Saffron wrote: What a crazy over simplification!

Oh, it was an oversimplification, no doubt, but in the way that satire is always an oversimplification--yet has a germ of truth.

Just for starters, generally, people who have a college degree do make more money than people with just a high school diploma

I thought that was part of the point, that jumping through the hoops increases one's value in the marketplace.

I do believe that the people who attend college acquire skills and knowledge beyond what they learned in high school; skills that are necessary to do those higher paying jobs.

For most of us, college seems to be the needed delivery system of greater knowledge, because we don't have the self-direction or talent to do without it. But of course those people who have achieved a great deal (including making lots of money) without college demonstrate that it's not a necessity by any means. Harry S Truman never went to college. Making a college diploma a needed qualification to get someone to consider you for a job was just an expedient for employers, and not a particularly good idea, IMO.

As a tuition payer, when I look at higher education, I do see an opportunity for reforming the system.

I like these kind of perverse outlooks on our accepted practices. You should know that by now!

The placebo effect only goes so far -- from real ailments the pain does come back after a bit.

Well, the pain likely will come back no matter what treatment was used. I think the great thing about the placebo effect is that it's not really illusory. Even the effect the NPR guy claimed for higher ed. was in a sense real. It just isn't completely as advertised.

DWill wrote: education, I do see an opportunity for reforming the system.

Me too! Maybe even for the same reasons.

I like these kind of perverse outlooks on our accepted practices. You should know that by now!

You are too much fun!

I looked into going into law school a few years ago; did some research, sat in on some classes etc. It surprised me how often the profs talked about law school teaching you "how to think like a lawyer". There was a real emphasis put on learning how to read and analyze things, and very little emphasis on actual knowledge.

So much of the law is constantly changing that just learning what the law is makes little sense. I assume it's similar in science. Learning how to be a critical thinker probably has more influence on future income than the actual knowledge learned.

CWT36 wrote: So much of the law is constantly changing that just learning what the law is makes little sense. I assume it's similar in science. Learning how to be a critical thinker probably has more influence on future income than the actual knowledge learned.

"Are Critical Thinker More Highly Paid"? Now that's a title for a study that I'd like to read. Maybe they are, but I don't assume it to be generally true.
Todd Riniolo, author of our When Good Thinking Goes Bad selection, doesn't say anything about it, and in fact this advoate of skepticism is pretty skeptical that any class of people, including the highly educated, has a clear advantage in the consistency of their critical thinking. We are all very susceptible to chucking critical thinking in order to maintain our beliefs. Riniolo seems to tell us that, after a certain point in our intellectual growth, we shouldn't expect to overcome what is an evolutionary heritage of biased thinking. The most we can hope for is to recognize that our strong sense of being right may not be entirely based on detached analysis.

DWill wrote:

CWT36 wrote: So much of the law is constantly changing that just learning what the law is makes little sense. I assume it's similar in science. Learning how to be a critical thinker probably has more influence on future income than the actual knowledge learned.

"Are Critical Thinker More Highly Paid"? Now that's a title for a study that I'd like to read. Maybe they are, but I don't assume it to be generally true.
Todd Riniolo, author of our When Good Thinking Goes Bad selection, doesn't say anything about it, and in fact this advoate of skepticism is pretty skeptical that any class of people, including the highly educated, has a clear advantage in the consistency of their critical thinking. We are all very susceptible to chucking critical thinking in order to maintain our beliefs. Riniolo seems to tell us that, after a certain point in our intellectual growth, we shouldn't expect to overcome what is an evolutionary heritage of biased thinking. The most we can hope for is to recognize that our strong sense of being right may not be entirely based on detached analysis.

I meant to say that the higher paid lawyers are probably the ones who mastered how to "think a lawyer", not the ones who mastered the facts.

The higher paid scientists may be the ones who mastered how to "think like a scientist" (ie: critical thinking), not the ones who mastered the scientific facts. I have no evidence that this is the case, just thought it was an interesting possibility.

DWill wrote: . . . in fact this advoate of skepticism is pretty skeptical that any class of people, including the highly educated, has a clear advantage in the consistency of their critical thinking. We are all very susceptible to chucking critical thinking in order to maintain our beliefs.

I don't think this is Rinolio's overall message. He does say everyone, including skeptical thinkers, are susceptible to going off their game, just like the baseball player described in one of the earlier chapters. But if you remember your basics and stick with your game plan you are much more likely to play up to your potential. Rinolio says no one's perfect, but one who who is ever mindful of the ways that critical thinking can get derailed, and being vigilant to not let your biases and prejudices get the best of you, the better off you are. That's what I got out of this book.

geo wrote:
I don't think this is Rinolio's overall message. He does say everyone, including skeptical thinkers, are susceptible to going off their game, just like the baseball player described in one of the earlier chapters. But if you remember your basics and stick with your game plan you are much more likely to play up to your potential. Rinolio says no one's perfect, but one who who is ever mindful of the ways that critical thinking can get derailed, and being vigilant to not let your biases and prejudices get the best of you, the better off you are. That's what I got out of this book.

That's close to what I got out of the book. From Riniolo's citing of research indicating that groups that might be presumed to exhibit more consistent critical thinking did not, and from the tales he told on himself, I also think that he sends a "we're all in this together" message. But yes, as a teacher of the skeptical method, he does clearly believe that we all, regardless of our education or occupation, can become better at detouring around our biases and at the same time be humble about the inevitability that we won't always be able to do it.