Commentators for the past century have consistently observed, in light of the exponential rate of change – in culture as well as in technology (which are often inextricable) – the ever-increasing necessity for humanity to collectively recognise its neurological, psychological and sociological fallibility, and mitigate against the consequences our own limitations have the possibility of leading to. Despite this, we find ourselves embroiled in numerous existential crises, all of which are deeply complex and inescapably urgent. Now, more than ever, populations all over the world need – simply in order to function – to understand more things than most people could ever have comprehended in a lifetime in most of the previous generations that have ever existed. This, of course, is impossible: the whole world cannot simultaneously become experts in climate science, renewable resources, virology and immunology, politics and technology. However, what every person – in every place where their needs are being met to the point where they have the mental space to conceive of a sufficient level of education (if we consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs it would be un-sensible to assume that those who struggle simply to feed themselves and their children have the time or energy to commit to learning new ways of thinking) – is very much capable of being taught is that they are not experts, that every issue is far more nuanced than it seems, that there is always an alternative perspective. Objectivity is a difficult skill to use effectively, but it is something that can be learnt, and research has shown that the younger we begin learning such skills, the better we become at using them (for example, see the work done by the P4C movement). Every human is capable of learning to be cautious with information. Most are capable, where necessary, of checking whether the information they are consuming is flawed: being critical, careful, and aware are all things we can learn to do to the point where they become second nature. Young children are already learning to do this in some, but not enough, countries.
Various names have been given to the concept, the most recent of which is ‘critical thinking’: the ability to step back, be objective, and consider the broader implications and associated facts of an issue before coming to a conclusion about it. In a world in which there is a constantly, exponentially increasing amount of information available to a huge portion of the world’s population, it seems clearer than ever that such an ability is essential for the global society to function effectively and cooperatively. John Dewey was extremely vocal about it, Bertrand Russell advocated the skills encompassed in the present-day conception of it, Walter Lippmann demonstrated the necessity for it by describing how unnatural it is for us to use it in our day-to-day lives.
This ability not only applies in a cooperative context. It applies to all of the major issues that humanity is facing and will come to face in coming years. The environmental crisis requires everyone to understand and to commit to change, and this is only possible if the people of the world understand their own minds’ ability to fool them into believing untruths. Understanding our limitations mitigates against arguments about fallacies, unnecessary and limiting divisions that obscure more important issues, and even prejudices.
If people learn, from a young age, to acknowledge that there are as many perspectives as there are humans in the world, then they will be better able to reach compromises, to understand the different hierarchies of priority held by others, to step back from themselves and try to understand why another person feels or thinks the way they do.
If people are better informed about the enormous number of fallacies circulated on the Internet, they will be less likely to believe truly damaging and endangering falsehoods that they see – and perhaps therefore less likely to, for example, believe that pandemic-inducing viruses are caused by internet-providing technologies. If they have the tools to recognise problematic assertions – scientific or otherwise – they will, if they have learnt to, seek more reliable sources and come to better-informed conclusions.
If people are aware that they naturally seek information that aligns with their world-view, that supports their life choices – then they might be more open to information that confounds their preconceptions. If they acknowledge that they are emotionally driven creatures, they will be less easily manipulated by populism and by advertising. The former helps to protect democracy, the latter helps, indirectly, to protect the environment from the ongoing rise of non-renewable consumption.
It is my belief that the most important and timely introduction to worldwide curricula is critical thinking. With it, populations will be better equipped to protect themselves and their futures, within their national borders and on the global stage. Without prioritising the skills of objectivity and criticality, we leave ourselves open to divisiveness, disinformation, and further environmental damage.