The most helpful approach for me has been to write up my own thinking and have it reviewed by others. Having ideas about how to think is nowhere near as useful as practice and feedback.
Writing up our thought process is also very helpful for getting buy-in from others—turning personal success/failure into group success/failure.
I found "Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making" by Reid Hastie and Robyn M. Dawes very good on this topic. I read the first edition, but I believe there is a 2nd one now.
If you like Khaneman, there's a lot more to be found at edge.org (e.g. Tetlock's Superforecasters is discussed at length with a panel including Kahneman IIRC. I liked that book but I think I liked the discussion even more.)
Max Bazerman and Rich Zeckhauser (e.g. "Investing in the Unknown...") have written some very interesting stuff and "The Best of Charlie Munger" is worth reading.
Also, spending a lot of time playing poker (or bridge) can be very helpful. The fact that Zeckhauser is a champion bridge player may be worth thinking on.
It's kind of a pop self-help book but I really enjoyed Annie Duke's Thinking in Bets, particularly in terms of managing risk and making decisions in uncertainty.
I'd recommend reading the classics - Plato, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Homer, etc. Reading enough classics will challenge your mind in many ways and give you broad historical and cultural understanding that will help you improve your thought processes, regardless of the field.
I'm not so sure about some of those. The classics are often flawed in some way - many came before the invention of economics, modern religion, scientific method, modern storytelling.
There was an era where storytelling was just about failures - drama and comedy. And often this was from one's own fault, and they would spiral all the way down despite best efforts. But religion, probably Christianity, flipped that and storytelling became about people who failed on their own weakness and then repented and became successful.
18th century Economics also changed the mindset of society a lot. It was no longer about stuff you had or would steal from others. It was about productivity. Suddenly wealth was measure in GNP/GDP and not gold.
But there are some really good stuff in the classics. I love Aristotle's stuff. It's reverse Blinkist - a summary of it is actually longer than the original books.
Also because old stuff is flawed, it's good practice to criticize them. Instead of blindly opposing something, bring up where the author is uninformed, misinformed, or illogical. Sometimes you know something is missing but can't articulate it, and that's a good study on where the missing piece is. Something written thousands of years ago is bound to have lots of missing pieces.
See the chapter on teaching critical thinking in:
Kosslyn et al, "Building the Intentional University: Minerva and the Future of Higher Education (The MIT Press)"
For decision making:
Heath et al, "Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work"
Any book will do. Every book expose you to a different point of view that will challenge your beliefs. Once your time on Earth is limited, avoid blockbusters and prefer classics.
Usually critical thinking means two things simultaneously:
1. Degree of willingness to defy group dynamics. Group can refer to an immediate group such as family or employment team yet also more broadly as culture or identity. This defiance is not spontaneous, as in an adolescent behavior for increased independence, but cognitive and intentional.
2. Degree of willingness to act. Under stress people typically defer to a fight or flight dichotomy of decisions. When either the fight or flight conditions are unclear they do nothing. A willingness to act suggests that in the face of uncertainty a willingness to commit to a decision, even if wrong, and execute as opposed to doing nothing as a posture for uncertainty avoidance.
I highly recommend The Skeptics Guide To The Universe:
How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
https://www.theskepticsguide.org/our-book
Its somewhat of a reference book and very accessible
"An Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Gerald M. Weinberg [0] was highly influential to me. I still often use his "systems triumvirate" when I have to sort out bigger-picture problems:
I think specifically his rec for this book would be interesting in developing critical thinking:
The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth By Jonathan Rauch
19 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 55.7 ms ] threadWriting up our thought process is also very helpful for getting buy-in from others—turning personal success/failure into group success/failure.
Causal_inference#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_inference#Methodology
Max Bazerman and Rich Zeckhauser (e.g. "Investing in the Unknown...") have written some very interesting stuff and "The Best of Charlie Munger" is worth reading.
Also, spending a lot of time playing poker (or bridge) can be very helpful. The fact that Zeckhauser is a champion bridge player may be worth thinking on.
There was an era where storytelling was just about failures - drama and comedy. And often this was from one's own fault, and they would spiral all the way down despite best efforts. But religion, probably Christianity, flipped that and storytelling became about people who failed on their own weakness and then repented and became successful.
18th century Economics also changed the mindset of society a lot. It was no longer about stuff you had or would steal from others. It was about productivity. Suddenly wealth was measure in GNP/GDP and not gold.
But there are some really good stuff in the classics. I love Aristotle's stuff. It's reverse Blinkist - a summary of it is actually longer than the original books.
Also because old stuff is flawed, it's good practice to criticize them. Instead of blindly opposing something, bring up where the author is uninformed, misinformed, or illogical. Sometimes you know something is missing but can't articulate it, and that's a good study on where the missing piece is. Something written thousands of years ago is bound to have lots of missing pieces.
For decision making: Heath et al, "Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work"
Usually critical thinking means two things simultaneously:
1. Degree of willingness to defy group dynamics. Group can refer to an immediate group such as family or employment team yet also more broadly as culture or identity. This defiance is not spontaneous, as in an adolescent behavior for increased independence, but cognitive and intentional.
2. Degree of willingness to act. Under stress people typically defer to a fight or flight dichotomy of decisions. When either the fight or flight conditions are unclear they do nothing. A willingness to act suggests that in the face of uncertainty a willingness to commit to a decision, even if wrong, and execute as opposed to doing nothing as a posture for uncertainty avoidance.
Its somewhat of a reference book and very accessible
1. Why do I see what I see?
2. Why do things stay the same?
3. Why do things change?
0: https://geraldmweinberg.com/Site/General_Systems.html
i am working on more around critical thinking...
I think specifically his rec for this book would be interesting in developing critical thinking: The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth By Jonathan Rauch