Critical Thinking Pearson New International Edition Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life Print Replica PDF Full Chapter PDF

Critical Thinking: Pearson New
International Edition: Tools for Taking

Charge of Your Learning and Your Life
[Print Replica] (Ebook PDF)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/critical-thinking-pearson-new-international-edition-tool
s-for-taking-charge-of-your-learning-and-your-life-print-replica-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
(eBook PDF) An Invitation to Health: Taking Charge of

Your Health 19th Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-an-invitation-to-health-
taking-charge-of-your-health-19th-edition/
An Invitation to Health: Taking Charge of Your Health

19th Edition Dianne Hales
https://ebookmass.com/product/an-invitation-to-health-taking-
charge-of-your-health-19th-edition-dianne-hales/
Change Your Thinking to Change Your Life Kate James
https://ebookmass.com/product/change-your-thinking-to-change-
your-life-kate-james/
Discrete Time Signal Processing: Pearson New

International Edition [Print Replica] (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/discrete-time-signal-processing-
pearson-new-international-edition-print-replica-ebook-pdf/
Change Your Thinking to Change Your Life Kate James
https://ebookmass.com/product/change-your-thinking-to-change-
your-life-kate-james-2/
The Power of Saying No: The New Science of How to Say

No that Puts You in Charge of Your Life Vanessa Patrick
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-power-of-saying-no-the-new-
science-of-how-to-say-no-that-puts-you-in-charge-of-your-life-
vanessa-patrick/
McGraw-Hill Connect Resources for Feldman, P.O.W.E.R.

Learning and Your Life: Essentials of Student Success,
2e
https://ebookmass.com/product/mcgraw-hill-connect-resources-for-
feldman-p-o-w-e-r-learning-and-your-life-essentials-of-student-
success-2e/
Theatre in Your Life 3rd Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/theatre-in-your-life-3rd-edition-
ebook-pdf/
Presentation Essentials: The Tools You Need to

Captivate Your Audience, Deliver Your Story, and Make
Your Message Memorable 1st Edition Bruce
https://ebookmass.com/product/presentation-essentials-the-tools-
you-need-to-captivate-your-audience-deliver-your-story-and-make-
your-message-memorable-1st-edition-bruce/
Critical Thinking
Paul
Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking
Elder
Charge of Your Learning and Your Life
Richard Paul Linda Elder
Third Edition
Third Edition
ISBN 978-1-29202-714-2
9 781292 027142
I N T R O D U C T I ON
Consider for a minute all of what you have learned in your life: about sports,
money, friendship, anger and fear, love and hate, your mother and father, nature,
the city you live in, manners and taboos, human nature, and human behavior.
Learning is a natural and inevitable process. We learn in many directions. One
direction in which learning is not natural is inward learning—self-knowledge,
knowledge of the workings of our own mind, of how and why we think as we do.
Begin by answering these—rather unusual—questions: What have you
learned about how you think? Did you ever study your thinking? What informa-
tion do you have, for example, about the intellectual processes involved in how
your mind thinks? More to the point, perhaps, what do you really know about
how to analyze, evaluate, or reconstruct your thinking? Where does your think-
ing come from? How much of it is of high quality? How much of it is of poor
quality? How much of your thinking is vague, muddled, inconsistent, inaccurate,
illogical, or superficial? Are you, in any real sense, in control of your thinking?
Do you know how to test it? Do you have any conscious standards for determin-
ing when you are thinking well and when you are thinking poorly? Have
you ever discovered a significant problem in your thinking and then The best thinkers make the
changed it by a conscious act of will? If someone asked you to teach study of thinking second
him or her what you have learned about thinking thus far in your life, nature.
would you have any idea what that was or how you learned it?
If you are like most people, the honest answers to these questions run along
the lines of: “Well, I suppose I don’t know much about my thinking or about
thinking in general. I suppose in my life I have more or less taken my thinking for
granted. I don’t really know how it works. I have never studied it. I don’t know
how I test it, or even if I do test it. It just happens in my mind automatically.”
Serious study of thinking, serious thinking about thinking, is rare in human
life. It is not a subject in most schools nor a subject taught at home. But if you
focus your attention for a moment on the role thinking is playing in your life, you
may come to recognize that everything you do or want or feel is influenced by your
thinking. And if you become persuaded of that, you will be surprised that humans
show so little interest in thinking. What is more, if you start to pay attention to
thinking in a manner analogous to the way a botanist observes plants, you will be
on your way to becoming a truly exceptional person. You will notice what few oth-
ers notice. You will be the rare person who is engaged in discovering what human
thinking is about. You will be the rare person who knows how and why he or she is
thinking, the rare person skilled in assessing and improving how he or she thinks.
Some things you will eventually discover are: All of us, somewhere along the way,
have picked up bad habits of thinking. All of us, for example, make generalizations
when we don’t have the evidence to back them up, allow stereotypes to influence our
thinking, form some false beliefs, tend to look at the world from one fixed point of
view, ignore or attack points of view that conflict with our own, fabricate illusions
and myths that we subconsciously confuse with what is true and real, and think de-
ceptively about many aspects of our experience. As you discover these problems in
your thinking, we hope you will begin to ask yourself some key questions: Is it pos-
sible for me to learn to avoid bad habits of thought? Is it possible for me to develop
good habits of thought? Is it possible for me to think at a high or, at least, higher level?
3
These are problems and questions that few discover or ask. Nevertheless, every
major insight you gain into good or bad thinking can enhance your life significant-
ly. You can begin to make better decisions. You can gain power, important power
that you presently lack. You can open new doors for yourself, see new options,
minimize significant mistakes, maximize potential understandings. If you’re going
to live your life as a thinker, why not get good at thinking about thinking?
1 Think for Yourself

BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT YOUR THINKING
S ee whether you can identify any discovery you made about your thinking before you
started to read this book. If you can’t think of any, write out your best explanation of why
not. If you do think of something, explain what you learned about your thinking.
GOOD THINKING REQUIRES HARD WORK

There is a catch—there almost always is. To make significant gains in the quality
of your thinking, you will have to engage in a kind of work that most humans
find unpleasant, if not painful: intellectual work. This is the price you have to pay
if you want the gain. One doesn’t become a skillful critic of thinking overnight
any more than one becomes a skillful basketball player or dancer overnight. To
become a student of thinking, you must be willing to put the work into thinking
that skilled improvement requires. When thinking of what physical conditioning
requires, we say, “No pain, no gain!” In this case, it would be more precise to say,
“No intellectual pain, no intellectual gain!”
This means you must be willing to practice special “acts” of thinking that are,
initially at least, uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and difficult. You have
to learn to do “moves” with your mind analogous to what accomplished athletes
learn to do through practice and feedback with their body. Improvement in think-
ing, then, is similar to improvement in other domains of performance in which prog-
ress is a product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice. Although
this book will point the way to what you need to practice to become a skilled thinker,
it cannot provide you with the internal motivation to do the required work. This
must come from you. You must be willing, as it were, to be the monkey who comes
down from the trees and starts to observe your fellow monkeys in action. You must
be willing to examine mental films of your own monkeying around as well.
Let’s now develop further the analogy between physical and intellectual develop-
ment. This analogy, we believe, goes a long way and provides us with just the right
prototype to keep before our minds. If you play tennis and you want to play better,
there is nothing more advantageous than to look at some films of excellent players in
action and then painstakingly compare how they, in comparison to you, address the
ball. You study their performance. You note what you need to do more of, what you
need to do less of, and you practice, practice, practice. You go through many cycles
4
of practice/feedback/practice. Your practice heightens your awareness of the ins and

outs of the art. You develop a vocabulary for talking about your performance. Per-
haps you get a coach. And slowly, progressively, you improve. Similar points could
be made for ballet, distance running, piano playing, chess playing, reading, writing,
parenting, teaching, studying, and so on.
One major problem, however, is that all the activities of skill development
with which we are typically familiar are visible. We could watch a film of the skill
in action, but imagine a film of a person sitting in a chair thinking. It would look
like the person was doing nothing. Yet, increasingly, workers are being paid pre-
cisely for the thinking they are able to do, not for their physical strength or physi-
cal activity. Therefore, although most of our thinking is invisible, it represents one
of the most important things about us. Its quality, in all likelihood, will determine
whether we will become rich or poor, powerful or weak. Yet we typically think
without explicitly noticing how we are doing it. We take our thinking for granted.
For example, important concepts, such as love, friendship, integrity, freedom,
democracy, and ethics, are often unconsciously twisted and distorted in common
life and thought. Our subconscious interest is often in getting what we want, not
in describing ourselves or the world truly and honestly.
In any case, most of our concepts are invisible to us, although implicit in our
talk and behavior. So is much of our thinking. We would be amazed, and some-
times shocked, if we were to see all our thinking displayed for us on a large screen.
To develop as a thinker, you must think of your thinking as involving an implicit
set of structures—concepts being one important set—whose use can be improved
only when you begin to take the tools of thinking seriously. You develop as a thinker
when you explicitly notice what your thinking is doing and when you become com-
mitted to recognizing both strengths and weaknesses in that thinking. You develop
as a thinker as you build your own “large screen” on which to view your thinking.
Critical thinking, then, provides the tools of mind you need to think through
anything and everything that requires thought—in college and in life. As your
intellectual skills develop, you gain instruments that you can use deliberately
and mindfully to better reason through the thinking tasks implicit in your short-
and long-range goals. There are better and worse ways to pursue whatever you
are after. Good thinking enables you to maximize the better ways and minimize
the worse.
EXHIBIT 2 Critical thinking is the way we should approach everything we do.

