presenters to manipulate those who are untrained in statistics, however, there is an ultimate truth that will be revealed through the scrupulous use of statistics.
• While scientific research is often inaccurate, every advancement in the modern world has resulted from the application of science. As yet, there is no process more effective in the discerning accurate understanding of the physical universe than science. If the efficacy of science is not overwhelmingly evidenced by your own life experiences (as it should be to any self-aware human being), then developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method and the peer-review process should dispel any lingering doubts.

Consider The Global Warming Hoax:

Everyone knows the statistic that 97% of climatologists concur with the research that supports global warming as a legitimate phenomenon exacerbated by human activity. 

The conspiracy theory holds that first, global warming is a hoax conjured by the Democratic Party in the US. Second, scientists have skewed their research data in favor of global warming in order to procure grant money from liberal universities.  And third, because the Democratic Party has a greater interest in conservation and environmental protections and the Republican Party has a greater interest in protecting industry, Democrats benefit from the acceptance of climate change as an actual and man-made phenomenon.

•  Global warming was dreamed up by the Democratic Party.
• The 97% of scientists figure is not limited to American scientists. It means that 97% of the scientists in the entire world accept the findings on climate change. Even if the Democratic Party were important enough to American scientists to risk sabotaging their own careers by falsifying data, it is inconceivable that scientists from every other country in the world would be so invested! Even if we were to change the premise from a plot invented by the Democratic Party to a plot invented by liberals in general, the idea of such a global initiative is ludicrous.
• Scientists receive research grants from liberal universities.
• Many scientists work for universities. Others work for government agencies. Still others work for industry. At any rate, the funds provided for research grants are typically supplied by outside sources and not by universities. Even if we accepted the bizarre idea that scientists across the globe could be bribed into torpedoing the integrity of their chosen profession, we would still need an industry capable of providing the motherlode of funds needed to accomplish the task. Which industry would stand a better chance of pulling this off, Big Oil (which benefits from disproving global warming) or Big Windmill (which benefits from proving global warming true)?
• Democrats profit from the efficacy of climate change
• Which makes more sense? 30 years ago, some Democrat mastermind or thinktank randomly invented an environmental phenomenon and was able to secretly coerce 97% of the scientists on Earth to fake research data... Or that the most lucrative industry in the world advanced a conspiracy theory to protect its own interests?

In truth, the global warming phenomenon has no more to do with politics than gravity theory or germ theory. Scientists simply support the efficacy of global warming because there is an ocean of high-quality supporting evidence for the theory and a tiny drip of low quality disputing evidence against the theory. If new, high quality, evidence disputing global warming grew to outweigh existing supporting evidence, every scientist worth her salt would shift positions and we would find the vast majority of scientists denying the theory. This is how the developed intellect operates.

Why You Can't Always Trust Your "Gut Feelings?"

A “gut feeling” is an automatic, cognitive, short-cut that provides a crude, organic, meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Life experiences are three-fold. First, they involve sensations. Real and/or imagined sensory stimulation from the environment such as light, sound, fragrance, texture, etc. Second, experiences require cognitions and perceptions. These are your thoughts about the sensory stimuli. Your eyes and brain may sense a light, and then your mind interprets, “Oh, the car in front of me just put on the brakes.” Third, experiences are bathed in varying levels of emotion. So, the car in front of you suddenly hits the brakes and you feel a quick twinge of fear that you may rear end the other car. Emotions are the body’s security system. They evolved as a mechanism to aid us in survival. Emotions warn us of danger and reward us for behaviors that have historically resulted in increased odds for survival of the species.

In the course of a lifetime, you have countless experiences covering innumerable concepts. Some of these experiences are available to the conscious mind, but most are not. It would be impossible to function if you had to process your lifetime of experiences every time you had to answer a question or make a decision. So, the mind provides a shortcut called the “gut feeling.”

If I ask, “Do you like raisins?” the answer will lie in an overview of every life experience you have ever had with the concept called, “raisin.”

…raisins are dehydrated grapes
…the dancing California Raisins
…raisin bran cereal
…raisins look like flies
…raisins are high in antioxidants
…as a kid, I threw up after eating a box of raisins
…raisins are sweet
…raisins have a funny texture
…I got raisins in my lunchbox when I was in grade school
…raisins smell bad
…and on and on and on and on

But, since filtering through these millions of experiences would be impossible and impractical, your mind makes a snapshot using the most dominant, overshadowing emotion related to the concept called, “raisin.” This provides your gut feeling and your answer… “No, raisins are gross.”

