THE LITTLE BLUE REASONING BOOK.

Brandon Royal.

Preface.

Henry Humidor purchased a box of very rare, very expensive cigars and insured them, among other things, against fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars, he filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, Henry stated the cigars were lost ain a series of small fires.a The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: he had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

Henry sued and won!

In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed that the claim was frivolous. He stated that the man nevertheless held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure against fire, without adequately defining what is considered to be an aunacceptable fire,a and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeals process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid Henry $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in the afires.a But a After Henry cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on twenty-four counts of arson! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, Henry Humidor was convicted of intentionally setting fire to his insured property and was sentenced to twenty-four months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

Welcome to the wonderful world of reasoning.

Introduction.

Some 2,500 years ago, Socrates gave birth to the art and science of what we now call critical reasoning. Through a system of inquiry, known as the aSocratic method,a Socrates used a series of probing questions to obtain answers and then critique those answers. In this manner, he sought to reveal the key issues behind perplexing problems, to uncover the merit and flaws in commonly held ideas, and to expose those contradictory beliefs that often hide behind smooth-sounding but empty rhetoric. It is indeed humorous to reflect on Socratesa observation that one cannot necessarily rely on the asounda judgment of those individuals occupying positions of authority; they may be p.r.o.ne to think in a muddled, whimsical, or irrational manner.

Critical reasoning, also referred to as critical thinking, may be defined broadly as athe process by which we evaluate information.a Often, the information we seek relates to problems or opportunities, and the process relates to how we arrive at our conclusions based upon the information we have. Individuals who possess critical thinking skills can identify problems or opportunities, gather relevant information, a.n.a.lyze information in a apropera way, and come to reliable conclusions by themselves, without necessarily relying on others.

Notwithstanding our ability to read, no other single skill is more important than our ability to reason. Yet, strangely, no required course dedicated to reasoning skills exists as a part of our regular school curriculum or as part of any on-the-job training program. This book provides a distillation of the most useful academic and real-life reasoning concepts. Teaching in our school systemsaa"aprimary, secondary, and post-secondaryaa"ahas traditionally been skewed toward instructing us awhat to thinka as opposed to ahow to think.a An all-rounded education must balance the teaching of course content with new and better ways of understanding and interpreting the material at hand.

This book contains fifty reasoning tips interspersed throughout five sections. Perception & Mindset (chapter 1) provides an initial framework for reasoning. We live in a world of imperfect information and of imperfect abilities, where subjectivity is a key ingredient. As no two individuals have the same perspective or mindset, we must makes allowances for this when mastering the tools of reasoning and logic.

Creative Thinking (chapter 2) introduces non-traditional thinking methods. Creative thinking is subjective or non-linear thinking, and is often referred to as aout-of-the-boxa thinking. One of the most useful topics is reframing problems. An important step in problem solving involves asking, aIs the perceived problem really the problem?a The ability to use creativity to better define problems bolsters the ability to solve problems.

Decision Making (chapter 3) focuses on applied reasoning and introduces various tools, the major benefit of which is to structure or quantify the decision-making process. The basic toolsaa"aboxes and treesaa"aare devices that allow problems to be approached in an efficient, organized manner. Other tools, such as weighted ranking and utility a.n.a.lysis, allow us to quantify qualitative decisions (e.g., hiring decisions, career choices), which may or may not involve monetary considerations.

a.n.a.lyzing Arguments (chapter 4) shows us how to break arguments down according to cla.s.sic argument structure: conclusion, evidence, and a.s.sumption. The ability to understand, attack, and defend arguments is one of the most fundamental uses of reasoning skills. Mastering Logic (chapter 5) contains some of the more technical material in this book, but it also provides the foundation for understanding some of the most relevant examples of reasoning flaws found in everyday conversation and speech.

Letas get started.

Quiz.

Try these ten basic, but occasionally tricky, reasoning concepts. Mark each statement as being either true or false. Answers can be found on the final pages of this book.

Chapter 1.

Perception & Mindset.

Many complain about their memory, few about their judgment.

a" La Rochefoucauld.

SELECTIVE PERCEPTION.

Tip #1: Selective perception is the tendency to see the world the way we would like it to be rather than how it really is. The sound thinker suspends judgment and is not unduly influenced by stereotypes, prejudices, isolated experiences, or preconceived notions.

Imagine recovering your sight after thirty years of blindness. Pioneering psychologist K. F. Muenzinger captured the words of a person who had made this remarkable journey: When I could see again, objects seemed to hurl themselves at me. One of the things normal people know from long habit is what not to look at. Things that donat matter, or that confuse, are simply shut out of their minds. I had forgotten this, and tried to see everything at once; consequently I saw almost nothing.

This interesting but extreme case is virtually the opposite of what most of us typically experience. The active thinker struggles to gain more lat.i.tude, differing viewpoints, and corroborating information. We hardly worry about seeing too much, but rather about seeing too little. All-rounded thinkingaa"athinking that encompa.s.ses both sides of an issue or topicaa"ais probably the greatest a.s.set that training in critical thinking can lend us.

