Reconciling the Two Perspectives

The analysis of different authors

The analysis of different authors reveals the many views of decision-making. In his book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell gives a novel explanation for reasoning, which contradicts the views of Peter Facione and Anne Gittens, which is highlighted in THINK Critically. Gladwell explores in his book how one can think without truly thinking and the choices that arise from the thinking process (Gladwell, 2005). The author goes into detail about how we might perceive our surroundings and how we can use thin-slicing to analyze circumstances. According to Gladwell (2005), “blinking” refers to human fast cognition that does not necessitate the use of planned, careful, and deliberate decision-making. Some of the factors influencing one’s ability to think include attitude of the individual, snap decisions, judgments, role of time, and role of past experiences in perceiving different events. The author further highlights the fundamental component of “blinking” which is thin-slicing (Gladwell, 2005). This process refers to the ability to judge a scenario by use of gist and involves making decisions through the use of the unconscious state of mind.

In their book, THINK Critically

In their book, THINK Critically, Facione and Gittens give a contradicting review of the decision-making process. Unlike Gladwell’s case of impulse reasoning, the two authors believe that decisions can only be made after thorough critical and creative thinking (Facione & Gittens˘ 2015). One must be able to utilize different critical thinking skills including interpretations, evaluation, analysis, explanations, inference, and reflective self-monitoring. The person who is attempting to solve a problem must conceptualize different contexts, consider the possible solutions, and analyze their individual benefits to different aspects (Facione & Gittens˘ 2015). The process requires that an individual considers the critical habits of the mind and possesses inquisitiveness. The skills should offer the individual the opportunity to apply the knowledge learned during problem solving in different contexts, themes, and ideas. When one is thinking of a problem, the person should be able to interpret the scenarios i.e. comprehend different situations, conventions, procedures, rules, and interpretations (Facione & Gittens˘ 2015). These should then be followed by inference and selection of a decision and use explanations to account for the decision made.

A major contrasting factor in the two texts

A major contrasting factor in the two texts is the different ways of making decisions. While Gladwell believes in intuition, emotions, and the functions of the unconscious, Facione and Gittens defend the use of the conscious, rational aspect of the mind to sort out issues. According to Gladwell (2005), during the process of thin-slicing, the mind is always ”locked” since one’s unconsciousness is the major determinant of the decisions made. The unconscious attitudes which move faster and are mysteriously connected to the conscious, therefore, influence the choices made. Contrary to this perception, Facione and Gittens consider the use of the conscious mind to make decisions. According to the authors, one utilizes six different critical thinking skills to understand a situation (Facione & Gittens˘ 2015). By successfully interpreting the phenomenon through contextual clues, an individual is able to interpret the processes and come up with a solution. In order to be able to approach life which characterized critical thinking, one is identified with various dispositions, such as alertness to utilize the opportunity for critical thinking, self-confidence towards reasoning, understanding the opinions of others, having a fair mind in appraising thinking, and the willingness to be informed. By maintaining these, the authors note that one is able to use the conscious mind to make critical decisions.

The two separate ideologies can be reconciled

The two separate ideologies can be reconciled in order to ensure that an individual makes better decisions. One way of utilizing both the conscious and the unconscious state of mind is through reframing. This involves communication with oneself requesting the unconscious mind to effectively think of acceptable means of achieving positive outcomes (Facione & Gittens˘ 2015). The psyche parts that will be triggered to reason include the id which is based on ”untamed interests,” the ego which aids in reasoning and circumspection, and the superego which considers the norms of behavior. Another element of reframing is changing a thinking pattern in order for one to clearly analyze what is true or not. It is necessary to use descriptive words that can grab attention. This can help in focusing the mind to develop the innate capacity of proper reasoning. Reframing is very essential, as it aids in the performance of both the conscious and the unconscious states of mind, therefore, aiding in critical thinking.

Another way to reconcile the differences

Another way to reconcile the differences between the thinking processes is to deepen the understanding of the problems through relevant research. While Gladwell believes that just by a gist, one is able to think of the solution, Fecione and Gittens affirm the need to think. One is able to use both the conscious and the unconscious minds by first thinking about a problem through intuition and then further conducting a research on the same to confirm the previous instinct of perception. Although one may have intuitions on the alternative actions, these would be backed up using thorough study on the subject (Gladwell, 2005). If truth is regarded as a mere thought quantity (by the unconscious state of mind), then ethical behaviors and personal responsibility become just mere subjective preferences. As such, one is able to solve conceptual issues using genuine, independent, and creative thoughts as well as corresponding facts obtained from research or participants. Through such an attempt, one is able to apply both blinking and thinking, an integrated approach to problem solving.

References

Gladwell M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co.

Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think critically. Pearson.