What Happens to A,B, and D, without the "C"?

One of the most important benefits of "lifelong" learning is the process of connecting previous learning and life experience to our current reality. This process helps us to better understand patterns, similarities, and outcomes as we move along life's journey. My blog this week seeks to apply the concept of lifelong learning to the reading materials, video presentations and forum discussions of the last 4 weeks. While 4 weeks is not a lifetime, I'll use my understanding of some of the methods and ideas my cohort and I have discussed, combine those with some life experiences, and offer a point of view that I believe is relevant to our discussion this week with respect to bias in the media.

The letters, A, B, and D in the blog title are the beginning letters of three words that separate and distinct definitions, but in my view constitute a relationship and meaning that call us to action each time we visit web site, listen to a telecast, podcast, read a newspaper or engage with a media source. The letter A is "Advocacy", B is for the word "Bias" and D stands for "Deception". The fourth letter begins a term that describes what action is absent most often during media interaction, and how we are sometimes "duped" without it. This term is called critical thinking."

According to the The American Heritage College Dictionary, "Advocacy", " Bias, " and "Deception are defined as follows:

• Advocacy (v) : To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.
• Bias (n): A preference or an inclination that inhibits impartial judgement.
• Deception (n) : The use of deceit , to mislead or to give a false impression.

(The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Houghton Mifflin, 2007, 2004,2002, P.20.138.366)

While the practice of injecting the true meaning of these words into a form of media communication can impact the way we hear it or receive it , of these three the most difficult for me to digest is deception. In other words, when a media source engages in a deliberate attempt to deceive its audience its sole motive is deception, rather than advocacy or expressing a bias for or against something. In todays media saturated society, popular television personalities such as Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity, Keith Olberman and others, seem credible and trustworthy at first glance. However, after listening and reading their commentary for a period of time, it becomes clear that they prefer to use a form of journalistic info-entertainment to try and persuade us to react in way that will generate an improvement in their ratings, which they hope in turn will lead to revenue growth for the media outlet. They use words like " socialism" or "communist"to tap our emotions. They then combine that with a generous use of rhetoric interspersed with fact and fiction, which is deceptive by its very definition. Web sites can also be deliberately deceptive. Examples of this include, martinlutherking.org/the beast.html and Canadian Health & Care, whose web address is niepleuxa.com. Remember the old adage" Don't judge a book by its cover?" While this may be true, we do need to be able to look beyond what is obvious in the media. One way to accomplish this is by becoming more media literate and by being more thoughtful each time we engage with a media source.

In some instances it is much easier to detect a bias versus an attempt to deceive. After listening to Michael Shermer's comments on science and evolution in the video" The Baloney Detection Kit", I decided to research the funding partner of the video. It was only then, did I discover that it had been financed by the Foundation of British ethologist, and evolution protagonist, Richard Dawkins, (born, March 26, 1941). When I watched the video a second time, I watched it taking into account Shermer's obvious pro-evolution bias. However, I didn't then, nor do I now believe that there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the audience.

What is then the "so what" of all of this? It boils down to our ability to determine if a media source is biased, deceptive or advocating a particular position or agenda. This may well depend on not just improving our media literacy as mentioned earlier, but also how we develop our skill and capability in the area represented by the "C" in our blog title; critical thinking.

During the last few weeks I've reviewed several definitions of this discipline, including those by authors, Michael Scriven and Richard Paul. I also was very impressed with the framework of critical thinking created by David B. Ellis, in the book" Becoming A Master Student" ( David B. Ellis, 1998). However, while doing some additional research on the subject, I came across another interesting approach found in the book, " Critical Thinking" - A Concise Guide"( Tracey Bowell, Dr Gary Kemp, 2008). These two professors of Philosophy have confined their definition of critical thinking to a logical framework, which precisely analyzes the effectiveness of a persuasive argument by determining whether it is just rhetoric or truly gives us a reason to believe or act.

To be clear, the use of critical thinking as a practice is an effective way to detect bias, advocacy and deception. However, I found the approach used in Bowell and Kemp's book not only interesting, but also much easier to use, because it simplifies the critical thinking process to the analysis of an argument to determine whether the argument actually provides a reason for us to believe.

In the end, whether the media source is biased, advocates a position or agenda, or deliberately attempts to deceive, without the discipline of critical thinking regardless of the methodology, you will rarely understand the intent of the media source that is trying to engage you. If this happens the ultimate outcome will be that our quest for lifelong learning especially with respect to media literacy is seriously compromised!

Urban Legends: Why do you believe them?

I'd like to explore the concept of urban legends from two perspectives, one scientific and one not so scientific. Let me begin with the non-scientific.

When we discuss urban legends, we often turn our attention to the source of the information. Legends have been described as a form of story-telling, or information that is written or verbally communicated, to advance a particular agenda or belief system. Obviously, the impact of these stories can be harmful or helpful to individuals or society depending on how this information is received or interpreted. A case in point was Michael Shermer's video about the "baloney detection kit" which was both humorous and interesting , however,much to my chagrin, I discovered that the video was funded by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. Dawkin's, a British ethologist(born, 26 March, 1941) is a protagonist of memetics, which has its foundation in the "gene centered" view of evolution. It was therefore no surprise that during the video, Shermer spoke about evolution in a matter of fact fashion, and repeated several times that " science is the best tool ever devised to understand the world." His comments don't suggest to me that he would consider tools other than science to explain the world, therefore, you would have to conclude that if it can't be proven scientifically, whatever you saying or doing is probably not true. Since I now know his bias, I'm now pretty skeptical about him , Skeptic magazine, and the baloney detection kit!