Age, culture, gender, education, and work and life experience are major reasons why no two individuals see the world in exactly the same way. Perhaps the most basic way to view the world is from a positive or negative perspective. Is the cup half full or half empty? Are we perennial pessimists or incurable optimists?

Consider the following truncated profiles that describe the life and times of Remus Reid. Folklore has it that two separate newspaper accounts surfaced regarding the death of cowboy Remus Reidaa"aone from the sheriffas office and one from a close relative who lived in Remusa hometown: From the sheriffas office: aRemus Reid, horse thief, sent to prison in 1885, escaped in 1887, robbed the local train six times. Caught by local detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.a From Remusa dotting relative: aRemus Reid was a famous cowboy whose business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian a.s.sets and intimate dealings with the regional railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital legal investigation. In 1889, Remus pa.s.sed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.a We have a tendency to interpret events selectively. If we want things to be athis waya or athat waya we can most certainly select, stack, or arrange evidence in a way that supports such a viewpoint.

Selective perception is based on what seems to us to stand out. However, what seems to us to be standing out may very well be related to our goals, interests, expectations, past experiences, or current demands of the situationaa"aawith a hammer in hand, everything looks like a nail.a The preceding quote highlights the phenomenon of selective perception. If we want to use a hammer, then the world around us may begin to look as though it is full of nails!

THE MAGIC OF COINCIDENCE.

Ponder this rather astounding comparison of the a.s.sa.s.sinations of two famous American presidents: * Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

* Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860.

* John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.

* The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

* Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

* Both wives lost children while living in the White House.

* Both presidents were shot on a Friday. Both were shot in the head.

* Lincolnas secretary was named Kennedy. Kennedyas secretary was named Lincoln.

* Both were a.s.sa.s.sinated by Southerners. Both were succeeded by Southerners. Both successors were named Johnson.

* Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

* John Wilkes Booth, who a.s.sa.s.sinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald, who a.s.sa.s.sinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

* Both a.s.sa.s.sins were known by their three names.

* The names of both a.s.sa.s.sins comprise fifteen letters.

* Booth ran from a theatre and was caught in a warehouse. Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theatre.

* Booth and Oswald were both a.s.sa.s.sinated before their trials.

* A week before Lincoln was shot he was in Monroe, Maryland. A week before Kennedy was shot he was with Marilyn Monroe.

Despite how enticing the above comparison may appear, we must keep in mind that there are likely just as many differences as there are similarities between these two events. Care must be exercised not to overestimate the veracity of such a compilation. Recall the well-known saying: aIf a billion chimpanzees were to sit down in front of a billion computers with a billion hours to spare, eventually one of them would type Tolstoyas War and Peace.a Eventually one chimpanzee would arrange the letters exactly as they appear in that novel a" typing the identical letters to form those identical words, in the right order, with the right s.p.a.ces, and the correct punctuation. Here the magic of chance or coincidence reminds us that almost anything is possible.

At the crossroads of selective perception and coincidence is something known as the ahalo effect.a The halo effect is the tendency to view a person, place, or thing favorably based on only a single incident, trait, or characteristic. For example, if someone arrives at our firm to answer a job ad and happens to be impeccably dressed, we may view this person favorably and overlook certain technical qualifications required for the job. Sometimes the halo effect is tied to coincidence. Say, for example, the candidate who arrives at our company for an interview happens to be from our hometown. Perhaps they also know someone we know. These coincidences may cause us to view the candidate favorably in an overall way.

Hereas some offhanded Commonwealth humor.

Year 1981: * Prince Charles got married.

* Liverpool crowned Champions of Europe.

* Australia lost the Ashes tournament.

* The Pope died.

Year 2005: * Prince Charles got married.

* Liverpool crowned Champions of Europe.

* Australia lost the Ashes tournament.

* The Pope died.

Lesson learned: The next time Prince Charles gets married, would someone please warn the Pope!

THE FOUR CLa.s.sIC MINDSETS.

Each of us learns early that different people see the world differently. Our experience, background, and predispositions play a unique role. Ponder this simple but revealing question: Which of the following five sports is least like the other four?

A)*Baseball B)*Cricket C)*Soccer (Football) D)*Golf E)*Ice Hockey This is indeed an interesting question highlighting the possibility of multiple solutions and subjective interpretations. Not only would such a question never be chosen for an IQ test, but it also hints at ambiguity so often present whenever individuals make choices.

Most people find themselves choosing choice D insofar as golf is primarily an individual sport while the other sports are team sports. Golf is also the only sport here in which a lower score beats a higher score. Some pontificate whether the distinction rests on the degree to which golf is more mental than physical while the other four sports are more physical than mental. Certainly physical speed is of obvious importance in all sports except golf. Choice E is likely the next most popular. Ice hockey is essentially a winter sport, whereas the other sports are typically played in warmer weather. In ice hockey, players use skates, whereas in the other sports players use sporting shoes. Ice hockey is also played with a puck, the others, with b.a.l.l.s! (Pun intendedaa"aice hockey is notorious for being one of the roughest of sports and the only one listed above where you can legitimately achecka another player.) A number of people see soccer (football) as least like the other three. After all, the other sports are played with stick-like objects: golf requires clubs, irons, and putters; ice hockey requires sticks, and baseball and cricket require bats. Football (soccer) also is played with an air-filled object, not a solid ball or puck.