Something you add
CRITICAL THINKING onto everything else
Rather
The way you do

CRITICAL THINKING everything you do
The way you shop, teach, learn, vote, relate, evaluate, and so on
5

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CONCEPTS
S ee whether you can think of a time in which you “misused” an important concept.
Hint: Think of an idea you commonly use in your thinking, such as friendship, trust,
truthfulness, or respect. Have you ever implied you were someone’s friend but acted against
that person (such as gossiping behind that person’s back)? Write out or orally explain your
answer.
Only by applying the fundamentals to a wide range of human problems can one begin to
appreciate their power and usefulness. Think of it this way. If we were coaching you in tennis,
we would remind you again and again to keep your eye on the ball. Could you imagine saying to
your coach, “Why do I have to keep my eye on the ball? I already did that once.” The same logic
applies to the principles of skilled thinking. If you want to be proficient, you have to redirect
your eyes to the fundamentals, again and again and again.
EXHIBIT 3 Why is critical thinking so important? (A more elaborated

“definition.”)
The Problem:
Everyone thinks. It is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased,
distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that
of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought.
Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought,
however, must be systematically cultivated.
Defining Critical Thinking:

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking—about any subject, content, or problem—in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing,
assessing, and reconstructing it.
Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-
corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and
mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-
solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome one’s native egocentrism
and sociocentrism.
To analyze thinking:
Identify its purpose, question, information, conclusion(s), assumptions, implications, main
concept(s), and point of view.
To assess thinking:
Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and
fairness.
6
EXHIBIT 3 Continued
The Result:
A well-cultivated critical thinker
■ raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
■ gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively;
■ comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against
relevant criteria and standards;
■ thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and
assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical conse-
quences; and
■ communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.

BEGINNING TO CONSIDER PROBLEMS IN THINKING
E xhibit 3 shows that a big part of “the problem” critical thinking addresses is that “much
of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright preju-
diced.” Make a list of five significant problems in human life. Then see if you can identify the
problems in thinking that led to those problems. Be as specific as possible.
THE CONCEPT OF CRITICAL THINKING

The concept of critical thinking reflects an idea derived from roots in ancient
Greek. The word critical derives etymologically from two Greek roots: kriticos
(meaning “discerning judgment”) and kriterion (meaning “standards”). Etymo-
logically, then, the word implies the development of “discerning judgment based
on standards.” In Webster’s New World Dictionary, the relevant entry for critical
reads “characterized by careful analysis and judgment” and is followed by “Criti-
cal, in its strictest sense, implies an attempt at objective judgment so as to deter-
mine both merits and faults.” Considering these definitions together, then, critical
thinking may be appropriately defined as
thinking explicitly aimed at well-founded judgment, using appropriate evaluative
standards in an attempt to determine the true worth, merit, or value of something.
Critical thinking, then, has three dimensions: an analytic, an evaluative, and
a creative component. As critical thinkers, we analyze thinking to evaluate it. We
evaluate it to improve it.
7
In other words, critical thinking is the systematic monitoring of thought with

the goal of improvement. When we think critically, we realize that thinking must
not be accepted at face value but must be analyzed and assessed for its clarity, ac-
curacy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logicalness. We recognize that all reasoning
occurs within points of view and frames of reference, that all reasoning proceeds
from some goals and objectives and has an informational base, that all data when
used in reasoning must be interpreted, that interpretation involves concepts, that
concepts entail assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have implica-
tions. Because problems in thinking can occur in any of these dimensions, each
dimension must be monitored.
When we think critically, we realize that in every domain of human thought,
it is possible and important to question the parts of thinking and the standards
for thought. Routine questioning in the critical mind looks something like this:
Let’s see, what is the most f undamental issue here? From what point of view
should I approach this problem? Does it make sense for me to assume this? What
may I reasonably infer from these data? What is implied in this graph? What is
the fundamental concept here? Is this information consistent with that informa-
tion? What makes this question complex? How could I check the accuracy of
these data? If this is so, what else is implied? Is this a credible source of informa-
tion?
And so forth. With intellectual language such as this in the foreground, one can
come to recognize fundamental critical thinking “moves” that can be used in
reasoning through any problem or issue, class, or subject. To help you learn the
language of critical thinking and to apply it on a regular basis to your learning
and your life is a primary objective of this book. With the analytic and evalu-
ative tools of critical thinking, you can learn how to raise the quality of your
thinking.
EXHIBIT 4 Critical thinking applies to everything about which we think.
Critical Thinking About:
Teaching and learning Well-being Speaking
Creativity Listening Politics
Emotions Medicine Religion
Intuition Writing Problem solving
Habits Nursing Reading
8
EXHIBIT 5
THREE LEVELS OF THOUGHT
Level 3:
Highest Order Thinking
• Explicitly reflective • Highest skill level
• Routine use of critical thinking tools in
analyzing and assessing thinking
• Consistently fair
Level 2:
Higher Order Thinking
• Selectively reflective • High skill level
• Lacks critical thinking vocabulary
• Inconsistently fair, maybe
skilled in sophistry
Level 1:
Lower Order Thinking
• Unreflective • Low to mixed skill level
• Frequently relies on gut intuition
• Largely self-serving/
self-deceived
Lower order thinking is often distinguished from higher order

thinking. But higher order thinking can be inconsistent in quality. It
can be fair or unfair. To think at the highest level of quality, we need
not only intellectual skills, but intellectual traits as well.
BECOME A CRITIC OF YOUR THINKING

One of the most important things you can do for yourself is begin the process
of becoming a critic of your thinking. You do this not to negate or “dump on”
yourself but, instead, to improve yourself, to begin to practice the art of skilled
thinking and lifelong learning. To do this, you must discover your thinking, see its
structure, observe its implications, and recognize its basis and vantage point. You
must come to recognize that, through commitment and daily practice, you can
make foundational changes in your thinking. You need to learn about your bad
9
habits of thought and about what you are striving for: good habits of thought. At
whatever level you think, you need to recognize that you can learn to think better.
Creative improvement is the end for which critical thinkers strive.

BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT YOUR THINKING
C onsider your thinking in personal relationships, in dealing with friends, in relating to roman-
tic partners, in sports, as a reader, as a writer, as a listener to lectures, as an employee, in
planning your life, in dealing with your emotions, and in figuring out complex situations.
Complete these statements:
1. Right now, I believe my thinking across all domains of my life is of ____________
quality. I base this judgment on ______________.
2. In the following areas, I think very well:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
3. In the following areas, my thinking is okay, not great, but not terrible either:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
4. In the following areas, my thinking is probably poor:
a. ____________________________________
b. ____________________________________
c. ____________________________________
ESTABLISH NEW HABITS OF THOUGHT

Most of us get through school by modifying our thinking the hard way—through
trial and error. Most of us have little help in learning how to become a critic of
our thinking. We develop few tools for working on our thinking. The result is that
we use our native capacities to think in a largely unconscious fashion. We develop
some good habits of thought and many poor habits of thought. The productive
and unproductive habits of mind become intermixed and hard to disentangle. We
learn without a clear sense of the ideal in thinking. We are not clear about our
goals as thinkers. We treat each class like a new set of tasks to complete mechani-
cally. We fail to learn important ideas that enable us to learn how to learn better
and better.
10
To learn at a deeper level, you need to get powerful leverage on learning. You
need a clearer perspective on what you should be striving to achieve, and you need
powerful tools for upgrading your thinking and learning.
Critical thinking works. It is practical. It will enable you to be more successful,
to save time and energy, and to experience more positive and fulfilling emotions.
It is in your interest to become a better critic of your own thinking as a student,
scholar, parent, consumer, and citizen and in other roles as well. If you are not
progressively improving the quality of your life, you have not yet discovered the
true power of critical thinking. We hope this text will serve as an impetus for this
shift. Good thinking works—for everyone.

CHANGING YOUR HABITS
H ave you ever changed a habit as a result of your conscious effort and planning? What
do you have to do to change a habit? Is it easy? If not, why not? What do you think you
would have to do to change habits of thought? Write out your answer or explain orally.
DEVELOP CONFIDENCE IN YOUR ABILITY

TO REASON AND FIGURE THINGS OUT
No matter how well or poorly you have performed in school or in college, it is impor-
tant to realize that the power of the human mind, the power of your mind, is virtually
unlimited. But, if any of us are to reach our potential, we must take command of the
workings of our minds. No matter where we are as thinkers, we can always improve.
As young children going through school, we usually get the impression that
those students who are the quickest to answer questions, the quickest to turn in
their papers, the quickest to finish tests are the “smartest” students. Those stu-
dents who fall into this category often define themselves as “smart” and, therefore,
as better than other students. They consequently often become intellectually arro-
gant. On the contrary, those students who struggle often see themselves as inferior,
as incapable. And these students often give up on learning. They don’t see that the
race is to the tortoise, not the hare.
The fact is that standard measures of intelligence often impede learning. The
point is that, whatever you have learned or mislearned about what it means to
learn, you can now begin in earnest to develop your own mind, to take command
of it. Critical thinking provides the tools for you to do just that, and it levels the
playing field for all students. Some of the world’s best thinkers—thinkers such as
Einstein, Darwin, and Newton—are not the quickest thinkers. The best thinkers
may be those who plod along, who ask questions, who pursue important ideas,
11
who put things together in their minds, who figure things out for themselves, who
create connections among important ideas. They are people who believe in the
power of their own minds. They are people who appreciate the struggle inherent
in substantive learning and thinking.
Consider how Darwin (F. Darwin, 1958) articulated his own struggles with
learning:
I have as much difficulty as ever in expressing myself clearly and concisely; and this
difficulty has caused me a very great loss of time, but it has had the compensating
advantage of forcing me to think long and intently about every sentence, and thus
I have been led to see errors in reasoning and in my own observations or those of
others. (p. 55)
In pursuing intellectual questions, Darwin (1958) relied upon perseverance

and continual reflection rather than on memory and quick reflexes.
I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit . . . My power to follow a long
and purely abstract train of thought is very limited . . . My memory is extensive, yet
hazy . . . So poor in one sense is my memory, that I have never been able to remem-
ber for more than a few days a single date or line of poetry . . . I have a fair share
of invention, but not, I believe, in any higher degree . . . I think that I am superior
to the common run of man in noticing things which easily escape attention, and
in observing them carefully . . . I have had the patience to reflect or ponder for any
number of years over any unexplained problem. (p. 55)
Einstein (Clark, 1984), for his part, performed so poorly in school that when his
father asked his son’s headmaster what profession his son should adopt, the answer
was simply, “It doesn’t matter; he’ll never make a success of anything.” He showed
no signs of being a genius and, as an adult, denied that his mind was extraordinary:
“I have no particular talent. I am merely extremely inquisitive” (p. 27).

