Critical Thinking

In the market of ideas, the most coveted lever of control is that which influences public opinion. The art of persuasion creates the conditions that shape, guide and otherwise direct the flow of knowledge and thought. Salesmen from the dawn of time have understood that if you can properly package selective information in a positive light that touches upon some unmet need (real or imaginary), you will likely make the sale. We are increasingly bombarded with messages in every facet of our lives, messages designed to influence our wants, our opinions, our choices and our beliefs. Not unlike intensive radiation, the cumulative side effect wears us down and reduces our resistance. The average person has the ability, however, to resist all but those we choose to trust. Thus the key to influencing public opinion is positioning - positioning yourself or your organization as a reliable, trustworthy source, or at the very least, creating the perception thereof. Once attained, the power to influence individuals in the opinions they hold, or the choices they make, becomes an indispensable asset. If you possess that "trust," then few will question or challenge your judgments. People will believe you, and will even discount their own conscience because if you say it, it must be true. Furthermore, if you are persuasive enough, then those who you've persuaded become your army of persuaders, sent out to convince others within their circles of the rightness of your message. Hence, you have begun to shape and control public opinion. Such power can clearly be of both positive and corruptible impact.

Generally speaking, we have been brought up to trust various entities: we trust scientists because we perceive that they are smarter than we are, and because we have been taught that science is a noble field in search of facts (not truth - truth is a philosophical concept); we trust government because we were brought up to believe in representative democracy, and we get to elect our leaders and hold them accountable; we trust our pastors because we have been taught that they are representatives of God, and we sense it would be unwise to challenge God's "messenger." Yet it goes further than that. We have been told that we can trust Walter Cronkite, CNN, our local news station, our favorite entertainer, and many, many others simply because they have created for themselves a perceived reputation for trust. Again, such power of influence can be both positive and corruptible.

The individual on the receiving end of all this messaging is certainly free to trust whatever sources of information and knowledge they choose. Groups of individuals who place their trust in particular sources can become a movement or a source of inertia, each a tool to be wielded by others. I submit the one who applies critical thinking to both the incoming message and the messenger, however, will have greater success at discerning both facts and truth. Critical thinking, in which we evaluate a subject on the basis of logic, reasoning and personal experience, can open our eyes to see clearly and judge for ourselves the truth of the message and the trustworthiness of the messenger.

Allow me to illustrate this with a personal example. John Rosemond is a well known child psychologist, who has written numerous columns and other works on parenting and children. Recently, he addressed a reader's question regarding the Feingold Diet. This reader had been told categorically by a therapist that nutrition and ADHD are unrelated. I won't belabor the details of what the Feingold methodology is, other than to direct you to the website. You can read the full question and response to Mr. Rosemond here. In his response, he captured very concisely this notion of selective information packaging, and the corruptible potential of those seeking to shape public opinion (emphasis mine):

Some kids improve when put on a restricted diet like Feingold’s, but some kids don’t. (I’m choosing not to go into detail about the so-called Feingold diet, developed by research pediatrician Benjamin Feingold, but the interested reader can find ample description on the Internet.) After eight years spent researching his approach, which involved eliminating artificial food colorings and flavorings as well as chemical preservatives, Feingold presented his impressive findings to the 1973 Annual Conference of the American Medical Association. Shortly thereafter, a group calling itself the Nutrition Foundation published statements claiming that Feingold’s approach lacked valid scientific support. The general public was unaware, however, that the Foundation’s membership included Dow Chemical, Coca Cola, and other companies who made, used, and distributed the additives Feingold was targeting. In their zeal to discredit Feingold and his work, NF subsequently funded several research studies designed to “prove” what it wanted the public to believe—that Feingold’s approach was worthless.

I don't necessarily presume malicious intent on the part of those who dispute the validity of Feingold's methodology. But it serves to demonstrate that even our most trusted sources of information may have an agenda or a conflict of interest. Since people or organizations of any sort are prone to act according to self-interest, we should therefore anticipate such motives from the messengers we hear. This is not to say that we should never trust. Rather, we should subject the message and the messenger to a certain level of scrutiny, evaluating the information against our own knowledge and experience. Whenever someone categorically asserts or denies something (e.g., "the science is settled") - it is a telltale signal that the messenger is speaking out of either vested interest or their own belief, as opposed to fact. To this example, there is simply not enough scientific evidence at this point to definitively and causally connect diet and conditions like ADHD. Likewise, there is also no scientific evidence to conclusively say the converse. In the absence of a definitive answer, we must then rely on our own logic, understanding and experience. Artificial ingredients do not appear to affect me. But my own personal experience - demonstrable experience - has shown me that my children are significantly impacted by such ingredients. In this instance, I choose to trust my own eyes and experiences to arrive at the facts of the matter: Artificial elements in our food most certainly affects SOME children, and the removal of those elements from a diet can result in a reduction of ADHD symptoms in THOSE children. As Mr. Rosemond concludes (emphasis mine):

Perhaps the most convincing evidence in favor of Feingold’s approach are the testimonies from tens of thousands of parents who claim that what is now called the Feingold Program brought about dramatic improvements in their ADHD children’s behavior; in many cases, improvements that were far better and longer-lasting than those resulting from medication. Although these parent reports are dismissed as non-scientific by what I term the ADHD Establishment, the issue boils down to one fundamental question: Why would these parents say their kids’ behavior improved if it didn’t?

Again, it is certainly permissible to trust. But we should also be wise, and not discount our own ability to reason - because even people or organizations we trust are fallible. Having that awareness will help insulate us from the negative aspects of persuasive power. Think it through, and let your opinions, understanding and beliefs be shaped by your own reason and experience, and not merely by the selective packaging of information and messaging, whatever the topic may be.