When Looking For Information About A Particular Issue How To

When Looking For Information About A Particular Issue How Often Do Yo

When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking. The assignment is divided into two parts. For Part I, you read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, reviewed the Procon.org website to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts. In Part II, you will write a 3-4 page paper to synthesize your ideas, including your position on your chosen issue, supporting premises from Procon.org, responses to opposing premises, analysis of biases, influence of group identification, and reflection on how your thinking has evolved.

Paper For Above instruction

Engaging in critical thinking requires deliberate efforts to recognize and resist one's biases, particularly when evaluating complex issues. This paper explores my approach to scrutinizing my biases, analyzing premises from Procon.org supporting and opposing my position, and reflecting on how my understanding has matured through the exercise of the believing game.

Introduction

Effective critical thinking hinges on the ability to objectively analyze information and challenge personal biases. When examining contentious issues, such as climate change policies or vaccination mandates, individuals often succumb to biases that influence their judgments. This paper articulates my position on a specific issue, analyzes supporting and opposing premises, examines inherent biases, considers the influence of cultural and group affiliations, and reflects on the evolution of my thinking through engaging with opposing viewpoints.

My Position on the Issue

My stance on [insert specific issue here, e.g., mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations] is that implementing such policies is essential for protecting public health, despite concerns about individual freedoms. I believe that the collective benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential infringements on personal liberty, particularly during a global health crisis.

Supporting Premises from Procon.org

From the Procon.org website, I identified three premises that support my position:

1. Premise 1: Vaccinations significantly reduce the spread of contagious diseases.
2. Premise 2: Herd immunity is essential to prevent outbreaks and protect vulnerable populations.
3. Premise 3: Society has a moral obligation to prioritize community health over individual choice during pandemics.

I selected these because they are grounded in scientific consensus and appeal to societal well-being, aligning with my belief that public health measures are justified in crisis scenarios.

Responses to Opposing Premises and “Believing” Questions

Opposing premises from Procon.org include concerns about personal autonomy and vaccine safety. For each, I ask myself: “Do I believe this premise because of evidence or because of prior beliefs?”

• Opposing premise 1: People should have the freedom to choose whether to vaccinate. I questioned whether this premise was influenced by a bias toward individual liberty, and I found that while personal freedom is important, it should not supersede public health during emergencies.
• Opposing premise 2: Vaccines may have risks that outweigh their benefits. I examined whether fears of side effects stem from misinformation or legitimate concerns and acknowledged that while no medical intervention is risk-free, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines substantially outweigh associated risks.

Engaging the believing process, I aimed to fairly consider these opposition premises without dismissing contrary evidence prematurely.

Biases in Evaluating Premises

During this analysis, I recognized two primary biases:

• Confirmation Bias: Tendency to favor information that affirms my existing beliefs about vaccine safety and efficacy, leading me to overlook credible concerns from opponents.
• In-group Bias: Preference for perspectives aligned with societal norms or my community, which reinforced my support for public health measures.

Awareness of these biases helped me critically assess each premise more objectively and avoid distortions that could impair balanced judgment.

Influence of Enculturation and Group Identification

My cultural background and social group affiliations have shaped my perceptions of individual rights and collective responsibility. Growing up in a community that emphasizes the importance of social responsibility has predisposed me to favor policies aimed at community welfare. Recognizing this influence has made me more cautious about overestimating the objectivity of my judgments and more open to considering alternative viewpoints.

Reflection on Changed Perspectives

Engaging with the believing game significantly enhanced my understanding of opposing arguments. Although my core position remains supportive of vaccination mandates, I now comprehend the genuine concerns about personal freedoms and vaccine risks that opponents articulate. This process underscored the importance of listening openly, challenging my assumptions, and seeking balanced evidence. My critical thinking skills have improved, fostering more nuanced and empathetic engagement with complex issues.

Conclusion

Resisting biases and engaging fairly with opposing viewpoints are vital skills in critical thinking. Through examining premises, questioning beliefs, and reflecting on cultural influences, I have developed a more balanced and thoughtful approach to evaluating controversial issues. The believing game has demonstrated that even when one's core beliefs remain unchanged, understanding opposing perspectives enriches the decision-making process and promotes intellectual humility.

References

• Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insights Workshop.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Johnson, R. H. (2014). Ethical issues in health promotion. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life. Pearson Education.
• Procon.org. (2023). Should mandatory vaccinations be required during a pandemic? Retrieved from https://www.procon.org
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.