Social media usually strip claims of their evidence. Somehow, Americans must relearn a basic tenet of civil affairs that a claim by itself is insufficient.
In a recent post I noted that in culture that needs to thrive, we need to be sure we are teaching our children the basic tools of critical thinking. They need to know what solid arguments look like. They also need to know the rudiments for judging the credibility of the sources that make them. In open societies these two benchmarks are universal: applying to those who testify in courtrooms as well as the rest of us who want to make compelling claims others will consider. A middle schooler must understand these tests. Virtually no social media forms have the inclination or time to explain complete ideas. So it is no exaggeration to note that the fate of the nation depends upon having these two benchmarks top of mind.
Recognizing Credible Arguments
In any exchange about the ways thing are or the way they should be we assume that some compelling evidence will be offered, especially beyond the empty banter of opinion-giving. A judge would expect evidence that is more than just hearsay, in addition to rejecting truth claims from those not in a position to make them. In all but the most casual settings we it to everyone in the room to do more than make an unsubstantiated claim and call it a day. We hear enough wild and unsubstantiated claims, many passed on by journalists who treat them as viable. But a listener with expectations that ideas should be backed up know that the world is not flat, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and our weather is affected by human activity. There is substantial evidence for all of these claims. Truth is still the truth even if an individual does not believe it. And most truths come with clear evidence to anyone who will listen.
An argumentconsidered in isolation can take many forms. But its basic structure is simple and contains at least two parts: (1) An assertion or claim and (2) supporting evidence or good reasons.
That’s it. In its most basic form it is an assertion of fact supported with statements of proof to back it up: perhaps expert testimony, representative examples, solid research, statistical summaries, and so on. The asserted claim is not enough, unless it is so obvious that no one would disagree. But we are focusing here on consequential assertions that others have doubted or denied. Somehow, we must relearn a basic tenet of civil affairs that a claim about an important issue is, by itself, insufficient.
For example, consider the claim that “the 2020 presidential election was free of fraud.” If I stop there in the presence of a MAGA person, I’m uttering a statement that—in formal terms—lacks “force.”
What what makes it true? Where is my evidence? I ought to be able to supply it, and not—as the President does with its counter-argument—by offer a rewording of the claim to make it seem like a reason. So, if I am making a claim, I ought to be able to put “because” after it and find that the reasons that follow will make sense: will sound right. Our example might unfold in the following sequence.
Claim: “The Election was free of fraud.”
(Because. . .)1
The Attorney General in the Trump Administration said so.
The administration’s cyber-security head said so.
III. No state government found evidence of significant instances of fraud.
Virtually all respected journalists covering the election found no significant evidence of a corrupted vote.
A vast array of American courts couldn’t even find enough evidence to proceed to a trial.
Arguments work best with truth claims. What can you do with your Uncle Fred’s assertion that he “believes” many dead Democrats “voted?” You can ask him for evidence. But Fred may use the intellectual slight-of-hand of grammatically converting what he “believes” into what he “knows:” perhaps that “slaves benefited from their enslavement” or “most federal prosecutors are communists.” That’s dishonest because these kinds of claims affirm what can easily be denied, even if telling him so probably will not keep him up at nights. People uttering belief statements are best left to their magical thinking, but only after you point out that they have sometimes made an elemental error of reasoning.
Recognizing Credible Sources
All evidence in an argument is testimony of one kind or another. Details in support of a claim have to come from someone. And that individual or group must meet some elemental standards of credibility. In general a credible source is (1) in a position to know, and (2) able to render evidence that comes without an overriding bias. For example, I can claim that Russia is behind many instances of computer sabotage in the United States. But I don’t know that. I haven’t researched the evidence I would expect to find. Add in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and I have a heavy bias against the Russian regime. In short, my opinion is not worth as much without convincing evidence.
Let’s add one more twist that any student must learn. Sources can be labeled “willing” or “reluctant.” Willing sources are those who offer statements that conform to their biases. Reluctant sources offer statements that tend to be contrary to their own views. This sometimes happens, and is the gold standard for taking a source seriously. An example dealing with the 2020 election could be include Attorney General William Barr’s own words, made in point “A” in the above outline: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” As testimony, Barr’s words are especially credible because he is affirming what would have been easier for a member of the Trump administration to deny. We wouldn’t expect him to say make the statement unless it was probably true.
These are all elemental components of critical thinking. They are not difficult to learn and apply. More than ever, we need these components to be taught and retaught.
____________________________
1 This is one of the secret sauces of practical reasoning. If you can put "because" between a genuine claim and the good reasons that you have for it (A, B, etc.), the whole completed thought should make sense. Your life experience should flag a "reason" that simply does not follow after stating the claim. This "does not follow" test is not an infallible guide, but it is pretty reliable. If Uncle Fred asserts that "The U.S. is a Christian nation," add "because" for the reasons he may offer. There are roughly 100 million Americans that identify with a belief tradition other than Christianity. So claims for this identifying label are not likely to sound right or make sense. He's entitled to his belief, but it cannot be easily substantiated with corollary claims.
Organizations often talk about the value of finding employees with “soft skills,” meaning abilities to communicate and work well with others. This is not a given. In fact, current media use patterns have lessened the chances that younger Americans will need repair their initial instincts to be other-centered. Here are some questions that explore some of the dimensions of these attributes. The questions represent general patterns, with room for individual exceptions. How many did you correctly guess?
1. If I am with a work colleague and my phone rings, a reasonable course of action is to pause our conversation, offer a brief apology, and take the call.
