Reading Guides and SQ3R Link

http://www.studygs.net/texred2.htm

Reading Exercise

Reading Exercise: Sehtolc Gnihsaw

Reading Exercise: Sehtolc Gnihsaw

The procedure is actually quite simple. First, you arrange the items into different groups. Of course one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step; otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first, the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then, one never can tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life.

Connotations

In addition to literal, dictionary meanings, words often have implied, emotional meanings known as connotations. These connotations play a big role in the search for the "right word" because they sometimes clash with a writer's intended meaning or view.
For example, in the following sentence, the word pushy conflicts with the meaning in the rest of the sentence:


The pushy citizen patiently waited for his turn at the microphone before confidently expressing his concerns about the city council's recent decision to staff the fire station with volunteers.A pushy individual probably wouldn't have waited patiently for his turn to speak, but rather would have barged in whenever he felt emotionally led to do so. Perhaps, a more appropriate descriptive word for an individual who "patiently waited" before "confidently expressing his concerns" might be assertive.
Words with similar dictionary meanings often have different connotations, so it is very important for a writer to choose words carefully. Consider the following table. Each row contains a list of words with similar dictionary meanings but different shades of feeling.

	Favorable	Neutral	Unfavorable
1.	relaxed	inactive	lazy
2.	prudent	timid	cowardly
3.	modest	shy	mousy
4.	time-tested	old	out-of-date
5.	dignified	reserved	stiff-necked
6.	persevering	persistent	stubborn
7.	up-to-date	new	newfangled
8.	thrifty	conservative	miserly
9.	self-confident	proud	conceited
10.	inquisitive	curious	nosy

---

More on connotations...

Each of the following sentences includes a pair of words with similar dictionary definitions but different connotations. One of the words is more appropriate based on the context of the sentence. That word appears in the right-hand column.

Sentence Examples	Appropriate Word Choice
As snakes continue to grow, they (junk, shed) the protective keratinous layer on the surface of their bodies because it does not expand.	shed
Oblivious to those around him, the father tenderly (smiled, smirked) at his newborn baby through the window of the hospital nursery.	smiled
During rush hour traffic in a metropolis, cars creep along at agonizingly slow (velocities, speeds).	speeds
Even the coolest star in the night skies is unbelievably (sultry, hot) according to astronomers.	hot
The local newspaper's front-page story indicated that $50,000 was (stolen, pilfered) from the town's largest bank during the night.	stolen
The pack of wild horses (loped, sprinted) alongside the train at top speed for more than 200 yards.	sprinted
Although many Americans purchase meat at their local grocery stores, some farmers still (butcher, execute) livestock to feed their families.	butcher
The French are (noted, notorious) for their fine food.	notorious

From:

LEO: Literacy Education Online Connotations

Critical Thinking -- What is It? -- Video

Bloom's Taxonomy of Skills (Revised)

Bloom's Taxonomy of Skills (Revised)

What Do You See?

Assumptions Web Links

DEFINITION OF ASSUMPTION

This entry at wordreference.com explains the many meanings of the word assumption.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/assumption

HYPOTHESIS DEFINED - American Heritage Dictionary

Compare the definitions of the word hypothesis given at the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/3/H0370300.html

HYPOTHESIS DEFINED - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Compare the definitions of the word hypothesis given at the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hypothesis

JEAN PIAGET

This site is available for learning more about Jean Piaget and his theories on cognitive development.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/piaget.html

THESIS

"How to Write a Thesis Statement." A useful discussion prepared at Indiana University.

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/thesis_statement.shtml

E-Prime

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME
Robert Anton Wilson

E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all.

Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers.

Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene.

To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable.
It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general.

The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.

Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime):

lA. The electron is a wave.
lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.

2A. The electron is a particle.
2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.

3A. John is lethargic and unhappy.
3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office.

4A. John is bright and cheerful.
4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach.

5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man.
5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me.

6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford.
6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford.

7A. This is a fascist idea.
7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me.

8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart.

9A. That is a sexist movie.
9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me.

10A. The fetus is a person.
10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person.

The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine."

The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.

