Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, click “About the Author” tab.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US Entry #476 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #499: For many people, critical thinking is whether I like or agree with how the other person talks, acts or their political views. For this group of people, the world is binary – you either believe what I believe or you’re wrong.

A memorable example of binary thinking was after 09/11 when then President George Bush declared that the US needed to invade Iraq to capture the people responsible for the attack on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon.  In those remarks, Bush proclaimed, “you’re either with us or for the terrorists.” According to Bush, there was no alternative. 

Over the past two decades, such binary thinking – I’m right and if you don’t agree, you are the enemy – has become pervasive in the US. While the binary attitude is most noticeable in politics, especially among Trump MAGAts, such thinking seems to apply to simple everyday situations.

The current polarized environment has made it difficult to try and have a meaningful discussion about concerns over global warming.  If the discussion includes expression of any concerns, then the next challenge is trying to develop and/or to agree on practical solutions.

Interestingly, the amount of formal education of participants does not seem to be a critical factor in whether a person thinks critically.  The differentiator seems to be whether an individual understands their environment and whether he or she can solve problems influencing that environment.

Many people without formal education are astute at solving problems in their environment. People who are considered “street smart“ often have limited formal education. Indigenous peoples often have very limited formal education but have remarkable skills at surviving in often-harsh environments.

We all know people who are “book smart” but have no “street smarts.”  Some of the book-smart people are also quite dogmatic about solutions to whatever problem is at hand, whether they are truly knowledgeable about the subject.  Further, if they do not have a solution, they are good at blaming someone else, or claiming that the problem doesn’t exist.

Two recent examples. When I asked a business colleague if he had any concerns about the effects of global warming, he responded, “no.”  His rationale was he didn’t feel any major impact in his daily life and, besides, the doomsday forecast about the effects of  global warming made by Al Gore earlier in this century had not come true. Therefore, global warming was not real. Well, well, hello Fox News, which for this group has replaced MIT as the new science center.

The second example occurred in a different discussion about possible solutions to global warming. (The primary cause of global warming is a combination of CO₂ emissions and leakage of methane, the primary component of natural gas.) One participant in the conversation never addressed the primary sources of global warming but instead was emphatic that any solution to global warming must exclude nuclear power.  Even though nuclear power has no CO₂ emissions and operates 24×7 for decades, nuclear must be excluded from any possible solution. 

For him, nuclear was off the table and solar was on the table.  Solar was not just part of the solution, but the only solution. To paraphrase Tarzan, “solar good, nuclear bad.”  As with many non-critical thinkers, which seem to include a substantial portion of zealots, he failed to address all the downsides and extra costs associated with solar.  Whereas neither solar nor nuclear is without some downside, but both are zero CO₂ and can help reduce the causes of global warming – but only if one thinks critically.

What has been the cause of the decline the critical thinking? I’ve not studied the issue in detail and my educational background and experience are far afield.  However, I have observed behavior that might provide some guidance.  The behavior could be heavily influenced by an education system that is putting too much emphasis on digital thinking and less on subjects that stimulate critical thinking.

As much as I love STEM courses, these courses reinforce digital thinking – most answers are binary, either right or wrong. Worse, the tools used for teaching entry-level STEM-type courses have become increasingly digitized. When was the last time you saw a cashier make change without having to use the register to calculate the amount? Or the last time you saw someone do division by hand? Or use a slide rule to make a calculation?  You mean, you don’t need a calculator to complete these tasks? 

Another example of the decline in critical thinking, which only occurred to me recently, had been a key part of 7^th or 8^th grade English classes – diagramming sentences.  While the topic might seem arcane to today’s students, diagramming sentences teaches one how to deconstruct, or pull apart a problem – that is a sentence.  Once apart then the sentence can be reconstructed or revised to achieve its intended purpose. By diagramming sentences, one learns there are multiple ways of conveying thoughts, even if some rules of grammar are rigid.

As far as the topic of the blog, how does the decline in critical thinking affect the effort to avoid US Revolution V, aka the Revenge Revolution?  The Revenge Revolution has already started and will intensify over the next couple of years, especially in late 2024/early 2025.  Any effort to initiate programs to try and teach the US adult population how to think critically will have little, if any, near-term effect on US Revolution V.

However, what we, i.e., societal we, can do is update the curriculum for primary, secondary and post-secondary education to include courses that teach people to think critically.  Learning the basics of how to think critically can start in kindergarten and certainly early grammar school.  The earlier the better that children get exposed to the approach.  The teaching does not have to be complicated and can be geared to everyday situations students face.

For adults, we, again societal we, need to quit voting for candidates for the House, Senate and particularly president, who do not demonstrate an ability to think critically. Otherwise, we will end up without a democracy even more quickly than the track we are on. END ENTRY #499

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/