People who choose choice A point to the fact that baseball has no true world championshipaa"athe aWorld Seriesa is an American phenomenon. Choice B (cricket) represents a sport that is played primarily in Commonwealth countries.

Every answer choice is both right and wrong! In summary, there are at least four distinct ways in which individuals draw broad contrasts among these different sports. Some people tend to focus first on the number of people who play the sport (individual vs. team sport), some focus on the speed with which each sport is played (walking vs. running), some focus on the objects used to play the sport (puck vs. ball, inflatable object vs. non-inflatable object, stick-like object vs. non-stick-like object), while others see these sports in the context of when (winter vs. summer, cold weather vs. warm weather) or where they are played (within a particular country or region).

In terms of thinking about how different people think, it is useful to ma.s.sage the concept of amindset.a Many schemas exist which seek to cla.s.sify mindsets. For instance, if we were to spend time reviewing how various people choose an answer to the above multiple-choice question, we might find the following: some people are more a.n.a.lytical, some more holistic, some are more results-oriented, and some are more process-oriented. Case in point: People who are a.n.a.lytically minded tend to focus on the instruments used to play the sport. People who are holistically minded tend to see the sport in terms of when and where (i.e., geography) it is played. People who are results-oriented are more likely to see the end result, contrasting the desirable low scores in golf with the desirable high scores in the other four sports. Process-oriented individuals will likely see contrasts in the number of players who play each sport, their physical size, and their athletic movements.

Tip #2: Think of mindsets as divided into four basic types: a.n.a.lysts, Idealists, Realists, and Synthesists. These mindsets can be further contrasted based on levels of practicality and emotional attachment.

Our natural dispositions with respect to how we see the world come with their inherent strengths and weaknesses. Such dispositions, often referred to as mindsets, can help us in understanding how others around us are motivated.

To understand the importance of mindsets, ponder why it might be difficult, apart from obvious time constraints, to be a movie actor, director, and producer a" all at the same time. The answer lies in competing skills and personalities. An actor needs to be dynamic and spontaneous, a director needs to be systematic and creative, and a producer needs to be persuasive, commercial, and administrative.

The chart below summarizes the four mindsets of the Realist, Idealist, a.n.a.lyst, and Synthesist.

Realist: Describes a person whose primary goal is agetting the job donea (results-oriented).

Idealist: Describes a person whose primary goal is afinding the arighta answera (process-oriented).

a.n.a.lyst: Describes a person whose primary goal is aobtaining a thorough evaluationa (a.n.a.lytically oriented).

Synthesist: Describes a person whose primary goal is aachieving a composite viewa (holistically oriented).

Exhibit 1.1 below may be used to further contrast the four cla.s.sic mindsets in terms of practicality and emotion. In short, Realists and a.n.a.lysts are deemed more practical than Idealists or Synthesists (this is fairly empirical). Also, Realists and Idealists are deemed to be more emotional than are a.n.a.lysts or Synthesists. Realists and Idealists tend to deal more with people in moving their goals forward. Realists know where they are going and need to enlist peopleas help, while Idealists seek to marshal support in determining the proper course of action. On the other hand, a.n.a.lysts and Synthesists favor the intellectual more than the emotional. The a.n.a.lyst deals with details a" the pieces of the puzzle at hand a" while the Synthesist tries to draw themes from the information presented; thus, there is less need for emotional attachment.

Exhibit 1.1 a" The Four Cla.s.sic Mindsets Exhibit 1.2 presents a stereotypical list of traits for individuals working across different fields. Naturally, a agooda thinker must not be unduly influenced by such stereotypes.

Exhibit 1.2 a" Perceptions of the Professions.

Chapter 2.

Creative Thinking.

Our task, regarding creativity, is to help children climb their own mountains, as high as possible. No one can do more than that.

a"Loris Malaguzzi.

OVERVIEW.

Loosely speaking, there are two types of thinking a" a.n.a.lytical and creative. a.n.a.lytical thinking is the focus of chapters 3, 4, and 5. Because so much emphasis is placed on traditional, a.n.a.lytical problem-solving techniques, this chapter areverses the ordera and precedes with non-traditional, creative techniques for use in a.n.a.lyzing and solving problems.

Lateral thinking, an offshoot of creative thinking, is discussed first. The problems t.i.tled Stroke, Pattern, and Nine Dots are examples of puzzles that highlight the power of programmed responses. As a follow-up, we explore differences between convergent thinking and divergent thinking and the strengths and weaknesses of both abilities. The primary goal is to broaden the mind and develop an all-around thinking process.

Because fresh ideas are the bloodline of creativity, a discussion of how to generate ideas includes sections on brainstorming as well as aidea growersa and aidea killers.a In terms of problem-solving ability, the technique of reframing problems to determine whether the problem is really the problem is an extremely valuable tool.

In placing creativity back within the context of the individual, the Prisoneras Dilemma game, a mixed-motive game, lends insights into the benefits of compet.i.tion versus cooperation.