Don’t believe everything you think.
Here’s the second of my first week’s postings for the re-do of PSYC6211. I like this post, and find myself annoyed that his response was “Not bad.” and to ding me for use of dictionary.com as “not fitting of graduate level work.” I replied with additional information that dictionary.com is actually the online version of the Random House Unabridged dictionary (2006), and asked if that is still true. Retyping/sourcing the Oxford English Dictionary that’s on my desk will be annoying, but hell, I’ll do it. If he replies soon enough, maybe I’ll actually rewrite this post doing so.
Still, since I pride myself in using at least 3 REAL sources for any given post (anything from the news, magazines, and the like is extra, IMO), I’m feeling a bit grumbly about this. I know that having a prof who’s persnickety about sources and formatting will only make me a better student/researcher/writer, but it still rubs me the wrong way in this case.
Besides that, I think I’m a bit paranoid that he’s expecting negative things from me because in my intro post, I put it out there honestly that I’m retaking this class — and why. Show, don’t tell. Show, don’t tell. Repeat to self. My job is to kick ass so he has no choice but to give me an ‘A’ in the class, not to worry about whether the man LIKES me or not. Repeat to self.
~~~~~~~~
Don’t believe everything you think.
Dictionary.com gives ten separate definitions for the word “critical.” Two introduce the idea of severe, negative feedback. Three involve medicine and natural sciences. Two relate to analysis of literature and the arts. The remaining definitions pertain to our work here and involve the application of judgment to information and the importance of the subject being judged (‘Critical,’ n.d.). As Ruscio (2006) states, “critical thinking does not imply criticism, nor does it lead to the rejection of reasonable beliefs by being overly critical” (p.3). In other words, critical thinking involves systematic open-mindedness blended with a merciless culling of ideas not worth keeping, even if the discarded ideas are those once cherished. A critical thinker must always question his or her own assumptions and resist the temptation to selectively view only the empirical evidence that supports an established idea.
A look at recent headlines is a good reminder of the importance of critical thinking, not only in the study of psychology, but also in our everyday lives. The idea of potentially contracting the flu terrifies some, yet others fear influenza vaccinations even more than the illness itself. And, according to Age of Autism, there is reason to fear this shot; flu vaccinations triple child hospitalizations (Heckenlively, 2009)! But wait, a look at less alarmist, more reasoned reporting gives a caveat: this finding is true for a select population only (children with asthma), and even then, the director of asthma research at a major children’s hospital warns caution when interpreting this study’s findings (Gardner, 2009). The author of the study herself states clearly that her findings do not implicate vaccinations as the cause of hospital stays children, but merely indicate directions for future research (American Thoracic Society, 2009).
Without a questioning attitude and the interest (and will) to dig farther, a parent may read the first article’s “proof” of flu vaccine danger and make an immediate decision to shield children from this so-called harm. With a more critical approach, this same parent discovers one additional piece of information to include with the knowledge that vaccinations have demonstrated as extremely safe in infants and toddlers (Hambridge, et al., 2006) and that vaccinating daycare-aged children is protective of the entire household (Hurwitz, et al., 2000). Only by applying critical thinking, can a parent — or a psychological researcher, for that matter — make an informed choice.
References:
American Thoracic Society (2009). News release: Flu shot not effective in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in asthmatic children. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/2009/abstracts-and-press-releases/joshi.pdf
critical. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 04, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/critical
Gardner, A. (2009). Hospitalization rates higher in kids who get flu shots. MedicineNet.com. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=100522
Hambidge, S. J., et al. (2006). Safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children 6 to 23 months old. JAMA, 296(16) 1990-1997. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from JAMA database.
Heckenlively, K. (2009). Flu vaccine triples child hospitalizations, but won’t turn them into horned, hairy apes, say experts! Age of Autism. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/05/flu-vaccine-triples-child-hospitalizations-but-wont-turn-them-into-horned-hairy-apes-say-experts.html
Hurwitz, E. S. et al. (2000). Effectiveness of influenza vaccination of day care children in reducing influenza-related morbidity among household contacts. JAMA, 284(13), 1677-1682. Retrieved June 04, 2009 from JAMA database.
Munroe, R. (2009). Swine flu. xkcd – a webcomic. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://xkcd.com/574/
Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical thinking in psychology: Separating sense from nonsense (Second Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth , Cengage Learning.
.
Ha. Thought about it and realized that for the five(ish) minutes’ work it would take to rework the beginning and the reference, I might as well revise with the OED as my source. New beginning reads:
The Oxford English Dictionary (Soanes, Stevenson, & Hawker, 2004) gives five separate definitions for the word “critical.” One introduces the idea of severe, negative feedback. Two involve the natural sciences and mathematics. One relates to analysis of literature and the arts. The remaining definition pertains to our work here and involves the application of judgment to information and the importance of the subject being judged.
New reference:
Soanes, C., Stevenson, A., & Hawker, S. (2004). Critical. Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
“Show, don’t tell. Show, don’t tell. Repeat to self. My job is to kick ass so he has no choice but to give me an ‘A’ in the class, not to worry about whether the man LIKES me or not. Repeat to self.”
I wish I had though of that line back when I was teaching math at NMSU and PPCC. I would have written it at the top of my syllabus (and the course description if I could have gotten away with it). I’ll have to keep it in mind for when I someday go back to academia… Can I steal it then?
Heck, yeah you can! I don’t remember where I first heard “Show, don’t tell” in that way, but it makes so much sense to me. I’m restraining myself from making any comments other than on the subject content or to ask for more information.
Personally, I think it is a little silly for a professor of an ON LINE CLASS to give you trouble over using the online version of a reference book!
Besides that – interesting articles sited about the flu vaccine – I look forward to reading them. It’s always nice to have new research to present to the pediatrician;) We do some of the vaxes but I’ve never been a big believer in the flu vax. I had an allergic reaction to it the one & only time I had it so we don’t do it at all. I’m a big proponent of that other magical flu preventative: hand washing!