Hard Talk
For years I have been wanting to write a book called Friendly Critical Thinking. The tone and psychological baggage associated with any conversation where one or both parties are risking the possibility that in some fashion their thinking is sloppy will destroy the possibility of a huge audience for something called “critical thinking.” It is just so rare for any of us to seek an opportunity that reminds us that humans are bundles of mistakes in most regards. Sometimes the mistakes are explicit; other times they are in the hidden realm of our rush to make decisions with inadequate information.
Imagine with me the units of joy at a Taylor Swift concert or a University of Notre Dame football game. People push, shove and pay outrageous fees to embed in those crowds. Now suppose we invite someone to a conversation in which we will apply the many attitudes and skills that are collectively called “critical thinking.” How much excitement would you have about being the centerpiece of this event?
The major point of this book that I keep postponing is that any such conversation needs to occur slowly with many deposits of trust and shared vulnerability for it to accomplish the growth experience it is designed to create. We are simply too fragile to look forward to a bright-light examination of our reasoning. However, my book spells out numerous suggestions that could make critical thinking a gift to everyone involved in a conversation flavored with critical thinking.
But the point of this post is to point out that the claims I was trying to make above are not universally accurate. Part of the fun of critical thinking is the realization that wisdom or accuracy are often matters of context. Even our most beloved decisions would be a disaster in certain circumstances.
I am writing this post to share an experience where critical thinking flourishes, but the person whose statements are being evaluated is strong enough to desire being in that position.
Stephen Sackur is a brilliant interviewer. He is often fond of the people he interviews, but he does not hesitate to raise questions about the quality of their reasoning. My biggest critique of his behavior is that he sometimes interrupts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/QrrcWR1vSGDbwZ45JLhNg2/stephen-sackur
His show on BBC, HardTalk, is such a refreshing alternative to the Wolf Blitzer model of repeating whatever the last person said and then acting as if his repetition is the deepest level of analysis or Fareed Zacharia’s (whom I generally appreciate) frequently fawning quasi-interviews. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmdc/episodes/player
When you accept an invitation to HardTalk, you know in advance that you will get not a single softball question. And yet his interviewees line up to be on the show----very impressive. But I think you will agree that most people receiving an invitation to HardTalk would have a previous engagement. We DO need to make our critical thinking friendly.