Relativity, quantum mechanics, large sections of general physics, perception psychology, sociology, linguistics, modern math, anthropology, ethology, and several other sciences make perfect sense when put into the software of E-Prime. Each of these sciences generates paradoxes, some bordering on "nonsense" or "gibberish," if you try to translate them back into the software of Standard English.

Concretely, "The electron is a wave" employs the Aristotelian "is" and thereby introduces us to the false-to-experience notion that we can know the indwelling "essence" of the electron. "The electron appears as a wave when measured by instrument-1" reports what actually occurred in space-time, namely that the electron when constrained by a certain instrument behaved in a certain way.

Similarly, "The electron is a particle" contains medieval Aristotelian software, but "The electron appears as a particle when measured by instrument-2" contains modern scientific software. Once again, the software determines whether we impose a medieval or modern grid upon our reality-tunnel.

Note that "the electron is a wave" and "the electron is a particle" contradict each other and begin the insidious process by which we move gradually from paradox to nonsense to total gibberish. On the other hand, the modern scientific statements "the electron appears as a wave when measured one way" and "the electron appears as a particle measured another way" do not contradict, but rather complement each other. (Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, which explained this and revolutionized physics, would have appeared obvious to all, and not just to a person of his genius, if physicists had written in E-Prime all along. . . .)

Looking at our next pair, "John is lethargic and unhappy" vs. "John is bright and cheerful,' we see again how medieval software creates metaphysical puzzles and totally imaginary contradictions. Operationalizing the statements, as physicists since Bohr have learned to operationalize, we find that the E-Prime translations do not contain any contradiction, and even give us a clue as to causes of John's changing moods. (Look back if you forgot the translations.)

"The first man stabbed the second man with a knife" lacks the overt "is" of identity but contains Aristotelian software nonetheless. The E-Prime translation not only operationalizes the data, but may fit the facts better-if the incident occurred in a psychology class, which often conduct this experiment. (The first man "stabs," or makes stabbing gestures at, the second man, with a banana, but many students, conditioned by Aristotelian software, nonetheless "see" a knife. You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.)

The reader may employ his or her own ingenuity in analyzing how "is-ness" creates false-to-facts reality-tunnels in the remaining examples, and how E-Prime brings us back to the scientific, the operational, the existential, the phenomenological--to what humans and their instruments actually do in space-time as they create observations, perceptions, thoughts, deductions, and General Theories.

I have found repeatedly that when baffled by a problem in science, in "philosophy," or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime. Often, solutions appear immediately-just as happens when you throw out the "wrong" software and put the "right" software into your PC. In other cases, I at least get an insight into why the problem remains intractable and where and how future science might go about finding an answer.


This text comes from:
D. David Bourland, Jr. & Paul Dennithorne Johnston, "To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology," International Society for General Semantics, 1991, pp. 23-26

"Is of Identity" In Popular Media

"Is of Identy" in Pop Media Below are some examples of famous advertisement slogans:
"Coke is it." (Coca-Cola)
"A diamond is foreever." (De Beers Consolidated)
"Guinness is good for you." (Guinness)
"Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is." (Alka Seltzer)
"Don't be vague. Ask for Haig." (Haig Scotch)
"It is. Are you?" (The Independent)
"You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's." (Levy's Rye Bread)
"The future's bright. The future's Orange." (Orange)
"Where's the beef?" (Wendy's)