The gut feeling is necessary to navigate the complex terrain of human life. Without it, we would be paralyzed. However, it is also the fundamental cognitive error that interferes with human advancement. Our nature, like all animals, is to accept gut feelings as “truth.” If I approach a squirrel with the intention of giving it a walnut, the squirrel’s gut feeling may be that I am a threat, so the squirrel runs away. The truth is that I intended to help the squirrel by giving it food. Gut feelings are not truth. Truth is based in fact and possesses objective validity.

So, if I am interested in finding "truth," then I must understand that my gut feeling is an extremely fallible resource completely dependent on my very limited and unique fund of life experiences. To find “truth,“ I must test my gut feeling against objective litmus’ like logic, mathematics, physical properties, etc. The gut feeling is a necessary place to start, but it can be a foolish place to end.

The ability to override “gut feelings” is the characteristic that enables the human to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to gut feelings. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, the advent of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method has provided a means for humans to break the bonds of our animal nature and rise above superstition and intuition. It is a tragedy that so few take advantage of this magnificent opportunity.

The Difference between Feeling True and Being True

In her book, Being Wrong, Kathryn Schultz explains that being wrong feels exactly like being right! It is our nature to assume that the knowledge we possess is correct. Our level of certainty tends to remain constant regardless of whether we are actually right, or if we just mistakenly think that we are right. We enjoy an ongoing sense of rightness until the very moment we are proven wrong. 

In teaching General Psychology, I found that each chapter we cover carries the underlying message that, as humans, we are nearly always wrong about nearly everything. Our memories are erroneous. Our sensory perceptions are flawed. We are unable to conceptualize large numbers and great spans of time. We are easily fooled by appeals to emotion. Our innate tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on tiny bits of information creates an environment of near-chronic wrongness.

Despite chronic wrongness, it is natural for us to trust our feelings, our thoughts, and our perceptions. Navigating human life would otherwise be impossible. Our sense of rightness enables us to make decisions and take necessary actions. It is an unfortunate side-effect of living in this bubble of pleasant certainty that we experience shame when proven wrong. We stubbornly resist opportunities to improve on the accuracy of our respective funds of knowledge, because being proven wrong is so unpleasant. We are mortified as the false perception, “if I am proven wrong, then I am made a fool,” emerges. Evidence abounds to suggest that the accurate interpretation should be, “if I am proven wrong, then I am learning, developing and improving.”

• Make friends with being proven wrong. The moment you understand that being proven wrong is necessary to becoming a better you, a world of opportunity materializes. As Dudley Field Malone said, “I never in my life learned anything from a man who agreed with me.”
• Be a skeptic. Skeptics are not the same as pessimists. Pessimists are characterized by feelings of negativity and hopelessness. Skeptics are simply people who require evidence before believing a piece of information. Being skeptical is the opposite of being gullible. 
• Don’t be fooled by emotionally persuasive manipulations. Arguments that are supported by appeals to tradition, popular opinion, common sense, weak analogies, attacks on character, and false generalizations all exploit the human tendency to trust gut feelings and emotional responses.
• Learn to identify actual evidence. Very often, actual evidence will conflict with gut feelings and emotional responses. True evidence is measurable and empirical. I may feel that this was the hottest summer ever. However, if measurable data indicates otherwise, I must trust the empirical evidence over my feelings.

So, if I am interested in finding the truth, then I must understand that, while gut feelings are useful, they are an extremely fallible resource. I must continuously test my gut feelings against objective litmuses like logic, mathematics, research results, and physical properties. I must learn to trust real evidence, especially when it conflicts with my emotional leanings. 

The ability to override gut feelings enables humans to operate beyond the confines of biological and environmental programming. Every animal on the planet is a slave to intuition. Throughout the majority of human history, we have operated exactly like every other species in this respect. However, logic, mathematics and the scientific method provide a means for humans to break the bonds of primitive thought processes. Determining the difference between feeling true and being true is the mechanism for transformation.

Why bad critical thinkers believe they are good critical thinkers

"When you are dead you don’t know it, but it is difficult for the people around you. Same as when you haven’t developed critical thinking skills."