HOW DO YOU SEE YOURSELF AS A THINKER?
T hink back to your previous school or college experience. Which pattern have you typically
fallen into?
1. The quick student to whom teachers typically are drawn because you can answer the
factual questions they think are important.
2. The student who has difficulty remembering facts so that learning has been more
difficult for you.
3. The student who does pretty well because, although you are not the quickest at remem-
bering facts and answering factual questions, you still have a pretty good memory so you
have done okay in school.
4. A different pattern entirely.
12
Complete these statements:

1. Given the categories outlined here, I would say that I am the following “type” of student:
2. I have/have not typically struggled in school/college because: _____________________
3. I generally see myself as capable/incapable as a student because:___________________
4. To the extent that I see myself as incapable as a student, I can begin to change this view
of myself by realizing:____________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 6 Critical thinking: an elaborated definition.
A unique kind of in any subject area or topic,

purposeful thinking whether academic or personal
in which the thinker such as intellectual perseverance,

systematically and habitually intellectual humility, intellectual
displays intellectual traits empathy, and fairmindedness
with awareness of its

elements, such as question at
takes charge of the
issue, information, concepts,
construction of thinking
inferences, assumptions,
implications, and point of view
such as clarity, accuracy,

imposing criteria and intellectual
precision, relevance, depth,
standards on the thinking
breadth, logic, and fairness
making it more clear, accurate,

and precise; with greater depth
continually improving the
and breadth; more logical,
quality of the thinking
more relevant and significant,
and more fair
13
The best thinkers are those who systematically and carefully reason their way
through problems. They ask questions when they don’t understand. They don’t al-
low other people to define their level of intelligence. They don’t allow intelligence
tests or other standardized tests to define their level of intelligence. They realize
that, no matter how difficult or easy it is for them to “remember” facts for tests,
the real work of learning requires perseverance and commitment. The real work
of learning requires skills of mind that you can develop, if and when you decide
to. Learning these skills of mind is precisely what this book is all about.
Remember, the race is to the tortoise, not the hare. Be the tortoise.

ARTICULATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF CRITICAL THINKING
R ead through this chapter again, highlighting the points made in the chapter that relate
directly to the definition of critical thinking. Then complete these statements:
1. To me, critical thinking means: _____________________________________________
2. In other words (this should be at least 4–5 sentences): __________________________
3. I can apply critical thinking to my life in the following ways: ______________________
14
BECOME
A FAIRMINDED
THINKER
I
t is possible to develop as a thinker and yet not develop as a fairminded thinker.
It is possible to learn to use one’s skills of mind in a narrow, self-serving way;
many highly skilled thinkers do just that. Think of politicians, for example,
who manipulate people through smooth (fallacious) talk, who promise what they
have no intention of delivering, who say whatever they need to say to maintain
their positions of power and prestige. In a sense, these people are skilled thinkers
because their thinking enables them to get what they want, but the best thinkers
do not pursue selfish goals. They do not seek to manipulate others. They strive to
be fairminded, even when it means they have to give something up in the process.
They recognize that the mind is not naturally fairminded, but selfish, and they
recognize that to be fairminded, they also must develop specific traits of mind—
traits such as intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, intellectual courage, intel-
lectual autonomy, intellectual empathy, intellectual perseverance, and confidence
in reason.
In this chapter, we introduce what “fairminded” means, and we discuss the
traits of mind that accompany fairmindedness. If you are to develop as a fair-
minded thinker, you will have to “practice” being fairminded. You will have to
catch yourself in acts of selfishness and begin to correct your behavior. You will
have to become committed to living a rational, compassionate, contributory life,
to look outside yourself and see how your behavior affects other people. You will
have to decide, again and again, that being fairminded is crucial to your identity
as a person.
From Chapter 1 of Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Third Edition.
Richard Paul, Linda Elder. Copyright © 2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
B ECOME A F AIRMINDED T HINKER
WEAK VERSUS STRONG CRITICAL THINKING
C
ritical thinking can serve two incompatible ends: self-centeredness or fair-
mindedness. As we learn the basic intellectual skills that critical thinking
entails, we can begin to use those skills in either a selfish or a fairminded
way. For example, when students are taught how to recognize mistakes in reason-
ing (commonly called fallacies), most students readily see those mistakes in the
reasoning of others but not in their own reasoning. Using their understanding of
fallacies, students develop some proficiency in making their opponents’ thinking
look bad, but they typically don’t use their understanding of fallacies to analyze
and assess their own reasoning.
Liberals see mistakes in the arguments of conservatives; conservatives see
mistakes in the arguments of liberals. Believers see mistakes in the thinking of
nonbelievers; nonbelievers see mistakes in the thinking of believers. Those who
oppose abortion readily see mistakes in the arguments for abortion; those who
favor abortion readily see mistakes in the arguments against abortion.
We call these thinkers weak-sense critical thinkers. We call the thinking
“weak” because, although it is working well for the thinker in some respects, it is
missing certain important, higher-level skills and values of critical thinking. Most
significantly, it fails to consider, in good faith, viewpoints that contradict its own
viewpoint. It lacks fairmindedness.
Another traditional name for the weak-sense thinker is sophist. Sophistry is the
art of winning arguments regardless of whether there are problems in the think-
ing being used, regardless of whether relevant viewpoints are being ignored. The
objective in sophistic thinking is to win. Period. Sophistic thinkers use lower-level
skills of rhetoric, or argumentation, by which they make unreasonable thinking
look reasonable and reasonable thinking look unreasonable. This form of think-
ing is evident in the arguments of unethical lawyers, prosecutors, and politicians
who are more concerned with winning than with being fair. They use emotional-
ism and trickery in an intellectually skilled way.

FINDING EVIDENCE OF INTELLECTUAL SOPHISTRY
I n the next week, read articles in newspapers, news magazines, and similar sources for the
purpose of identifying intellectual sophistry at work. Look for situations in which someone
deliberately hides or distorts information in pursuing a goal. Note whether the person gets away
with the sophistry.
Sophistic thinkers succeed only if they do not come up against what we

call strong-sense critical thinkers. Strong-sense critical thinkers are not easily
tricked by slick argumentation, by sophistry and intellectual trickery. The strik-
ing characteristic of strong-sense critical thinkers is their consistent pursuit of
16
the fair and just. These thinkers strive always to be ethical—to behave in ways
that do not exploit or otherwise harm others. They work to empathize with the
viewpoints of others. They are willing to listen to arguments they do not neces-
sarily hold. They change their views when faced with better reasoning. Rather
than using their thinking to manipulate others and to hide from the truth (in a
weak-sense way), they use thinking in an ethical, reasonable manner. Almost
a century ago, William Graham Sumner (1906) depicted strong-sense critical
thinkers. He said they
cannot be stampeded . . . are slow to believe . . . can hold things as possible or prob-
able in all degrees, without certainty and without pain . . . can wait for evidence and
weigh evidence . . . can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices.
We believe that the world already has too many skilled selfish thinkers, too
many sophists and intellectual con artists, too many unscrupulous lawyers and
politicians who specialize in twisting information and evidence to support their
selfish interests and the vested interests of those who pay them. We hope that you,
the reader, will develop as a highly skilled, fairminded thinker, one capable of ex-
posing those who are masters at playing intellectual games at the expense of the
well-being of innocent people. We hope as well that you develop the intellectual
courage to argue publicly against what is unethical in human thinking. We write
this text with the assumption that you will take seriously the fairmindedness im-
plied by strong-sense critical thinking.
To think critically in the strong sense requires that we develop fairminded-
ness at the same time that we learn basic critical thinking skills and, thus, begin to
“practice” fairmindedness in our thinking. If we do, we avoid using our skills to
gain advantage over others. We treat all thinking by the same high standards. We
expect good reasoning from those who support us as well as those who oppose
us. We subject our own reasoning to the same criteria we apply to reasoning to
which we are unsympathetic. We question our own purposes, evidence, conclu-
sions, implications, and point of view with the same vigor we question those
of others.
Developing fairminded thinkers try to see the actual strengths and weak-
nesses of any reasoning they assess. This is the kind of thinker we hope this text
will help you become. From the beginning, then, we are going to explore the char-
acteristics required for the strongest, most fairminded thinking. As you read the
rest of the text, we hope you notice how we are attempting to foster strong-sense
critical thinking. Indeed, unless we indicate otherwise, from this point forward,
every time we use the words critical thinking, we mean critical thinking in the
strong sense.
In the remainder of this chapter, we explore the various intellectual virtues
that fairminded thinking requires. Fairmindedness entails much more than most
people realize. Fairmindedness requires a family of interrelated and interdepen-
dent states of mind.
One final point: In addition to fairmindedness, strong-sense critical think-
ing implies higher-order thinking. As you develop your reasoning abilities and
internalize the traits of mind in this chapter, you will develop a variety of skills
and insights absent in the weak-sense critical thinker.
17
As we examine how the various traits of mind are conducive to fairminded-

