10 ICSA TODAY
Against the deceptive draw of manipulative situations for many
individuals, critical thinking is a kind of “if only” remedy: If only
they’d think critically, they wouldn’t get taken advantage of.
Admittedly, encouraging critical thinking is a tall order, but why?
In a nutshell: Critical thinking’s evaluative, challenging,
objectively detached orientation conflicts with the imaginative,
validation- and connection-seeking interests of people attracted
to societal fringes. As we try to “talk sense” to them, fringe-group
recruits feel these conflicts that hamper our efforts. To encourage
critical thinking, we need to understand these implicit cognitive
conflicts and avoid letting them become explicit interpersonal
conflicts.
These conflicts result from basic disparities between the
respective values and priorities, sense of responsibility, and
intention for engagement of those involved. We don’t intend
or consciously precipitate the conflicts, but too often they shift
the engagement from friendly to adversarial—an avoidable
shift. Friendly, supportive relationships with recruits are key to
the trust necessary for us to influence them toward sounder
thinking, even if sound thinking seems to suffer temporarily
along the way.
I’ll refer to new religious movements, closed high-demand
groups, and the like as fringe groups or simply groups. These
ideas apply even to groups of several or just two, such as
manipulative or abusive families or couples.
Discussions about critical thinking suffer from vagueness of the
term. Usage and definitions vary, each source assuming that its
choices are correct. So I’ll use an intentionally broad definition to
cover the broadness of actual usage: Critical thinking is analytical
thinking that evaluates credibility and merit of beliefs. These
aspects are pertinent and pivotal in interactions with people
attracted to fringe groups.
I’ll focus on both potential recruits who aren’t yet members
and newly recruited group members who aren’t yet seriously
enmeshed under the term recruits. The discussion applies to
established members, too but extracting someone from group
entrenchment is far more problematic than influencing those just
getting involved. So for clarity’s sake I’ll stick to the simpler case.
Conflicts of Interest in Values and Priorities
The best medicine in the world is useless if it triggers severe,
unavoidable allergic reactions. Similarly, in a very real way, at
intuitive, even instinctive levels, recruits attracted to fringe
groups balk at critical thinking when it is openly advocated.
Critical thinking is a method of critique prized in cultures that
stress analytical, objective thinking over synthesis-focused,
subjective thinking. This emphasis poses basic conflicts
of interest to recruits who, typically, are synthetically and
subjectively oriented. Critical thinking presupposes and requires
an independence of perspective and judgment that is off-
putting or even threatening to recruits seeking the benefits
of inclusion, belonging, and validation from those they hold
as authorities. We’d like them to think for themselves when
they, in effect, have decided they want others to think for
them—a keystone of authoritarianism. Presuming to rival or
challenge that authority, which they already have consciously
or unconsciously granted to another, directly creates an
authoritarian duel, with us as pots calling the kettle black.
People attracted to fringe groups typically want ways to
synthetically put the pieces of life together, not analytically take
them apart. They don’t see critical thinking as a solution but
rather as a hurdle to their synthetic intentions, and they interpret
the advocates of critical thinking as interfering with their pursuit
of something wonderful. Asking them to analyze, evaluate,
and challenge the very beliefs that promise their hopes will be
realized readily signals threat, and rightly so. They want to affirm,
appreciate, and celebrate precisely what critical thinking brings
under scrutiny.
Group beliefs, theories, doctrines—the typical targets of many
anticult programs—play their roles in hooking recruits, but only
as part of an attractive experiential gestalt that redefines the very
basis for the recruits’ thinking. To engage them, we need to think
in cognitive terms—i.e., in terms of how their brains function
rather than with reference to externalized abstractions such
as theories or doctrines—and to focus on how they feel about
issues important to them as considered from their points of view.
Shifting the engagement to a different basis hamstrings our
influence and, as we know if we’ve tried, gets met with resistance.