I ripped off and modified this quote from an internet meme. Unfortunately, it relates a fundamental truth. Good critical thinkers know that they are good critical thinkers, because critical thinking requires training. It is an internal battle between the instinctual pull of human egocentrism and a disciplined commitment to evidence and logic. Non-critical thinkers don’t realize it, because they don’t really understand what the term “critical thinking” means. This lack of insight is itself a demonstration of egocentrism. 

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[1] This means that when evidence and logic conflict with what you believe, you change your position. Believing doesn’t make a piece of information true. Neither belief, faith, intuition, gut feelings, nor common sense can be used to validate the accuracy of a piece of information.

For instance, if I believe that the United States is the best country in the world, but I have never lived anywhere else and I have not researched the data on what constitutes the “best” country, then my belief is unfounded. It is based on feelings rather than evidence. “I love my country,” is a statement of feeling and requires no evidence. 

No matter how badly I may “want” a piece of information to be true, no matter how powerfully a piece of information “feels” true, no matter how many other people I respect “believe” a piece of information is true, critical thinking requires the maturity to rise above my own ego needs and reject information that is not supported by evidence and logic. 

The scientific method is critical thought in action. It is a mechanism for factoring out emotion driven human bias. The results of the scientific method are nothing less than every benefit of modern life from space ships, to medicine, to the electronic device you are currently using, to nearly every object in your current field of vision! Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[2][3] Human nature evolved to help us survive in the natural environment. Traits that are adaptive in a primitive culture can be quite maladaptive in a modern culture. As a result, many aspects of human nature hinder progress.

Reliance on gut feelings is natural. Every primitive animal on the planet operates on gut feelings.

Overriding gut feelings in favor of critical evaluation does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing diligent work and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

                                                                                          

---

[1] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[2] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[3] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

4 Steps to Clean Thinking

Hartwig HKD Cosmic Consciousness

1. Accept Being Wrong

In order to effectively navigate life the human mind is designed to constantly take shortcuts. The brain uses tiny bits of data, a few pieces of a given puzzle, and then compensates for the missing pieces with its “best guess.” The result is a tendency for humans to be wrong… a lot!

Optical illusions are possible, because the brain automatically fills in the spots where visual information is missing by using patterns and expectations from past experience. [1] In other words, what you think you see may not be what is actually out there!

If you blindfold someone, hold and apple under her nose, and have her bite a piece of raw potato, she will be fooled into thinking she bit a piece of apple. The brain takes a small amount of information, smell and texture, and makes a judgment, "I must have bitten an apple." [2]

This also happens when we meet new people. We know very little about the new acquaintance, but quickly judge his character, "He seems dishonest." When we get to know him, reality fills in the blanks and we find that he is extremely trustworthy.[3]

There is a direct correlation between how easily you overcome your own biases (traps that lead to being wrong) and IQ level. The smarter you are, the easier it is to overcome your biases (accepting that you are wrong).[4] 

Critical thinkers examine issues from many different angles, so the world operates more in shades of gray, than of black and white. Being wrong feels exactly like being right... until someone PROVES you are wrong.[5]

2. Beware of Cognitive Traps

There are many ways we fool ourselves into believing in things that are absolutely not true. Many cognitive traps are just side effects of how humans are wired. Because they tend to crop up in all people, these traps require diligent work on our part to overcome. 

Confirmation Bias is a trap wherein you believe that you have determined a "truth" based on rational thinking, but in actuality, you have simply dismissed all evidence disputing your pre-existing belief and accepted all information confirming said belief.

Example 1: You don't believe in global warming, so you disregard the 97% of climatologists who support global warming and accept the 3% who dispute this phenomenon. You may reason that there is a conspiracy (a catch-all explanation that is very rarely accurate).[6] 

Example 2: You think immunizations cause autism, so you disregard the avalanche of research supporting the efficacy of immunization, but believe the one flawed study linking vaccines to autism. You reason that there is a conspiracy.[7] 

Hindsight Bias is a trap based on the idea that people should be able to predict the future. Have you ever been stumped by a riddle and after hearing the solution you thought, “Wow, that was so obvious. I should have easily figured it out”? In truth, since you do not have the ability to predict the future, the solution to the riddle was certainly NOT obvious.[8] 

Empathy Bias is similar to hindsight bias, but is projected on others rather than self. If a friend is in a bad relationship, it may seem obvious to you that your friend should end the relationship. You may consider her reluctance to do so, as “stupid.” However, when you, yourself have been in bad relationships, this “obvious” solution of breaking it off was not so clear. Why was your friend’s relationship problem so easy for you to solve, and your relationship problem so difficult? When you have real empathy, you make a sincere attempt to understand things from the other person’s perspective.[9 You try to "stand in their shoes." This is especially difficult when you perceive that the other person is different from you (eg different nationality, different race, different religion, different sexual orientation, etc.).