ness, we also look at the manner in which the traits contribute to quality of thought
(not simply a set of values added to a set of skills). In addition to the fairness that
strong-sense critical thinking implies, it also implies depth of thinking and highly
insightful thinking. Weak-sense critical thinkers develop a range of intellectual
skills (for example, skills of argumentation) and may achieve some success in get-
ting what they want, but they do not develop the traits highlighted in this chapter.
For example, some students are able to use their intelligence and thinking skills
to get high grades without taking seriously the subjects they are studying. They
become masters, if you will, of “beating the system.” They develop test-taking and
note-taking skills. They develop short-term memory skills. They learn to appeal
to the prejudices of their teachers. They become academic sophists—skilled at
getting by and getting what they want. They may even transfer these abilities
to other domains of their lives, but they do not develop as fairminded critical
thinkers.
Let us now turn to the component traits of the strong-sense critical thinker.
In each section, we:
1. introduce an intellectual trait or virtue,
2. discuss the opposite trait,
3. point out how the trait relates to the development of critical thinking, and
4. relate the trait to fairmindedness.
First, though, let us be clear about the concept of fairmindedness.
EXHIBIT 1 Critical thinkers strive to develop essential traits or characteristics of

mind. These are interrelated intellectual habits that enable one to open, discipline,
and improve mental functioning.
Intellectual
Intellectual integrity Intellectual
autonomy humility
Intellectual TRAITS Intellectual

empathy OF THE sense of justice
DISCIPLINED
MIND
Intellectual Intellectual
courage perseverance
Intellectual
Intellectual
confidence in
fairmindedness
reason
18
EXHIBIT 2 These are the opposites of the intellectual virtues. Our natural
disposition to develop them is an important reason we need to develop
countervailing traits.
Intellectual
hypocrisy
conformity arrogance
Intellectual self- TRAITS Intellectual

centeredness OF THE unfairness
UNDISCIPLINED
MIND
cowardice laziness
distrust of disregard for
reason justice
WHAT DOES FAIRMINDEDNESS REQUIRE?
T
o be fairminded is to strive to treat every viewpoint relevant to a situation
in an unbiased, unprejudiced way. It entails a consciousness of the fact
that we, by nature, tend to prejudge the views of others, placing them into
“favorable” (agree with us) and “unfavorable” (disagree with us) categories. We
tend to give less weight to contrary views than to our own. This is especially true
when we have selfish reasons for opposing views. If, for example, we can ignore
the viewpoint of the millions of people in the world who live in extreme poverty,
we can avoid having to give up something to help them. Thus, fairmindedness
is especially important when the situation calls on us to consider views we don’t
want to consider.
Fairmindedness entails the predisposition to consider all relevant viewpoints equally, without refer-
ence to one’s own feelings or selfish interests, or the feelings or selfish interests of one’s friends,
community, or nation. It implies adherence to intellectual standards (such as accuracy, sound log-
ic, and breadth of vision), uninfluenced by one’s own advantage or the advantage of one’s group.
The opposite of fairmindedness is intellectual unfairness. To be intellectually
unfair is to lack a sense of responsibility to represent accurately and fairly view-
points with which one disagrees. When we are intellectually unfair, we almost al-
ways see ourselves as right and just. Our unfair thoughts and actions typically
have an element of self-deception. We justify ourselves, rationalize our behavior,
convince ourselves that we are “right.”
19
Because each of us is naturally egocentric, each of us falls prey to unfair

thinking. Indeed, egocentrism (and therefore unfair thinking) is the natural state
of the human mind—a point to be developed when we deal with human irratio-
nality. We simply want to stress here that the traits discussed in this chapter can
never be fully achieved by the human mind. No one is always fairminded; the
mind is naturally too egocentric, too self-interested. Any progress toward fair-
mindedness is a constant inner struggle, a struggle to be faced each and every
day, but the reward is a mind that is self-disciplined, that cannot easily be ma-
nipulated, that is able to see the truth, and that strives at all times to think fairly.
Achieving a truly fairminded state of mind, then, is an ideal we never fully
achieve. Fairmindedness requires us to be, simultaneously, intellectually humble,
intellectually courageous, intellectually empathetic, intellectually honest, intellec-
tually perseverant, confident in reason (to be persuaded by good reasoning), and
intellectually autonomous. Unless this family of traits functions in an integrated
constellation, fairmindedness is incomplete.
However, these traits, singly and in combination, are not commonly valued.
They are rarely discussed in everyday life and are rarely taught. They are not dis-
cussed on television. They are not part of the school curriculum. They are not
assessed in standardized testing. Yet, each of them is essential to fairmindedness
and inherent in strong-sense critical thinking. Let us see how and why this is so.
We begin with the fairminded trait of intellectual humility.
Intellectual Humility: Strive to Discover

the Extent of Your Ignorance
To explain intellectual humility in brief:
To be intellectually humble is to develop knowledge of the extent of one’s ignorance. Thus, in-
tellectual humility includes an acute awareness that one’s native egocentrism is likely to func-
tion self-deceptively (to tell the mind that it knows more than it does). It means being aware
of one’s biases and prejudices as well as the limitations of one’s viewpoint. It involves being
keenly aware of the extent of one’s ignorance when thinking through any issue, especially if
the issue is emotionally charged. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should
not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness but
rather the lack of intellectual arrogance, pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit. It requires
identifying and assessing the foundations of one’s beliefs, looking especially for those that
cannot be justified by good reasons.
The opposite of intellectual humility is intellectual arrogance, a natural tendency
to think one knows more than one does know. Intellectual arrogance involves hav-
ing little or no insight into self-deception or into the limitations of one’s point of
view. Intellectually arrogant people often fall prey to their own bias and prejudice
and frequently claim to know more than they actually do know.
20
When we think of intellectual arrogance, we are not necessarily implying a

person who is outwardly smug, haughty, insolent, or pompous. Outwardly, the
person may appear humble. For example, a person who uncritically follows a cult
leader may be outwardly self-deprecating (“I am nothing. You are everything.”),
but intellectually, he or she believes what does not make sense to believe and is at
the same time fully confident in his or her beliefs.
Unfortunately, we are all capable of believing we know what we don’t know;
our own false beliefs, misconceptions, prejudices, illusions, myths, propaganda,
and ignorance seem to us as the plain, unvarnished truth. What is more, when
challenged, we often resist admitting that our thinking is “defective.” We then are
intellectually arrogant, even though we might feel humble. Rather than recogniz-
ing the limits of our knowledge, we ignore and obscure those limits. From such
arrogance, much suffering and waste result.
For example, when Columbus “discovered” North America, he believed that
enslaving the Indians was compatible with God’s will. He did not inwardly—as far
as we know—recognize that only through intellectual arrogance could he believe
he was privy to “God’s will.” Consider the following excerpt taken from Howard
Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (1995):
The Indians, Columbus reported, “are so naïve and so free with their possessions
that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for some-
thing they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with any-
one. . . . ” He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their Majesties,
and in return he would bring them from his next voyage “as much gold as they
need . . . and as many slaves as they ask.” He was full of religious talk: “Thus the
eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent
impossibilities.” . . . Columbus later wrote, “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity
go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.” (pp. 3–4)
Intellectual arrogance is incompatible with fairmindedness because we cannot
judge fairly when we are in a state of ignorance about what we are judging. If we
are ignorant about a religion (say, Buddhism), we cannot be fair in judging it; if
we have misconceptions, prejudices, or illusions about it, we will unfairly distort
it. We will misrepresent it to discount it. Our false knowledge, misconceptions,
prejudices, and illusions will keep us from being fair. We will be inclined to judge
too quickly and be overly confident in our judgment. These tendencies are all too
common in human thinking.
Why is intellectual humility essential to higher-level thinking? In addition to
helping us become fairminded thinkers, knowledge of our ignorance can improve
our thinking in a variety of ways. It can enable us to recognize the prejudices, false
beliefs, and habits of mind that lead to flawed learning. Consider, for example, our
tendency to learn superficially: We learn a little and (by nature) think we know a
lot; we get limited information and hastily generalize from it; we confuse memo-
rized definitions with deep learning; we uncritically accept much that we hear and
read—especially when what we hear or read agrees with our intensely held beliefs
or the beliefs of groups to which we belong.
21
The discussion in the chapters that follow encourages intellectual humility

and will help raise your awareness of intellectual arrogance. See if you, from this
moment, can begin to develop in yourself a growing awareness of the limitations
of your knowledge. Work on detecting your intellectual arrogance in action (which
you should be able to see daily). When you do detect it, celebrate that awareness.
Reward yourself for finding weaknesses in your thinking.
Consider recognition of weakness an important strength, not a weakness. As
a starter, answer the following questions:
■ Can you construct a list of your most significant prejudices? (Think of what
you believe about your country, your religion, your friends, and your family,
simply because others—parents, friends, peer group, media—conveyed these
to you.)
■ Do you ever argue for or against views when you have little evidence upon
which to base your judgment?
■ Do you ever assume that your group (your family, your religion, your nation,
your friends) is correct (when it is in conflict with others) even though you
don’t have enough information to determine that it is correct?
2, 3 Think for Yourself

INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY
N ame a person you think you know fairly well. Make two lists. In the first list, include
everything you know for sure about the person. In the second list, include everything you
know you don’t know about him or her. For example, “I know for sure that my grandmother
liked to cook, but I’m also sure that I never really understood what her fears and personal
desires were. I knew many superficial things about her, but about her inner self I knew little.”
Be prepared to back up what you claim with an explanation of your thinking.
RECOGNIZING SUPERFICIAL LEARNING
I ntellectual humility involves the ability to distinguish between learning that is deep and
learning that is superficial. In this activity, we ask you to test your ability to do this. Think
of a course you completed in which you received a high or fairly high final grade. On a blank
sheet of paper, write and elaborate on, without consulting any sources, answers to the follow-
ing questions: What is (name of subject—for example, history, biology)? What is the main
goal of studying this subject? What are people in this field trying to accomplish? What kinds
of questions do they ask? What kinds of problems do they solve? What sorts of information or
data do they gather? How do they go about gathering information in ways that are distinctive to
this field? What is the most basic idea, concept, or theory in this field? How did studying this
field change your view of the world?
22
If you find it difficult to answer these questions, consider the hypothesis that you might
have received your high grade by cramming for tests or by some other means of superficial
learning. Are you able to identify the difference between what you have learned superficially
and what you have learned deeply?
Intellectual Courage: Develop the Courage

to Challenge Popular Beliefs
A second trait of fairmindedness is intellectual courage.
Having intellectual courage means facing and fairly addressing ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints even
when this is painful. It means closely examining beliefs toward which one has strong negative
emotions and to which one has not given a serious hearing. An important part of intellectual
courage is recognizing that ideas that society considers dangerous or absurd are sometimes
rationally justified (in whole or in part) or simply matters of subjective taste. Conclusions and
beliefs inculcated in people by society are sometimes false or misleading.
To determine what makes sense to believe, one must not passively and uncritically accept what
one has learned. Having intellectual courage is especially important because ideas considered
dangerous or absurd may hold some truth, and ideas strongly held by social groups to which we
belong may hold some distortion or falsity. To be fairminded thinkers in these circumstances,
we must develop intellectual courage, recognizing that the penalties society places on us for
nonconformity can be severe.
The opposite of intellectual courage, intellectual cowardice, is the fear of ideas
that do not conform to one’s own. If we lack intellectual courage, we are afraid
to give serious consideration to ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints that we perceive as
dangerous. We feel personally threatened by some ideas when they significantly
conflict with our personal identity. We are unwilling to examine our beliefs—an
indication that there may be some problem with the justifiability of those beliefs.
Each of the following ideas or its opposite is “sacred” in the minds of some people:
■ Being a conservative/being a liberal
■ Believing in God or disbelieving in God
■ Believing in capitalism or believing in socialism
■ Believing in abortion or disbelieving in abortion
■ Believing in capital punishment or disbelieving in capital punishment
No matter what side we are on, we often say of ourselves: “I am a(an) ______
[insert sacred belief here; for example, I am a Christian. I am a conservative. I am
a socialist. I am an atheist].”
Once we define who we are through an emotional commitment to our beliefs,
we are likely to experience inner fear when those beliefs are questioned. Giving into
this fear is the first form of intellectual cowardice. Questioning our beliefs seems to
23
mean questioning who we are as persons. The intensely personal fear we feel keeps
us from being fair to opposing beliefs. When we “consider” opposing ideas, we
subconsciously undermine them, presenting them in their weakest forms so we can
reject them. We need intellectual courage to overcome self-created inner fear—the
fear we ourselves have created by linking our identity to a specific set of beliefs.
Another important reason to acquire intellectual courage is to overcome the
fear of rejection by others because they hold certain beliefs and are likely to reject
us if we challenge those beliefs. This is where we invest others with the
The best thinkers do not power to intimidate us. Many people judge themselves according to the
connect their identities to views of others and cannot approve of themselves unless others approve
their beliefs. of them. Fear of rejection often lurks in the back of their minds. Few
people challenge the ideologies or belief systems of the groups to which
they belong. This is the second form of intellectual cowardice. Both forms make it
impossible to consider either our own or others’ ideas fairly.
Instead of forming one’s identity according to one’s personal beliefs, it is far
better to define oneself according to the processes by which one formulates beliefs.
This is what it means to be a critical thinker. Consider the following resolution.
I will not identify with the content of any belief. I will identify only with the way I come to my
beliefs. I am a critical thinker and, as such, am willing to examine my beliefs and abandon any
that cannot be supported by evidence and rational considerations. I am ready to follow evidence
and reason wherever they lead. My true identity is that of being a critical thinker, a lifelong learn-
er, a person always looking to improve my thinking by becoming more reasonable in my beliefs.
When we refuse to connect our identity with our beliefs, we become more
intellectually courageous and, by implication, more fairminded. We are no longer
afraid to consider beliefs that are contrary to our present beliefs. We are
The best thinkers follow
not afraid to be proven wrong. We freely admit to having made mistakes in
evidence and reason the past. We are happy to correct any mistakes we are still making: “Tell me
wherever they lead. what you believe and why you believe it, and maybe I can learn from your
thinking. I have cast off many early beliefs. I am ready to abandon any and
all of my present beliefs that are not consistent with the way things are.” Given this
definition, how many people do you know who have intellectual courage?

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE I
S elect one group to which you belong. Complete the following statements:
1. One main belief common to members of this group that might be questioned is . . .
(here you want to identify at least one belief that may lead group members to behave
irrationally)
24
2. This belief might be questioned because . . .

3. I would or would not be able to stand up to my group, pointing out the problems with
this belief, because . . .
INTELLECTUAL COURAGE II
T ry to think of a circumstance in which either you or someone you know defended a view
that was unpopular in a group to which you belonged. Describe the circumstances and,
especially, how the group responded. If you can’t think of an example, what is the significance
of that realization?
Intellectual Empathy: Learn to Enter

Opposing Views Empathically
Now let’s consider another trait of mind necessary to fairmindedness, intellectual
empathy.
To have intellectual empathy is to put oneself imaginatively in the place of others on a routine
basis, so as to genuinely understand them. It requires one to reconstruct the viewpoints and
reasoning of others accurately and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than
one’s own. This trait requires the motivation to recall occasions when one was wrong in the
past despite an intense conviction of being right and the ability to imagine being similarly
deceived in a case at hand.
The opposite of intellectual empathy is intellectual self-centeredness, thinking
centered on self. When we think from a self-centered perspective, we are unable
to understand the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of others. This, unfortu-
nately, is the natural state of the human mind. From this perspective, most of
our attention is focused on ourselves. Our pain, desires, and hopes are most
pressing. The needs of others pale in significance to our own needs and desires.
We are unable to consider issues, problems, and questions from a viewpoint that
differs from our own and that, when considered, would force us to change our
perspective.
How can we be fair to the thinking of others if we haven’t genuinely tried
to understand their thinking? Fairminded judgment requires a good-faith effort
to put oneself into the situation or perspective of another person (or other sen-
tient creature). It requires an appreciation of the different contexts and situa-
tions within which varying perspectives emerge. Human thinking derives from
the conditions of human life, from very different contexts and situations. If we
do not learn how to take on others’ perspectives and to accurately represent their
views, we will not be able to judge their ideas and beliefs fairly. Trying to think
25
within the viewpoint of others is not easy, though. It is one of the most difficult
skills to acquire.
To develop your ability to empathize with others intellectually, practice using
the following strategies:
1. During a disagreement with someone, switch roles. Tell the person, “I will
speak from your viewpoint for 10 minutes if you will speak from mine. This
way, perhaps we can understand one another better.” Make sure you are
representing one another’s viewpoint accurately.
2. During a discussion, summarize what another person is saying, using
this structure: “What I understand you to be saying is ______. Is this
correct?”
3. When reading, say to yourself what you think the author is saying. This will
enable you to bring ideas concretely into your mind so you then can think
accurately within the author’s viewpoint. Only then are you in a position to
critique the author’s viewpoint.

INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY I
T ry to reconstruct in your mind the last argument you had with someone (friend, parent,
intimate other, supervisor). Reconstruct the argument from your perspective as well as
from that of the other person. Complete the statements below. As you do, take care that you
do not distort the other person’s viewpoint. Try to enter it in good faith, even if it means you
have to admit you were wrong. (Remember that critical thinkers want to see the truth in the
situation.) After you have completed this assignment, show it to the person you argued with to
see whether you have represented that person’s view accurately.
1. My perspective was as follows (state and elaborate your view in detail):
2. The other person’s view was as follows (state and elaborate the other person’s view
in detail):
INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY II
T hink of an international political leader who is represented negatively in the news (for
example, Castro in Cuba). Gather enough information about that person to be able to
explain how he or she might defend himself or herself against the charges made in character-
izing that person as “evil.” Then ask yourself if you have ever seriously considered the pos-
sibility that any of the “enemies” of the United States might be more justified in opposing
us than we are in opposing them. If you have never heard the defense of a national “enemy”
from that person’s point of view, how might that affect your ability to empathize with that
person?
26
Intellectual Integrity: Hold Yourself to the Same

Standards to Which You Hold Others
Let us now consider the trait of intellectual integrity.
Intellectual integrity means striving to be true to one’s own disciplined thinking and holding
oneself to the same standards that one expects others to meet. For example, it involves holding
oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one’s antago-
nists. It means practicing daily what one advocates for others. It requires honestly admitting
discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action and identifying inconsisten-
cies within one’s thinking.
The opposite of intellectual integrity is intellectual hypocrisy, a state of mind

unconcerned with true honesty and often marked by unconscious contradictions
and inconsistencies. Because the mind is naturally egocentric, it is naturally hypo-
critical, yet at the same time skillfully able to rationalize whatever it thinks and
however it leads us to act. Because of its innate need to project a positive image,
the appearance of integrity is important to the egocentric mind. Therefore, we ac-
tively hide our hypocrisy from ourselves, and although we expect others to adhere
to much more rigid standards than the standards we impose on ourselves, we see
ourselves as fair. Although we profess certain beliefs, we often fail to behave in
accordance with those beliefs.
Suppose I were to say to you that our relationship is really important to me,
but you find out that I have lied to you about something important to you. My
behavior lacks integrity. I have acted hypocritically. Yet, in my own egocentric,
self-serving mind, I have rationalized my lying by telling myself things such as,
“It’s better that she not know. It will only upset her, and it won’t help our rela-
tionship. The issue isn’t that important anyway. It’s really no big deal.” When
I rationalize in this way, I can hide my hypocrisy from myself, which is vitally
important. Although I have acted dishonestly, I can tell myself that everything I
have done is the best thing to do in the situation. In short, I can appear right in
my own mind.
To the extent that our beliefs and actions are consistent, we have intellectual
integrity. We practice what we preach, so to speak. We don’t say one thing and do
another.
Clearly, we cannot be fair to others if we are justified in thinking and acting
in contradictory ways. By its very nature, hypocrisy is a form of injustice. If we
are not sensitive to contradictions and inconsistencies in our own thinking and
behavior, we cannot reason well through ethical questions involving ourselves. We
will distort other viewpoints to come out ahead.
Consider this political example: From time to time, the media disclose highly
questionable practices by the CIA. These practices run anywhere from docu-
mentation of attempted assassinations of foreign political leaders (say, attempts
to assassinate President Castro of Cuba) to the practice of teaching police or
military representatives in other countries (say, in Central America or South
27
America) how to torture prisoners to get them to disclose information about their
associates. To appreciate how such disclosures reveal hypocrisy, we have only to
imagine how we would respond if another nation were to attempt to assassinate
our president or train American police or military in methods of torture. Once
we imagine this, we recognize a basic inconsistency in our behavior and a lack of
intellectual integrity on the part of those who plan, engage in, or approve of this
kind of behavior.
All humans sometimes fail to act with intellectual integrity. When we do, we
reveal a lack of fairmindedness on our part, and a failure to think well enough to
detect internal contradictions in our thought or life.

INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY
D iscuss a dimension of your life that you suspect holds some inconsistencies or contradic-
tions (where you probably are not holding yourself to the same standard to which you
hold someone else). Think of a situation in which your behavior contradicts what you say
you believe. This might be in an intimate relationship, for example. Complete the following
statements:
1. The context within which I fail to have intellectual integrity is . . .
2. In this context, I would (or do) expect others to behave as follows (though I am not willing
to behave in the same way myself) . . .
3. The reason I fail to have intellectual integrity in this situation is . . .
4. To change this situation, I need to . . .
Intellectual Perseverance: Refuse to Give Up Easily;

Work Your Way through Complexities and
Frustration
Let us now consider intellectual perseverance.
Intellectual perseverance is the disposition to work one’s way through intellectual complexities
despite frustrations inherent in the task. Some problems are complicated and cannot be solved
easily. One has intellectual perseverance when one does not give up in the face of complexity
or frustration. The intellectually perseverant person understands that carefully and methodically
reasoning through complex issues and problems takes precedence over coming to conclusions
quickly. Intellectual perseverance involves adhering to rational principles firmly despite the natu-
ral tendency to go with first impressions and simplistic answers. It also entails a realistic sense
of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended time to achieve
understanding or insight.
28
The opposite of intellectual perseverance is intellectual laziness, demonstrated

in the tendency to give up quickly when faced with an intellectually challenging
task. The intellectually indolent, or lazy, person has a low tolerance for intellectual
pain or frustration.
Intellectual perseverance is essential to almost all areas of higher-level
thinking because virtually all higher-level thinking involves some intellectual
challenges. Without intellectual perseverance, those challenges cannot be over-
come. Intellectual perseverance is required for high-quality reasoning in math,
chemistry, physics, literature, art—and indeed any domain. Many students give up
during early stages of learning a subject. Lacking intellectual perseverance, they
cut themselves off from the many insights available to them only when they are
willing to think through a subject. They avoid intellectual frustration, no doubt,
but they end up with the everyday frustrations of not being able to solve the com-
plex problems they face.
Students often lack intellectual perseverance for at least two important reasons.
1. The mind is naturally averse to intellectual difficulties. It much prefers things

to be easy, and it will take the simplest route to an answer when it can. This
is the natural egocentric state of the mind.
2. Intellectual perseverance is rarely fostered in school. Instead, students are
often encouraged to complete tasks quickly. Those who finish first are
seen as the smartest and brightest. Slowly and carefully working through
tasks is not usually valued. Consequently, students conclude that quick-
ness is what matters most in learning. Those who are not able to finish
tasks quickly come to view themselves as inadequate, stupid, inferior. Yet
the most important questions we will reason through in our lives most
likely will be complex and, therefore, will require not speed but diligence
and intellectual discipline. The thoroughness and attentiveness we bring to
the process will determine whether, and to what extent, we can answer the
questions.
Intellectually quick students are often the same students who give up when
the intellectual task becomes difficult. They see themselves as capable of getting
the “right” answer quickly and without intellectual pain. When the “right” answer
does not come immediately and painlessly, they frequently blame the teacher
for giving a “dumb assignment.” Indeed, these students often fail to recognize
that every question doesn’t have a “right” answer; some instead have only better
and worse answers, and there is no effective way to work through these complex
questions simply and easily.
How does a lack of intellectual perseverance impede fairmindedness?
Understanding the views of others requires intellectual work. It requires intel-
lectual perseverance—insofar as those views differ from ours or are complex in
nature. If we are unable or unwilling to work through the views of others, to con-
sider the information they use and how they interpret that information, to look
closely at their beliefs and analyze those beliefs for ourselves, to understand what
29
they are trying to accomplish and how they see the world, we will not be able to
think fairly within their viewpoint.
For example, suppose we are Christians wanting to be fair to the views of
atheists. Unless we read and understand the reasoning of intelligent and insight-
ful atheists, we cannot be fair to those views. Some intelligent and insightful athe-
ists have written books to explain how and why they think as they do. Some of
their reasoning is complicated or deals with complex issues. It follows that only
those Christians who have the intellectual perseverance to read and understand
atheists can be fair to atheist views. Of course, a parallel case could be made for
atheists’ understanding the views of intelligent and insightful Christians.

INTELLECTUAL PERSEVERANCE
M ost people have much more physical perseverance than intellectual perseverance. On the
one hand, most are ready to admit “No pain, no gain!” when talking about the body. On
the other hand, most give up quickly when faced with a frustrating intellectual problem. Think-
ing of your own responses, especially in classes, how would you evaluate your own intellectual
perseverance (on a scale of 0–10)? Explain to a classmate how you would support your score.
On what do you base your conclusion?
Confidence in Reason: Respect Evidence

and Reasoning and Value Them as Tools
for Discovering the Truth
Confidence in reason is another trait of fairmindedness.
Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of
humankind at large are best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging peo-
ple to come to their own conclusions through the use of their own rational faculties. It is
based on the belief that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to
think for themselves; form insightful viewpoints; draw reasonable conclusions; think clearly,
accurately, relevantly, and logically; persuade each other by appeal to good reason and sound
evidence; and become reasonable persons despite deep-seated obstacles in human nature and
social life.
When one has confidence in reason, one is moved by reason in appropriate ways. The very
idea of reasonability becomes one of the most important values and a focal point in one’s life.
In short, to have confidence in reason is to use good reasoning as the fundamental criterion by
which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position.
30
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of H. van
Brakel, Ing. B.O.W
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: H. van Brakel, Ing. B.O.W

Oorspronkelijke roman
Author: P. A. Daum
Release date: September 7, 2023 [eBook #71591]
Language: Dutch
Original publication: Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1875
Credits: Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net/ for Project
Gutenberg (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google
Books project.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK H. VAN

BRAKEL, ING. B.O.W ***
H. VAN BRAKEL,
Ing. B. O. W.
H. VAN BRAKEL,
Ing. B. O. W.
OORSPRONKELIJKE ROMAN
DOOR
MAURITS.
LEIDEN.—A. W. SIJTHOFF.
[1]
H. VAN BRAKEL,
Ingenieur B. O. W.
De lampen brandden in de achtergalerij, boven de nog gedekte tafel.
Vlug namen de bedienden de gerechten weg; ze hadden ditmaal
haast; ’t was immers de laatste arbeid des daags!
Het hoofd van Lucie zonk voorover op haar borst; haar oogen waren
dichtgevallen; zij kon zoo’n onoverwinnelijken slaap krijgen, ’s
avonds na het eten! Dan was het zoo rustig, zoo stil: de kinderen
sliepen; de huiselijke bedrijvigheid was ten einde.
Van Brakel had zijn lorgnet opgezet en las de courant. ’t Beviel hem
niet. Er stond weer iets in van den „strijkstok,” waaraan bij den
Waterstaat zooveel hangen bleef. Het doelde niet op hem,—volstrekt
niet; maar dan toch op z i j n ondergeschikten. Hm! ’t was beter, dat
die kerels, dacht hij, wat amusanter couranten maakten, dan zich
altijd te bemoeien met eens andermans zaken.
Toen hij ’t blad neerlei en zijn stoel achteruitschoof, schrikte Lucie

wakker.
„Ga je uit?” vroeg ze, zich de oogen wrijvende.
„Ja, nog ’n uurtje naar de soos.” [2]
„Ik ga naar bed.”
„Welzeker. Je bent moe.”
Hij zette zijn dienstpet op, nam een wandelstok uit een hoek en floot
zijn hond, die hem blaffend naar buiten volgde.
Toen Lucie haar buffet en haar dispenskast had gesloten, draaide zij
de lamp neer en ging naar haar kamer.
Het was er benauwd, en het rook er onfrisch.
Op een grooten divan stonden twee k o d j o n g s , en daaronder

sliepen als rozen de tweelingen, waarmede zij den gelukkigen
waterstaatsingenieur op St.-Nicolaas aangenaam had verrast.
Drie jaren waren zij getrouwd, en ze had nu vier kinderen.
Hun aantal „beren” echter was legio.
Vooreerst kon Van Brakel als vrijgezel de eindjes reeds niet