A. Yes
B. No
2. Prior to a meeting of a work team you will lead, it’s a good idea to send around a brief agenda of items to be considered.
A. True
B. False
3. It’s ok to leave your phone on and in sight during a committee meeting, especially if it is in a silent mode.
A. True
B. False
4. Video meetings on Zoom or other services can be just about as good as meetings that happen in the same room.
A. True
B. False
5. In a meeting of colleagues it is probably better to call out someone’s mildly offensive comment immediately, rather than pointing it out to them later in private.
A. True
B. False
6. It is probably a waste of time to ask member in a new taskforce of 10 to introduce themselves before a meeting starts.
A. True
B. False
7. You have a meeting with your team. One member often contributes too much and pulls the group away from the subject at hand. Assuming everyone fits around a rectangular conference table, where is the ideal place to ask that person to sit?
A. Along the table length.
B. In a chair opposite the leader at the other end of the table.
C. It does not matter.
8. A problem-solving group will usually make better decisions if the boss is also in the room.
A. true
B. false
9. Generally, the human efficiency curve for most individuals increases throughout the workday.
A. True
B. False
10. The best way to prepare for remarks that you must give to a room of colleagues is to write out what you want to say so that they can be read back clearly in your presentation.
A. true
B. false
11. Being anxious before a presentation is normal and usually helpful.
A. True
B. False
12. In research on gender differences and communication
A. Women are more likely to favor asking for clarifications or raising questions.
B. Men are more likely to favor stating their opinions on a topic.
C. Neither are true.
D. Both are true.
13. Withholding making a final decision in a meeting because differences remain is most clearly associated with
A. Quakers
B. Catholics
C. Lutherans
14. Working in a group is likely to increase the chances that there will be dissenters who will oppose an emerging group consensus.
A. True
B. False
15. Job reviews and terminations are rarely easy for managers or employees. Even so, it is acceptable to deliver negative evaluations or separation to an employee without necessarily meeting them in the same space.
A. True
B. False
Answers:
1. B. No. Something in our nature leads us to imagine an urgent message waiting in an unanswered call. But rarely do calls deserve such priority. The person(s) in your presence should be considered first. They deserve your undivided attention.
2. True. With a few exceptions it is a courtesy to all of the meeting participants to indicate the focus of the meeting. They may want to prepare. Or they might appreciate the chance to look over materials that will be considered in the meeting. It borders on the rude to spring a significant surprise on group members, if the meeting is to gain their input.
3. False. Leaving your phone screen on and in sight of others is a distraction to you and communicates your view that you may soon have something better to do. Ditto for laptops, which have turned into common props used to fake meeting-related work. New messages and e-mails can wait. Since we do not multitask well, give your attention to those in the meeting. If you feel like you really don’t need to be there, simply excuse yourself.
4. False. Zoom and its counterparts are useful. But because they are mediated through limited images and often poor sound, they represent a degraded way to connect. The inconvenience of being in the same space is often offset by the added communication information received when you see a whole person.
5. False. A seriously egregious comment may need an instant response, but a comment made in innocence or ignorance rather than with malice can be better addressed privately. And forget the urge to do some virtue signaling. Criticism of another in public usually means a loss of face and defensiveness for the person that receives it. In private, the offending comment can be corrected without inflicting the deeper harm of a more public reprimand.
6. False. It is worth the time to ask members who may not know each other to introduce themselves, if their comments are brief. Our identity is affirmed in our name. It will also be possible for more of the business that transpires to be done on a first-name basis.
7. A. A rectangular table has power positions and weaker locations. On a corner side a constant contributor might be reined in by not having easy eye contact with all members of the group. That may ease their urge to dominate. The power positions are at the two ends of a table. Everyone can see people in these locations.
8. B. False. There can be extraordinary circumstances where the boss is needed to supply crucial information, but case studies suggest that participants in a meeting are more forthcoming with new ideas without concerns about pleasing the boss or guessing their preferences.
9. B. False. Count yourself lucky if this pattern cited in the question fits you. In fact most are less productive toward the end of a routine workday. A mid-afternoon “slump” is common.
10. B. False. A good rule of public speaking is to prepare notes for what you intend to say, but to stop short of preparing a manuscript to read to a group. Most of us are boring readers. We are usually more interesting when we amplify ideas we have prepared as talking points worded in what feels right in the moment. Most of us can be good at this type of extemporaneous speaking, which more closely duplicates natural conversation. But few of us have the skills of actors to breathe life into a prepared script.
11. A. True. What researchers call “communication apprehension” is common and can be useful. An extra shot of adrenaline can make you more motivated to succeed and perhaps even more animated. But repress the urge to remind your audience of your jitters. They will want to hear what you say more than they want to hear about your fears. Focus on the message, not yourself.
12. D. Both A and B are true. In settings where there may be some differences of opinion, some research indicates that men are most comfortable affirming what they believe. On the whole, women will seek ways to bridge differences in belief.
13. A. Quaker traditions value reaching a consensus before proceeding with an action. If doubts among a group exist, they would be less likely to force a vote that will end in a divided result. This is a worthy goal for any group, if not always possible.
14. B. False. With exceptions, groups tend to exert pressure on “dissident” members to accept the thinking of the majority. In some classic studies this is known as “groupthink.”
15. False. Of course it is possible to fire someone via some medium. But it is usually a cruel communication choice. When at all possible, life-altering decisions affecting an employee should be delivered face to face.
Organizations often talk about the value of finding employees with 