3. Trust Evidence Over Emotion

In some ways, humans are not very different from lower animal species. We almost always operate from “gut feelings,” or emotions. After making an emotional judgment, we create rationalizations (poorly reasoned arguments) to justify why these feelings, and resulting beliefs, are accurate. 

To whatever degree possible, critical thinkers start from a neutral position and do not invest their respective egos in pre-existing beliefs. Good critical thinkers allow the evidence to determine the accuracy of a piece of information. Ego, “because it is my thought it must be true,” is by far the biggest obstacle to rational thinking. 

Overcoming the ego obstacle requires that truth, as determined by objective evidence, always take precedence over our instinctual need to be right. All it takes is a lifetime of practice.

4. Learn to Metacognate

Metacognition means, “thinking about your own thought processes.” Most of us have the tendency to allow our emotion thoughts to lead us around by the nose. Dumb animals operate in this manner. This tendency to attach our egos to the accuracy of our gut feelings is a root cause for ignorance.

If our failsafe is to assume that our thought processes are always accurate, we remain trapped in a bubble of ignorance. 

Fortunately, if we consistently apply humble skepticism, logic, and metacognition, humans can escape the intellectual prison created by blind trust gut feelings.

---

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/EyeHealth/optical-illusions-eye-brain-agree/story?id=8455573

[2] http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/apples-and-potatoes/

[3] http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/homefeat/bias-bonanza-how-accurate-are-our-first-impressions/

[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608007000611

[5] http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

[6] http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus                 

[7] http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

[8] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/i-knew-it-all-along-didnt-i-understanding-hindsight-bias.html

[9] http://www.cbdr.cmu.edu/event.asp?eventID=268

Becoming Human

“In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.” Morgan’s Canon

The truth is, we are animals with the potential to develop humanness. Homo sapiens share the following behavioral traits with other species within the Great Ape family:

1.     Formation of social structures

2.     Establishment of pecking orders through demonstrations of dominance

3.     Cooperation within social in-groups (groups of apes/people with which one member identifies and belongs)

4.     Competition/conflict with social outgroups (groups of apes/people that are different from the ones within which a single member belongs and identifies)

5.     Use of language and development of unique cultures[1]

6.     Utilization of instinct and intuition in decision making[2]

Likely related to some unique brain structures,[3] two potential abilities that may be used to define "humanness" are higher order critical thinking and higher order empathy skills.[4] [5] Other animals have been shown to demonstrate critical thought and empathy, so these traits in and of themselves are not exclusively human. However, the human capacity for cultivating these skills to extremely high levels is unique. For our purposes, humanness should be understood as an artificial, social construct and not a scientific distinction. 

Higher order critical thinking and empathy are skills that require development. So, though genetics determine whether or not one falls into the biological category of homo sapiens, a subspecies in the Great Ape family,[6] the characteristics that define true humanness present on a continuum and are not fully developed in all members of the group, Homo Sapiens.

Like all Great Apes, homo sapiens form families and social groups. We LOVE our in-groups whether they be political, religious, regional, national, or sports related. We establish pecking orders within these groups based on dominance. On the playground, human dominance is often determined by who is biggest. As adults, dominance may be determined through superior intelligence, physical strength, wealth, attractiveness, ambition, confidence, or any number of other factors. 

Like chimpanzees, we will often cooperate with our ingroup, but we tend to view outgroups with suspicion. Our nature is to consider them threats and often to classify them as “lesser than” or even “evil.” This instinctual behavior is at the root of all forms of bigotry. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand that a “go to” position for early humans of assuming people who are different are threats would be more adaptive than assuming their benevolence. In the natural environment, early humans were constantly at risk, so tendencies resulting in cautiousness aided in their survival. 

