There is lament about a lack of Critical Thinkers. There’s also a lack of recognizing influencing vectors

Firstly, there is a lack of willingness toward recognition of diversity in who & what a Critical Thinker (CT) can be. There is a denying of what their unique, less obvious sets of merits are. There is inconsideration when they might be coming from places less sanctioned in CT-World

While societies & individuals might self-proclaim their openness, & supportive practices, at an interpersonal or at individual-to-institution levels toward CTs, quickly these too have been observed to show otherwise. Note, here, an individual in an assigned hierarchical position is an institution. If one is fixed to think within an unquestionable framework, one is not necessarily thinking critically, nor allowing critical thought

These unseen CTs could be outside the realm of the attributes of merit as defined by the other. E.g., humor, play, surrealism, to name but a few mechanisms, are not often accepted in realms of official, formal, “serious,” or “strong” CTs. The latter set might seem more macho, while the former, on its surface, might seem more swirly. Yet, both can be equally (un)critical or be (lacking) serious(ness). Either can radiate a narrative of hero-sized strength, while actually packaging insecurities & superficial yes-person frivolities. A yes-woman or yes-man can be highly weaponized as well. These are not strong, nor are they CTs. They can be devastating & (proverbially) deadly. Though acts of violence or power-exertion aren’t equatable to CT

Then there is an acceptance of certain types of a CT’s thinking while (silently) denying other types. Some will assign CT’s thinking only within quantitative realms & attributes of Computational Thinking or formal logic. This while excluding socio-cultural CTs (which might be more qualitative & interpretive). This is also an issue in reverse

Herein too lies an insidiousness of the veiled “expert” (aka they from an in-group) & the unwillingness to assign some of its attributes to others (aka they from an out-group)

If one were to allow oneself to identify these & other veiled features, & that beyond the veneer of the formalities, of Public Relations, the egos, the rhetoric of one-liners, beyond the 280-character long evaporating statements, one might unwittingly become increasingly critical

Hence, CTs might seem lacking since they’re not recognized, acknowledged or allowed to enter into dialog. This brings us to silenced features in CTs: dialog & relation. These are critical. While they might be asynchronous across spacetime, these are crucial to the diversity of CTs. The CT is not a state nor a constant. CTs are the relationships, the dialogs, the debates, the in-betweens & liminalities

CTs might be lacking while this can be softened if CTs were as such recognized operating outside my sanctioned cognitive, formal or institutional models

🦗