Blog 3_Wk2_Intro to Critical Thinking

Rachel Maddow and John Stewart, in my opinion, are the poster children of critical thinking. They are not only critical thinkers themselves, but they also force their viewers to critically think while watching the programs. Thus, they spread the concept of critical thinking to a wide audience. Both of these people fit every criteria of a critical thinker, as mentioned in "Critical Thinking: An Introduction".

1) They recognize problems. Both of these programs use sarcasm and satire to address problems in our nation, whether political, social, or economical. They tackle debated issues, and question the basis of certain arguments.

2) Their positions are never set in stone, explicitly categorizing "wrong" and "right", but they raise important questions and debate the credibility of many claims.

3) They use their sketches to show the affect that certain claims have on different areas of the nation.

4) They lay out a debatable opinion. The messages taken from their sketches can be disputed. They influence people to deeply think about their opinions, and the root of why they think in that way.

The main reason why I classify Stewart and Maddow as critical thinkers is because of their abilities to evaluate and analyze. Their sarcastic statements are carefully crafted in response to a hot issue. Just because the format of their analysis (sarcasm) may be different from what Americans are used to, does not devalue their statements. Their analysis of society is still conveyed, but the viewer has to think a little harder to fully understand it.

The format of these programs is means for critical thinking within itself. Many people do not understand sarcasm at first. This format forces people to think in a different way, and pick up on tone, gestures, and context. Sarcastic sketches make people have to really think, rather than just mindlessly absorb. People might see something and think "I wonder why he portrayed that character in that way?", causing them then to examine the root of the messages. In my opinion, it takes more thought and analysis to produce an critique in a sarcastic way than to merely lecture. To do it sarcastically, one must fully examine the issue and understand both sides. They must know the affects on all parties, and they must know the implications of the issue's points.

As far as the comments made about Frank and Lewis, I don't really think that it classifies as critical thinking. The epithets were said out of hate and prejudice. I do not think that these statements were critical thinking because they did not back up their statements with any analysis. Whether I agree or disagree with the statements are irrelevant- what classifies a critical thinker is interpretation and evaluation. These statements weren't backed up by any other reasonable or thought provoking claims.