samenknoopen, en wat Lucie betreft,—op de koffie-onderneming
haars vaders had men steeds het huishouden „gedaan” uit het
werkkapitaal; dat „s t i m m t e ”, altijd volgens H e r r Drütlich.
Zij was een brave, ijverige huisvrouw; van dat de zon aan den hemel
kwam tot ’s avonds klokke acht, was ze in de weer; haar tweelingen
zoogde ze zelve, en ze zou, als een krachtige telg van
Germaanschen stam, in staat zijn geweest zeslingen te voeden
en.… over te houden. Zij had verstand van keuken en goedang-
zaken, als de beste uit Europa geïmporteerde huisvrouw. Zij zorgde
goed voor haar man en haar kleintjes. Als die maar „dik” waren, dan
leefde ze, en haar stelsel van vetmesten gelukte volkomen, ook wat
haarzelve betrof; de gansche familie zat terdege in het vleesch, en
Van Brakel, schoon hem de tweelingen aanvankelijk [3]zwaar op ’t
hart hadden gelegen, was geëindigd met er trotsch op te zijn.
Wanneer bezoekers deze welgeslaagde proeven van multiplicatie-

vermogen bewonderden, en de „engelen van kinderen” ’t vel van de
wangetjes kusten, dan kon Van Brakel er bij staan met een gezicht,
stralend van zelfvoldoening; een gezicht, waarop als het ware een
aanvraag stond te lezen om een gezegeld en geregistreerd
certificaat.
Sommige menschen, die wel wisten waar in dergelijke

omstandigheden de beroemde Abraham zijn geurigen mosterd
haalde, glimlachten spottend; maar de domme menigte kende den
ingenieur groote verdiensten toe.
Doch welk een goed vrouwtje Lucie ook was,—twee eigenschappen

miste zij: ze was niet erg zindelijk op haar huis, en zuinig was ze
evenmin; stof zag ze niet gauw, maar ze schreef verbazend snel een
bonnetje.
Dit eerste, en de eigenaardige geuren van de zuigelingen en van de

baboe, die vóór den divan op den grond lag te slapen, waren
oorzaak van de onfrissche lucht, die in het slaapvertrek heerschte.
Zij merkte het niet; ze was aan die soort van zaken gewoon; thuis,
toen haar moeder stierf, bleef ze met haar broertjes en zusjes
achter, en nu die groot waren, zat ze in een wip in haar eigen
kindertjes.
Zulke fijne reukorganen kwamen op haars vaders onderneming ook

niet te pas, en als Van Brakel thuis kwam, en een sterken
gemengden geur van tabak en brandy buiten en binnen de
k l a m b o e verspreidde, dan had ze daar zoo geen last van. Papa
Drütlich begroette steeds het opgaan der zon met zijn
F r ü h s c h o p p e n , rookte er groote pijpen zware [4]tabak bij, en
salueerde Morpheus met b r a n d y k r i n g en havana’s. Zoo’n
„heerenluchtje” hinderde haar niet; ze was het van kindsbeen af
gewoon.
En Van Brakel was een goed man. Hij hield veel van Lucie; net
zooveel als toen ze nog geëngageerd waren. Voor geen geld zou hij
haar ontrouw zijn geworden; zij wist, dat ze voor hem d e vrouw
was, en hij kwam daar altijd rond voor uit. Doch huiselijk van aard
was hij niet, en hij werd dat met elke maand minder. De sociëteit had
iets wonderlijk aantrekkelijks voor hem.
Sedert lang mopperde hij niet meer tegen den dienst. Men hoorde
hem niet meer afgeven op ongediplomeerde hoofdingenieurs en op
projecten, die toch nooit werden uitgevoerd. Hij ontplooide een
grooten ijver in het begrinten van wegen, het verven van
gouvernements-gebouwen, het witten en teeren van postloodsen. ’s
Morgens vroeg kon men hem reeds zien uitrijden in zijn bendy, hoe
verder, hoe liever. Het mocht dan waar wezen, dat hij geregeld elke
maand te kort kwam, en hij zijn „beren” even voordeelig zag groeien
en dik worden als zijn kroost,—het eenige wat nog strekken kon om
er niet al te diep onder te raken was een fatsoenlijk bedrag aan
declaraties elke maand.
Fluitend en pratend tegen zijn hond, die al blaffende om hem heen

sprong, liep hij voort in den helderen maneschijn; zijn blonde haren
krulden om zijn pet en de schaduw van zijn gezette figuur
dandineerde op het witte zand van den weg.
Het was een gewone avond in de sociëteit, want er werd geen

muziek gemaakt. [5]
De groote lokalen waren leeg. Uit de biljartzaal kwam het eentonig

getik der tegen elkaar loopende ballen. De kastelein, die de
verlichting uit zijn verdiensten moest betalen, was zoo vrij geweest
de lampen op „halve kracht” te stellen.
Er viel toch niets te verdienen op zoo’n avond!
Van Brakel ging door de lange voor- en binnengalerijen op het geluid

der biljartballen af. Daar ten minste was nog wat leven.
Hij trad binnen en knikte even met het hoofd een „goeden avond” in
het rond.
„Zoo,” zei de assistent-resident van politie, een vroolijk celibatair.

„Wat kom jij hier doen?”
„Ik kom eens zien of jullie je niet misdraagt,” lachte Van Brakel.
„Nou,” zei een ander ingenieur, die met den redacteur van een
dagblad aan het biljarten was, „we zijn altijd blij als we je rechtop
naar huis zien loopen.”
Men schertste, en critiseerde het spel, waarvan de spelers

uitmuntend geoefend waren, en men dronk er de eeuwige brandy-
soda bij. Het was een „vast clubje.” Van Brakel was het eenige
getrouwde lid. Zijn collega, de journalist en de assistent-resident
hielden trouw den gehuwden staat een „kleine vrouw” voor, waarop
Hymen telkens verschrikt en beschaamd de vlucht nam.
„Willen we?” vroeg, toen de partij uit was, een van de club, terwijl hij
met duim en vinger een beweging maakte, als wilde hij iets laten
tellen.
Zij glimlachten allen en keken elkaar aan; zij glimlachten, [6]zooals

verstandige, goed ontwikkelde en beschaafde menschen doen,
wanneer ze willen overgaan tot iets, wat ze weten dat verkeerd is,
dat strijdt tegen hun beschaving, ontwikkeling en verstand; zij
glimlachten als menschen, die heel goed weten, welke in het leven
de verboden vruchten zijn, maar er zich niettemin in koelen bloede
aan te goed gaan doen.
„Nog één keer, en dan nooit weer,” zei de assistent-resident.
Ze lachten nu luid, en al schertsend en lachend gingen ze naar een

hoek van de binnengalerij, waar het uitverkoren plekje was voor hun
zonde.
De bedienden brachten hun glazen; de mandoor haalde het

draaibord; elk zette een „lapje” van tien gulden bij; men draaide.
Er werd weinig bij gesproken. Zij waren echte spelers; zij speelden
niet om het genoegen van het spel, maar alleen om te winnen. Een
half uur waren ze aan den gang, maar het hielp niet. De kans was
zeer grillig; ieder won op zijn beurt; er ging „niets om.”
„We konden best vijf en twintig zetten,” meende er een.
Men keek elkaar even aan en knikte goedkeurend.—Het scheen te

helpen, de kans richtte zich naar v e i n e en d é v e i n e ; er werd
gewonnen en verloren; de hartstocht werd opgewekt en met de
grootste aandacht werd de beweging van den draaienden wijzer
gevolgd.
Uit de leeskamer der sociëteit, die met een deur in de binnengalerij

uitkwam, schreed langzaam een heer en ging voorbij het tafeltje der
spelers; hij groette zeer beleefd. [7]
Van Brakel mompelde iets met saamgeknepen lippen, terwijl hij hem
woedend nakeek. „Het is nu de tweede maal, dat die ploert me dit
levert.”
„Misschien heeft hij er geen bedoeling bij,” zei zijn collega.
„Nu ja! I k zeg je, hij doet het met opzet. M i j kan ’t niet schelen.”
„Mij ook niet.”
„Waar zeur je dan over? Kom, zet op!” viel de assistent-resident in,
en gaf met zijn dikke vingers een krachtigen zet aan het draaitoestel.
Van Brakel eindigde dien avond met een paar honderd gulden
verlies, maar het scheen hem niet te hinderen. Ook sprak men daar
niet over. Iemand, die over zijn verlies zou hebben gesproken of
getoond zou hebben, dat hij daar niet tegen kon, ware, althans in
hun clubje, een onteerd man. Of liever het was ondenkbaar, want
dan kon hij tot dat clubje niet behooren.
Men ging gezamenlijk biljarten om geld: een rijksdaalder per

carambole; dat was een billijk tarief.
Van Brakel won er een kleinigheid mee, maar het werd den spelers
te warm.
Nog één keer dobbelden ze, wat hem zijn biljartwinst weer afhandig
maakte, en met het slaan van tweeën gingen de vrienden naar huis.
Het was nog altijd een heerlijke nacht. Van Brakel’s hond was
vroolijk en blafte als een razende tegen de maan; maar de baas
werd door onaangename gedachten geplaagd.
Den volgenden dag was het traktementsdag. Verwenschte dag! Dat

was nu, naar zijn gevoelen, de ellendigste der [8]geheele maand,
terwijl het eigenlijk de aangenaamste wezen moest.
Het was dan toch ook schandelijk van het Gouvernement om iemand
van zijn positie en zijn dienstjaren zóó slecht te betalen. Zelfs m e t
de declaratie-gelden kon men van zoo’n inkomen niet leven! Had hij
een paar honderd gulden meer in de maand, dan was er doorkomen
aan. Nu gaf het slechts een agglomeratie van beren, waaraan geen
einde kwam. Men kon er waarlijk het einde niet van zien.
Zóó wandelde hij naar huis in droevige stemming, het lot

verwenschend, dat hem als ingenieur B. O. W. in de klauwen had
doen vallen van het Indisch Gouvernement.
Hij had dan een geweldigen afkeer van rekeningen ten zijnen laste,
en, welk een goed en gemoedelijk man hij ook overigens was, zoo
kon hij buiten zichzelven geraken van woede, bij het zien van een
mandoer, die met een portefeuille of een trommel vol quitanties het
erf op kwam. Deze bruine broeders, wetende welke onwelkome
verschijningen ze waren bij den toean ingenieur, bogen als
knipmessen nog vóór ze iemand zagen; maar zóó vriendelijk konden
ze niet wezen of Van Brakel zei, met een paar groote oogen, tegen
zijn Lucie:
„Daar heb je weer zoo’n smeerlap!”
Zij moest er om lachen. Haar gemoedelijke aard verloochende zich