By Millard J. Melnyk
When Critical Thinking
Doesn’t Help: Why It Fails
and How to Make It Happen
Against the deceptive draw of manipulative situations for many
individuals, critical thinking is a kind of “if only” remedy: If only
they’d think critically, they wouldn’t get taken advantage of.
Admittedly, encouraging critical thinking is a tall order, but why?
In a nutshell: Critical thinking’s evaluative, challenging,
objectively detached orientation conflicts with the imaginative,
validation- and connection-seeking interests of people attracted
to societal fringes. As we try to “talk sense” to them, fringe-group
recruits feel these conflicts that hamper our efforts. To encourage
critical thinking, we need to understand these implicit cognitive
conflicts and avoid letting them become explicit interpersonal
conflicts.
These conflicts result from basic disparities between the
respective values and priorities, sense of responsibility, and
intention for engagement of those involved. We don’t intend
or consciously precipitate the conflicts, but too often they shift
the engagement from friendly to adversarial—an avoidable
shift. Friendly, supportive relationships with recruits are key to
the trust necessary for us to influence them toward sounder
thinking, even if sound thinking seems to suffer temporarily
along the way.
I’ll refer to new religious movements, closed high-demand
groups, and the like as fringe groups or simply groups. These
ideas apply even to groups of several or just two, such as
manipulative or abusive families or couples.
Discussions about critical thinking suffer from vagueness of the
term. Usage and definitions vary, each source assuming that its
choices are correct. So I’ll use an intentionally broad definition to
cover the broadness of actual usage: Critical thinking is analytical
thinking that evaluates credibility and merit of beliefs. These
aspects are pertinent and pivotal in interactions with people
attracted to fringe groups.
I’ll focus on both potential recruits who aren’t yet members
and newly recruited group members who aren’t yet seriously
enmeshed under the term recruits. The discussion applies to
established members, too but extracting someone from group
entrenchment is far more problematic than influencing those just
getting involved. So for clarity’s sake I’ll stick to the simpler case.
Conflicts of Interest in Values and Priorities
The best medicine in the world is useless if it triggers severe,
unavoidable allergic reactions. Similarly, in a very real way, at
intuitive, even instinctive levels, recruits attracted to fringe
groups balk at critical thinking when it is openly advocated.
Critical thinking is a method of critique prized in cultures that
stress analytical, objective thinking over synthesis-focused,
subjective thinking. This emphasis poses basic conflicts
of interest to recruits who, typically, are synthetically and
subjectively oriented. Critical thinking presupposes and requires
an independence of perspective and judgment that is off-
putting or even threatening to recruits seeking the benefits
of inclusion, belonging, and validation from those they hold
as authorities. We’d like them to think for themselves when
they, in effect, have decided they want others to think for
them—a keystone of authoritarianism. Presuming to rival or
challenge that authority, which they already have consciously
or unconsciously granted to another, directly creates an
authoritarian duel, with us as pots calling the kettle black.
People attracted to fringe groups typically want ways to
synthetically put the pieces of life together, not analytically take
them apart. They don’t see critical thinking as a solution but
rather as a hurdle to their synthetic intentions, and they interpret
the advocates of critical thinking as interfering with their pursuit
of something wonderful. Asking them to analyze, evaluate,
and challenge the very beliefs that promise their hopes will be
realized readily signals threat, and rightly so. They want to affirm,
appreciate, and celebrate precisely what critical thinking brings
under scrutiny.
Group beliefs, theories, doctrines—the typical targets of many
anticult programs—play their roles in hooking recruits, but only
as part of an attractive experiential gestalt that redefines the very
basis for the recruits’ thinking. To engage them, we need to think
in cognitive terms—i.e., in terms of how their brains function
rather than with reference to externalized abstractions such
as theories or doctrines—and to focus on how they feel about
issues important to them as considered from their points of view.
Shifting the engagement to a different basis hamstrings our
influence and, as we know if we’ve tried, gets met with resistance.
By Millard J. Melnyk
When Critical Thinking
Doesn’t Help: Why It Fails
and How to Make It Happen