What's wrong with this picture? -- Some Answers

1.  The curtains in front of the closed window are blowing in the wind, while those in front of the open window are hanging straight.
2.  The horizon visible through the left window is higher than that visible through the right one.
3.  The waves visible through the left window cannot be seen through the right one.
4.  The door frame is not square. The top piece extends too far to the left.
5.  The legs on the chair next to the door are not touching the floor.
6.  The cord leading from the electric guitar on the floor runs to the telephone instead of a wall jack.
7.  The wine glass contains red wine, while the wine bottle contains white wine.  The left front leg of the guitarist's chair doesn't touch the floor.
8.  The open window sashes are upside down.
9. The walls of the room appear to be covered with exterior rather than interior plaste
10. The palm-like plant to the left of the "wine" table does not appear to be planted in the pot beneath it.
11. The "shade" on the floor lamp in front of the open window appears to either be upside down or a bowl.
12. There appear to be odd things on top of the stereo receiver.
13. The antenna sitting on top of the TV does not appear to be connected to the antenna wire attached to the upper left back corner of the TV set. That wire appears to lead into a leaf on the plant. 
14. A filtered cigarette is sticking out of the crumpled pack of Camel unfiltered cigarettes lying next to the wine bottle.
15. There does not appear to be a door knob on the door. The top hinge is visible on its left side, so a door knob should be just to the left and below the spot where the doorbell is shown.
16. Given the apparent lighting in the room, the shadow of the chair next to the door may not be right.
17. The floor looks to be sub flooring that should be covered with carpet or hardwood strips.
18. I'm not sure why there is a double-barreled shotgun propped up in the corner between the door and the mirror.
19. The apparent deck of cards sitting next to the TV set might have a problem.
20. The photo on the cover of Andrew Gold's previous album (visible on the floor leaning against the music bench) might not look as it actually did when sold in stores. Ditto for the cover on the issue of People Magazine that is lying on the floor beneath the TV set. In fact, I'm not sure that Andrew Gold ever appeared on a People Magazine cover.

What's wrong with this picture?

Andrew Gold: What's Wrong With This Picture?

This is an LP cover from Andrew Gold. Mr. Gold claims there are 32 things wrong about this picture, but I haven't found all of them by far ... I'll list some of the most obvious : the drapes are moving in front of the closed window, the horizon is different in the two windows, not all legs of his chair touch the ground ... Now it's your turn. (fromhttp://www.planetPerplex.com

-- S 14 -- Final

-- S 14 -- Final

Fourteen Words Key to 100,000 Words

PREFIX	SPELLINGS	MEANING	#	KEYWORD	MEANING	ROOT	SPELLINGS	MEANING
de		down, away	1	DETAIN	delay	tam	ten, tin	to have, hold
inter		between	2	INTERMITTENT	periodic	mitt	miss, mie, mit	to send
pre		before	3	PRECEPT	principle	cept	cept,cap, ceiv, ceit, cip	to take
ob	oc,of,op	to,toward, against	4	OFFER	provide	fer	lat, lay	to bear, carry
in	il,im,ir	into, not	5	INSIST	demand	sist	stat, sta, stan	to stand, endure, persist
mono		one, alone	6	MONOGRAPH	writing	graph	gram	to write
epi		over,upon, beside	7	EPILOGUE	ending	log	ology	speech, science
ad	a, ab, ac, af, ag, al, am, an, ap, ar, as, at, a	at, to, towards	8	ASPECT	distinct feature	spect	spec, spi, spy	To look
un		not	9	UNCOMPLICATED	clear	plic	play,plex, ploy, ply	speech, science
com	co,col, car	with
non		not	10	NONEXTENDED	core	tens,tend		stretch
ex	e,ef	out
re		back, again	11	REPRODUCTION	replica	duct	duc, duit, duk	To lead, make, shape, fashiion
pro		forward, in favor
in	il, im, ir	not	12	INDISPOSED	not well	poc	pon,poat	put,place
dis	di,dif	apart from
over		above	13	OVERSUFFICIENT	over supply	fic	fac,fact, fash, feat	To make or do
sub	suc,suf, sug, sup	under
mis		wrong	14	MISTRANSCRIBE	write incorrectly	scribe	scrip,scriv	write

where do you stand?

Where do you stand with regard to critical thinking?



FEET: What do I stand for as a foundation of critical thinking?

STOMACH: What upsets me about critical thinking?

HEART: What do I love about critical thinking?

HANDS: What do I feel about critical thinking?

EARS: What do I hear about critical thinking?

EYES: What do I see about critical thinking?

BRAIN: What do I think about critical thinking?