nooit. Het was immers niets! „Als men niet kan betalen”, zei ze altijd
heel leuk, „dan zegt men maar l a i n b o e l a n ”. De tokohouders
verdienden, vond zij, toch genoeg.
Maar Van Brakel kon er niet tegen, en daarom zorgde hij steeds met
den maandelijkschen Grooten Verzoendag op reis [9]te zijn om te
zien naar de dijkjes, de postloodsen en wat zich verder koesterde
onder de vleugelen zijner technische bekwaamheid.
Alles sliep toen hij thuis kwam; zelfs toen hij in bed stapte en zijn
gewicht de ijzeren staven van het ledikant deed knarsen, werd Lucie
niet wakker, maar bleef rustig voortslapen, haar dikke, blanke armen
boven het hoofd gekruist. Nog een oogenblik zat Van Brakel
overeind, bedenkend of hij haar wakker zou maken of niet.
Hij deed het niet, want „k a s i a n ,” dacht hij, „ze is zoo moe”.
Wèl was het reeds drie uren, vóór hij rustig insliep, maar dat belette
hem niet met het vallen van het ochtendschot weer op te staan. Zijn
ijzersterk gestel veroorloofde hem alles; wat een ander in de
gematigde luchtstreek doodziek zou hebben gemaakt, dat kon hij
zich in de tropen ongestraft veroorloven. Een uur later was hij reeds
op weg naar „het werk”, dat zes, acht palen van de hoofdplaats werd
uitgevoerd.
Maar in dat uur, welk een drukte en bedrijvigheid! Als Lucie sliep,
dan was ze moeilijk wakker te krijgen, doch eenmaal goed uitgerust
ontwaakt, scheen zij een voor den ganschen dag opgewonden
uurwerk, dat met een krachtige vaart afliep en ’s avonds stilstond.
Nog was de duisternis niet geheel geweken, toen reeds alles in rep
en roer was; de koffie werd gezet, de tafel voor het ontbijt gedekt, de
zuigelingen schreeuwden van den honger, de baboes liepen heen en
weer met vochtig en geïllustreerd beddegoed, de katten miauwden,
Lucie gaf met luide [10]stem vier, vijf bevelen te gelijk aan de
bedienden, Van Brakel zocht vloekend een gesp voor zijn schoone
pantalon,—het was of met den nieuwen dag Satan was losgebroken,
alsof het een huishouden was van Jan Steen; kleine Wilhelm, het
oudste zoontje, gilde als een bezetene, omdat hij niet wilde baden,
en de driejarige Lucie beet haar baboe in de wang.
Zoo was na vier jaren van ongestoord huwelijksgeluk het „kleine

Paradijs”, waarover Lucie haar oude vriendin Louise Van der Linden
met zooveel enthusiasme had geschreven, toen ze nog pas kort
waren getrouwd.
Toen eindelijk Van Brakel vertrokken was, en de kinderen gevoed en

gereinigd met de baboes aan ’t wandelen waren, begon het
eenigszins rustiger te worden. Dan weldra snorden de naaimachines
van Lucie en haar m e n d j a h i t , welk eentonig en toch zenuwachtig
geratel alleen werd afgebroken door de meer of min onaangename
besprekingen met weldra van alle zijden opdagende Chineezen en
rekeningloopers.
Het was een nare geschiedenis toch tegenwoordig. Vroeger kreeg zij
elke maand geld gezonden van haar vader, en dat was zoo heerlijk;
Van Brakel wist er wel zoo iets van, maar hij vroeg er niet naar, en zij
kon met dat geld soms zoo ongemerkt de leemten in de ménage
aanvullen. Doch daarvan was in den laatsten tijd geen sprake meer.
Het was, schreef H e r r Drütlich, nu „d i e v e r d a m m t e
K a f f e e l a u s ” zijn boomen vernielde, niet meer mogelijk om haar
etwas te zenden, en daar bleef het bij, terwijl toch de uitgaven elken
dag toenamen.
Na zijn tochtje, dat tot twaalf uren ’s middags duurde, reed Van
Brakel beslijkt en bestoven het erf op van de sociëteit. [11]De Club-
leden zaten er reeds. Zijn collega, iemand altijd even net en
bedaard, zoo in zijn uiterlijk als wat zijn manieren betreft, zag hem
opmerkzaam aan, toen hij uit zijn voertuig stapte.
„Vindt je niet dat Braak erg achteruitgaat?” vroeg hij den assistent-
resident.
„Och, het gaat nogal. ’n Beetje vet, anders niet.”
„Je hebt hem vroeger niet gekend. Te Delft was hij een van de netste
kerels. En nu heeft hij hier in Indië iets verschrikkelijk ordinairs
gekregen.”
„Kom, dat is zoo erg niet!—Dag Braak, ’n paitje?”
„Dat was nog zoo ’n kwaad idee niet,” meende Van Brakel.
Zij bleven zitten tot tegen twee uren. Sommigen hadden zich tot
weinig consumtie beperkt: het waren de ambtenaren, die nog naar
hun kantoren moesten; maar Van Brakel en de assistent-resident,
die t o c h m a a r naar huis gingen, hadden een „slordig bittertje”
gedronken.
Thuis vond hij Lucie met een van de tweelingen aan de borst, en
bezig een glaasje Spaanschen wijn te drinken, wat zoo goed was en
zoo versterkend; hij vond het erg gezellig en accompagneerde haar
met nog een weinig volksdrank, waarna zij aan tafel zwart Engelsch
bier dronk om zich te versterken en hij bruin Duitsch bier omdat hij
het lekker vond.
„Ik heb een brief gekregen van pa,” zei ze onder het eten.
„Zoo, hoe maakt hij het?”
„O heel goed.”
„En hoe gaat het met de K a f f e e l a u s ?”
„Akelig! Geen driehonderd pikols van ’t jaar.” [12]
„’t Is beroerd.”
„’t Is verschrikkelijk. Zoo’n mooi land!”
„En wat denkt hij nu te doen?”
„Ja, wat zal hij doen?”
Dat wist Van Brakel ook niet, en daarom zweeg hij maar liever.
Lang zouden ze geslapen hebben dien middag, zoo niet tegen

halfvijf een politie-oppasser was gekomen met een briefje van den
assistent-resident, die in vliegende haast meldde, dat hij per
telegram was overgeplaatst en in weinige dagen naar zijn nieuwe
standplaats moest vertrekken, omdat de overneming van den dienst
daar geen uitstel kon leiden.
„Kom, ik ga gauw baden,” zei Van Brakel tegen Lucie. „Je begrijpt,
dat wij hem in elk geval een heerendinertje moeten aanbieden.”

Critical Thinking Pearson New International Edition Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life Print Replica PDF Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Pearson New International Edition Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life Print Replica PDF Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking Pearson New International Edition Tools For Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life Print Replica PDF Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Thinking: Pearson New

International Edition: Tools for Taking

(eBook PDF) An Invitation to Health: Taking Charge of

An Invitation to Health: Taking Charge of Your Health

Change Your Thinking to Change Your Life Kate James

Discrete Time Signal Processing: Pearson New

The Power of Saying No: The New Science of How to Say

McGraw-Hill Connect Resources for Feldman, P.O.W.E.R.

Theatre in Your Life 3rd Edition, (Ebook PDF)

Presentation Essentials: The Tools You Need to

1 Think for Yourself

GOOD THINKING REQUIRES HARD WORK

of practice/feedback/practice. Your practice heightens your awareness of the ins and

EXHIBIT 2 Critical thinking is the way we should approach everything we do.

The way you do

2 Think for Yourself

EXHIBIT 3 Why is critical thinking so important? (A more elaborated

Defining Critical Thinking:

3 Think for Yourself

THE CONCEPT OF CRITICAL THINKING

In other words, critical thinking is the systematic monitoring of thought with

EXHIBIT 4 Critical thinking applies to everything about which we think.

Critical Thinking About:

Teaching and learning Well-being Speaking

Creativity Listening Politics

Emotions Medicine Religion

Intuition Writing Problem solving

Habits Nursing Reading

Lower order thinking is often distinguished from higher order

BECOME A CRITIC OF YOUR THINKING

4 Think for Yourself

ESTABLISH NEW HABITS OF THOUGHT

5 Think for Yourself

DEVELOP CONFIDENCE IN YOUR ABILITY

In pursuing intellectual questions, Darwin (1958) relied upon perseverance

6 Think for Yourself

Complete these statements:

2. I have/have not typically struggled in school/college because: _____________________

3. I generally see myself as capable/incapable as a student because:___________________

EXHIBIT 6 Critical thinking: an elaborated definition.

A unique kind of in any subject area or topic,

in which the thinker such as intellectual perseverance,

with awareness of its

such as clarity, accuracy,

making it more clear, accurate,

7 Think for Yourself

2. In other words (this should be at least 4–5 sentences): __________________________

3. I can apply critical thinking to my life in the following ways: ______________________

WEAK VERSUS STRONG CRITICAL THINKING

1 Think for Yourself

Sophistic thinkers succeed only if they do not come up against what we

As we examine how the various traits of mind are conducive to fairminded-

EXHIBIT 1 Critical thinkers strive to develop essential traits or characteristics of

Intellectual TRAITS Intellectual

Intellectual self- TRAITS Intellectual

WHAT DOES FAIRMINDEDNESS REQUIRE?

Because each of us is naturally egocentric, each of us falls prey to unfair

Intellectual Humility: Strive to Discover

When we think of intellectual arrogance, we are not necessarily implying a