People are bombarded with ideas, claims, proposals and arguments. How they respond to some of that chatter is of little importance. But what about voting, giving to a cause (or deciding not to give), religious beliefs, and personal ethics? All of those things influence life satisfaction, health and the quality of government.

In realms where responses to ideas really matter it would be valuable to have some tools for evaluating the quality of thinking related to the issue at hand. This article presents simple tools to assist with that evaluation process.

Evaluating The Implications Of An Idea:

Edward De Bono created a simple, and seemingly simplistic, “thinking tool” called PMI – for Plus, Minus, Interesting. Begin using this tool by simply stating the idea in question. For example, we might be asked to consider the idea that private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States. We would begin using PMI by stating something like this:”Private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.”

The next three steps in PMI are easy to implement. First, list any Pluses of the idea. These positive aspects can be major or minor, nearly certain or highly improbable. The size or probability of a given positive is not relevant at this point. Then list the Minuses that come to mind. Again, the scale or likelihood of any given minus is irrelevant at this point; just list anything that comes to mind. Lastly, make a list of the Interesting aspects of the idea. Anything that might happen but is tough to classify as positive or negative goes in the Interesting category.

The whole listing and review process could take as little as nine or 10 minutes. Impose a time limit of three minutes for generating ideas in each category. Reviewing the lists of Pluses, Minuses, and Interesting points might lead to a change of opinion. Even if there is no change opinion, a rigorous exploration of an idea’s implications.

Make notes on what the presidential candidates propose to do. Do so regardless of whether or not you tend to agree with a particular candidate. Do a PMI on their most important proposals. Do the ideas still seem like good ideas?

Thinking About The Issue:

Thinking accurately about the issue is partly a matter of logic, partly about facts, and partly a matter of understanding how cognitive biases can lead people astray. Knowing the common logical fallacies is the beginning of accurate thinking about issues of the day. Investigated the actual facts – as opposed to assumed facts or alleged facts – enhances understanding of an issue. Making a conscious effort to counteract psychological biases is also important.

Running through a checklist covering the logical flaws and psychological biases described in this section would improve the quality of the user’s thinking about an issue. Begin by studying this list of logical flaws and the examples provided:

Bare assertion fallacy: Simply asserting that something is true, or not true, is an error. Interstellar space travel is impossible.

Appeal to probability: Claiming that because something could happen it will inevitably happen is a fallacious form of reasoning. Since terrorists could get a nuclear weapon and smuggle it into the United States, we have to be prepared for such a plot to unfold.

False dilemma: Two choices are wrongly held to be the only reasonable choices. In political debates, we are often presented with the claim that either the government will do something or the private sector will have to do it. This false dilemma ignores the possibility of depending on nonprofits or on various sorts of informal or semi-formal social networks to accomplish the mission in question.

Faulty generalization – A conclusion is based on a small sample, on an obviously biased sample, or on anecdotes leads to incorrect conclusions. Almost all stereotypes come from limited data on a certain group.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This Latin phrase meaning “After this therefore because of it” refers to the fallacy of confusing association between two things with a cause-effect relationship.

Ad hominem: Attacking the intelligence, character, or morals of the other person. A person may be lazy or dishonest but that doesn’t necessarily make the person’s argument invalid.

Red herring: An argument on a different subject is offered in response to someone else’s idea.

Irrelevant conclusion: The argument may be sound but does not address the issue at hand.

Straw man: Attacking the opponent by misrepresenting his or her position and attacking that misrepresented position. The straw man fallacy also refers to the use of out-of-context qoutes, easily criticized spokespersons, or oversimplifications of the other side’s argument.

Activists and politicians often use facts as rhetorical tools. The facts that support a point of view often get presented without contrary facts being mentioned. How often this is done consciously and how often it reflects an unconscious bias in human thinking is subject to dispute. The impact of manipulated facts, ignored facts, and outdated facts is not difficult to understand.

Three types of oversimplifications seem especially common in discussions of social issues. Liberals and progressives are likely to frame an issue in terms of some problem in organizations or in the structure of society. A problem is really a problem of corporate misbehavior or widespread racial discrimination. Conservatives frame problems in terms of personal responsibility. People choose to behave dishonestly. Finally, many problematic behaviors are linked to biology. Men cheat on their spouses because of evolution. People overeat because of some evolutionary trait.

The reality of social life is complicated. Sure, people do make carefully considered choices. Social institutions really are affected by dishonesty and discrimination. Biology does influence behavior. However, a scan of a basic textbook on psychology or sociology reveals a multidimensional picture of how society works. Economic considerations, cultural norms, politics, peer pressure, religious institutions, and education shape our attitudes, behaviors, perceptions, and values.

Evaluating One’s Own Thinking:

The easiest step in evaluating our own thinking is to simply test it against that list of common logical fallacies. Doing this effectively has to be based on a desire to be objective about one’s own thinking. It is easy to skim through a mental checklist of fallacies and conclude that there are no such weaknesses in one’s own thinking.

Human thinking almost always contains some logical flaws. Psychologists have identified many flaws in human perception and in thinking. Three of those flaws seem particularly relevant to thinking about the quality of our thinking. First, people tend to look for evidence that supports their views while ignoring or discounting contrary evidence. People sometimes base conclusions on whatever recent event leaps readily to mind. Time constraints, energy, social pressure, reasoning ability, and emotion all limit a person’s efforts to think effectively and comprehensively.

Check the quality of your own thinking. Have you been deliberately ignoring evidence in favor of some other view of the issue in question? Do you hold your opinion on a given issue because of analytical thinking or because of the psychological impact of a recent event.What conclusions have you reached solely because of what a trusted source told you?

Concluding Comments:

Learn how to conduct a PMI and do so the next time a politician or activist proposes some means for dealing with a social issue. Run through a quick list of potential problems with the quality of thinking on the issue in question. Apply that same checklist to your own thinking.