Welcome

Welcome to this blog at http://cthinksm.blogspot.com

Characteristics of a Critical Thinker

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking

from http://www.criticalthinking.org/about/nationalCouncil.cfm A Draft Statement of Principles Dr. Richard Paul, Chair, NCECT Goals  The goals of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction are as follows: To articulate, preserve, and foster high standards of research, scholarship, and instruction in critical thinking. To articulate the standards upon which "quality" thinking is based and the criteria by means of which thinking, and instruction for thinking, can be appropriately cultivated and assessed. To assess programs which claim to foster higher-order critical thinking. To disseminate information that aids educators and others in identifying quality critical thinking programs and approaches which ground the reform and restructuring of education on a systematic cultivation of disciplined universal and domain specific intellectual standards. Founding Principles  There is an intimate interrelation between knowledge and thinking. Knowing that something is so is not simply a matter of believing that it is so, it also entails being justified in that belief (Definition: Knowledge is justified true belief). There are general, as well as domain-specific, standards for the assessment of thinking. To achieve knowledge in any domain, it is essential to think critically. Critical thinking is based on articulable intellectual standards and hence is intrinsically subject to assessment by those standards. Criteria for the assessment of thinking in all domains are based on such general standards as: clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, significance, fairness, logic, depth, and breadth, evidentiary support, probability, predictive or explanatory power. These standards, and others, are embedded not only in the history of the intellectual and scientific communities, but also in the self-assessing behavior of reasonable persons in everyday life. It is possible to teach all subjects in such a way as to encourage the use of these intellectual standards in both professional and personal life. Instruction in critical thinking should increasingly enable students to assess both their own thought and action and that of others by reference, ultimately, to standards such as those above. It should lead progressively, in other words, to a disciplining of the mind and to a self-chosen commitment to a life of intellectual and moral integrity. Instruction in all subject domains should result in the progressive disciplining of the mind with respect to the capacity and disposition to think critically within that domain. Hence, instruction in science should lead to disciplined scientific thinking; instruction in mathematics should lead to disciplined mathematical thinking; instruction in history should lead to disciplined historical thinking; and in a parallel manner in every discipline and domain of learning. Disciplined thinking with respect to any subject involves the capacity on the part of the thinker to recognize, analyze, and assess the basic elements of thought: the purpose or goal of the thinking; the problem or question at issue; the frame of reference or points of view involved; assumptions made; central concepts and ideas at work; principles or theories used; evidence, data, or reasons advanced, claims made and conclusions drawn; inferences, reasoning, and lines of formulated thought; and implications and consequences involved. Critical reading, writing, speaking, and listening are academically essential modes of learning. To be developed generally they must be systematically cultivated in a variety of subject domains as well as with respect to interdisciplinary issues. Each are modes of thinking which are successful to the extent that they are disciplined and guided by critical thought and reflection. The earlier that children develop sensitivity to the standards of sound thought and reasoning, the more likely they will develop desirable intellectual habits and become open-minded persons responsive to reasonable persuasion. Education - in contrast to training, socialization, and indoctrination - implies a process conducive to critical thought and judgment. It is intrinsically committed to the cultivation of reasonability and rationality. History and Philosophy Critical thinking is integral to education and rationality and, as an idea, is traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practices — and the educational ideal implicit in them — of Socrates of ancient Greece. It has played a seminal role in the emergence of academic disciplines, as well as in the work of discovery of those who created them. Knowledge, in other words, has been discovered and verified by the distinguished critical thinkers of intellectual, scientific, and technological history. For the majority of the idea's history, however, critical thinking has been "buried," a conception in practice without an explicit name. Most recently, however, it has undergone something of an awakening, a coming-out, a first major social expression, signaling perhaps a turning-point in its history. This awakening is correlated with a growing awareness that if education is to produce critical thinkers en mass, if it is to globally cultivate nations of skilled thinkers and innovators rather than a scattering of thinkers amid an army of intellectually unskilled, undisciplined, and uncreative followers, then a renaissance and re-emergence of the idea of critical thinking as integral to knowledge and understanding is necessary. Such a reawakening and recognition began first in the USA in the later 30's and then surfaced in various forms in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, reaching its most public expression in the 80's and 90's. Nevertheless, despite the scholarship surrounding the idea, despite the scattered efforts to embody it in educational practice, the educational and social acceptance of the idea is still in its infancy, still largely misunderstood, still existing more in stereotype than in substance, more in image than in reality. The members of the Council (some 8000 plus educators) are committed to high standards of excellence in critical thinking instruction across the curriculum at all levels of education. They are, therefore, concerned with the proliferation of poorly conceived "thinking skills" programs with their simplistic — often slick — approaches to both thinking and instruction. If the current emphasis on critical thinking is genuinely to take root, if it is to avoid the traditional fate of passing educational fad and "buzz word," it is essential that the deep obstacles to its embodiment in quality education be recognized for what they are, reasonable strategies to combat them formulated by leading scholars in the field, and successful communication of both obstacles and strategies to the educational and broader community achieved. To this end, sound standards of the field of critical thinking research must be made accessible by clear articulation and the means set up for the large-scale dissemination of that articulation. The nature and challenge of critical thinking as an educational ideal must not be allowed to sink into the murky background of educational reform and restructuring efforts, while superficial ideas take its place. Critical thinking must assume its proper place at the hub of educational reform and restructuring. Critical thinking — and intellectual and social development generally — are not well-served when educational discussion is inundated with superficial conceptions of critical thinking and slick merchandizing of "thinking skills" programs while substantial — and necessarily more challenging conceptions and programs — are thrust aside, obscured, or ignored.  