Intuition governs the lives of all animals. It is closely related to instincts housed in primitive brain regions. Intuition, or “gut feeling,” is an automatic, cognitive short-cut that provides a crude, organic, sort of meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[7] The scientific method was born of critical thought. It is a process designed to factor out emotional human biases, such as ingroup/outgroups behaviors. Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[8] [9]

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. H.L. Menken wasn’t far off the mark when he said, “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution… and it is always wrong.” The animal within us is highly attracted to simple solutions.

Prior to the Enlightenment, humans used a simple catch-all to explain any phenomena beyond our understanding, “God.” Few seemed to notice that “God” really wasn’t much of an explanation at all. It simply moved the goal post back one yard. If God causes all things, then what causes God? “God” is still the catch-all for unexplained phenomena. Science has been able to provide evidence-based, rational explanations for most of the physical phenomena we encounter in daily life. The expanse of unknowns that homo sapiens now use God to explain has shrunken to a handful of areas.

Homo sapiens are often not inclined towards critical thinking, and therefore, have a much greater tendency to interpret the world in concrete terms. For human animals, conforming to a solution posed by dominant members of their ingroups is obviously the "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid." Conforming to the decisions of dominant members of one’s group is a trait human animals share with other primates. Critically evaluating the relative merits of dominant group members’ decisions is unique to true humanness.

Higher order critical thinking does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

Some guidelines for critical thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking (Think, talk radio hosts and New Age gurus)

2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition

3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.

4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.

5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.[10]

The scientific method has proven a magnificent modality for examining the world through critical thought. Application of the scientific method has enabled us to advance beyond the wildest imaginings of our ancestors. That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who disagrees with the consensus will be able to demonstrate strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization or opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to not be repeated. Amoeba have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

But, we are not amoeba. Humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe." Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will predictably behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the ingroup over the health and safety of the individual. These animals species engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

Humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Higher order empathy does not mean "sympathy." Many species demonstrate sympathy. The term “sympathy” is from the Greek “sympathia.” It actually means to “feel with someone.”[11] If you feel sad because someone you know lost a loved one, you are demonstrating sympathy. Sympathy can be instinctual and often requires little effort.

Higher order empathy requires the complex attempt to cognitively "see through the eyes of another." Empathy requires effort and imagination. To empathize is to “project” you into another person’s frame of reference.[12] It is our nature to criticize others from our own egocentric viewpoint. This is why we tend to judge the driver in front of us as an idiot when he slams on his brakes but feel perfectly justified when we have to slam on our own brakes. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and, on some level, understand the world from another person's perspective.

Research on feral children has shown that empathy is a learned behavior.[13] Higher order empathy is an extremely difficult skill that many humans rarely even try to master. If all people demonstrated true humanness and regularly employed this skill, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated. Children reared in environments devoid of contact with people do not demonstrate humanness [14]

Take a look in the mirror. Do you practice humanness? If so, you are likely experiencing deep, meaningful relationships with other people. And, you also suffer deeply when you become aware of social injustices (homophobia, racism, genocide, intolerance, man’s inhumanity to man, etc.). You are not easily duped by the barrage of manipulative, emotionally charged, nonsense you receive from the media, the pulpit, and the political arena. You are likely able to override primitive emotions to some degree, enabling you to maintain a healthy body and a stable mind. Your moral code comes from evaluating an ideal based on universals such as “harm done,” “fairness,” and “empathetic understanding” rather than from “how you were raised,” cultural norms, or religious/legal text.

We are all human animals, and this is not a bad thing. We are literally wired to be such and wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, some of these animal traits are not adaptive in a civilized culture. With hard work, metacognition, courage, and a tireless commitment to intellectual honesty, we can all come closer to being truly human.

---

[1] Kappeler, Peter M., and Joan B. Silk. Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Print.

[2] "What Is Intuition, And How Do We Use It?" Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Newly Discovered Brain Region Is Uniquely Human, Scientists Think."International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[4] Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Print.

[5] Elder, Lina. "Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Inquiry Winter XVI.2 (1996): n. pag. Web. 28 May 2014. 

[6] "Mammal Species of the World : A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference."(Book, 2006) [WorldCat.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.

[7] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[8] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[9] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

[10] "Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking." Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[11] "Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[12] Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[13] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.

[14] Plessis, Susa Du, and Jan Strydom. "Chapter 7." The Right to Read :Beating Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities. N.p.: n.p., 2000. N. pag. Print.