Elements of Thought  Linda Elder and Richard Paul  If teachers want their students to think well, they must help students understand at least the rudiments of thought, the most basic structures out of which all thinking is made. In other words, students must learn how to take thinking apart. All thinking is defined by the eight elements that make it up. Eight basic structures are present in all thinking. Whenever we think, we think for a purpose within a point of view based on assumptions leading to implications and consequences. We use concepts, ideas, and theories to interpret data, facts, and experiences in order to answer questions, solve problems, and resolve issues. Thinking, then, generates purposes, raises questions, uses information, utilizes concepts, makes inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point of view. Students should understand that each of these structures has implications for the others. If they change their purpose or agenda, they change their questions and problems. If they change their questions and problems, they are forced to seek new information and data, and so on.Students should regularly use the following checklist for reasoning to improve their thinking in any discipline or subject area: All reasoning has a purpose. State your purpose clearly. Distinguish your purpose from related purposes. Check periodically to be sure you are still on target. Choose significant and realistic purposes. All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, solve some problem. State the question at issue clearly and precisely. Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope. Break the question into sub-questions. Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that are a matter of opinion and from those that require consideration of multiple viewpoints. All reasoning is based on assumptions (beliefs you take for granted). Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are justifiable. Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view. All reasoning is done from some point of view. Identify your point of view. Seek other points of view and identify their strengths and weaknesses. Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view. All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence. Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have. Search for information that opposes your position, as well as information that supports it. Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the question at issue. Make sure you have gathered sufficient information. All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas. Identify key concepts and explain them clearly. Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts. Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision. All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data. Infer only what the evidence implies. Check inferences for their consistency with each other. Identify assumptions that lead you to your inferences. All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences. Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning. Search for negative as well as positive implications. Consider all possible consequences. Universal Intellectual Standards Linda Elder and Richard Paul Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. To help students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking, questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions which, through consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalized by students as questions they need to ask themselves.  The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice, which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards, the following are the most significant: Clarity - Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don’t yet know what it is saying. For example, the question "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"  Accuracy - Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."  Precision - Could you give more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)  Relevance - How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.  Depth - How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lacks depth). For example, the statement "Just say No," which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.  Breadth - Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of...?A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)  Logic - Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical. Valuable Intellectual Traits Richard Paul and Linda Elder Intellectual traits, or virtues, are interrelated intellectual habits that enable students to discipline and improve mental functioning. Teachers need to keep in mind that critical thinking can be used to serve two incompatible ends: self-centeredness or fair-mindedness. As students learn the basic intellectual skills that critical thinking entails, they can begin to use those skills in either a selfish or in a fair-minded way. For example, when students are taught how to recognize mistakes in reasoning (commonly called fallacies), most students readily see those mistakes in the reasoning of others but do not see them so readily in their own reasoning. Often they enjoy pointing out others' errors and develop some proficiency in making their opponents' thinking look bad, but they don't generally use their understanding of fallacies to analyze and assess their own reasoning. It is thus possible for students to develop as thinkers and yet not to develop as fair-minded thinkers. The best thinkers strive to be fair-minded, even when it means they have to give something up. They recognize that the mind is not naturally fair-minded, but selfish. And they understand that to be fair-minded, they must also develop particular traits of mind, traits such as intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, faith in reason, and fair-mindedness. Teachers should model and discuss the following intellectual traits as they help their students become fair-minded, ethical thinkers. Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs. Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe. Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand. Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action. Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.  Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it. Fair-mindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.