While I was a bit disappointed to find out about the connection between Dawkins and the video because of its lack of objectively, I don't think it was deliberately deceptive. However, in some instances urban legends or stories are created to deliberately deceive those who read or hear them. Where information comes from, and the credibility we assign to these sources, usually gives us confidence that what was said and reported is true. Have urban legends ever began in "The Wall Street Journal?" Since the WSJ is perceived to be a credible financial source, one would assume that the contents are true, and while I don't have any evidence that they have deliberately wrote an article designed to deceive its readers, my own personal bias would would not rule it out. Even though most us are aware that some urban legends are probably not true,why do we fall prey to them?Are we convinced what they say is true? What role do feelings and emotions play?

Do people who create urban legends believe what they write? Do they write with such a degree of certainty, that they believe what they've written cannot be wrong? I chose to explore this question scientifically, which led me to read renowned author and neuroscientist,Robert A Burton's book entitled; On Being Certain.. Believing that you are right even you're not.

Dr, Burton deals with the biology of the brain and the "feeling of knowing". His approach attempts to "dispel the myth of knowing what we know by conscious deliberation is in fact affected by everything from genetic predispositions, to perceptual illusions common to all bodily sensations." This could explain why when we read some of these urban legends and buy into them, we do this not just because of the source of the information, but also because we are so entrenched in what we believe we know about the subject. Dr Burton's thesis about our absolute unshakable belief in what we think we know, is in contrast to the cognitive dissonance theory which leads to "selective perception," a theory put forward by social psychologist, Leon Festinger (1919-1989). Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling that's caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. My belief is that we subscribe to urban legends or not, either because of the certainty and the "feeling of knowing" what we believe, or we refuse to be effected by urban legends or stories, because it doesn't agree with our current beliefs. While the source of urban legends is important, feelings, emotions and our belief systems play an even larger role in how we view these stories. Whether you keep out what you don't agree with, or you allow your belief systems to have free reign, you should be aware of what you take in and how it affects you, no matter the source of the information.

The Persuasive role of Visual and Musical paridgms

The Persuasive Role of Visual and Musical Paradigms: It’s really about the brain isn’t it?

A definition of a paradigm offered by the American Heritage College Dictionary (4^{th edition, 2007, 2004, 2002, p.1008.)} says that a paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them. The triad of visual images, words and music form a powerful coalition that creates the paradigm and mental model that advertisers have used to talk to us about a given product or service, since the early part of the twentieth century. In advertising, media and ad agency executives, have come to realize there really is a lot of science in the art of persuasion. They understand that an emotional reaction is better than a logical one. The science part of this paradigm is all about the brain. Visual images and music present to the brain a formidable duo. They can momentarily alter reality and distract from critical thinking. As Media Psychologist David Giles noted; the stronger the emotional appeal, the greater the persuasion and therefore less incentive to observe critically (Giles, 2003;Westen, 2007).

Dr. Jean –Pierre Isbouts , professor of Media Psychology at Fielding Graduate University noted; that “visual interpretation happens when light enters the eye, is transformed into electric current, passes through the nervous system and is processed in the brain”. Likewise, sound, which is the central component to music is also processed in the brain. Sound consists of traveling waves and given a certain reverberation of those waves enters our ears and is uniquely processed in the brain as well. Dr. Daniel J Levitan’s book “This is your Brain; the Science of a Human Obsession” (2006.p25), discusses how music crosses the intersection of psychology and neurology which is now called neuroscience. Dr. Levitan a rocker turned neuroscientist, explores the persuasive connections we make in our brain with music and the effect it has on our moods from a neurological perspective. His research opens the door to discuss questions relating to facts such as if men and women speak at different pitch levels or tonality, could that be a reason for certain advertised brands to use a man’s voice versus using a woman’s. We keep coming back to the science of this phenomena and the brain.

Renowned musician, writer, composer and humanitarian Quincy Jones who has recovered from brain seizures he suffered back in 1974 recently remarked in an interview with Ebony magazine (March 2010; p.57), “ music is the only thing that affects both sides of the brain simultaneously, it engages the emotion and the intellect. I think water and music will be the last things to leave this planet.” Its hard to argue with “Q” as he is affectionately called by his friends, but if there is a significant emotional response to a visual and or a musical impulse, the more likely you will be in no position to make a logical decision. The messages the brain receives act on the persuasive information it receives whether it be musical or visual which begs the question it is about the brain isn’t it??

The Definition of Critical Thinking: A lifestyle or a Diet?

When sculptor and painter Auguste Rodin (1840-1917) finished "The Thinker"in 1902, and unveiled it in 1904, his reputation as one of the greatest artist of that time period was confirmed. This significant work of art depicts a man deep in thought seemingly almost perplexed. Yet one might conclude that if this statue were created for contemporary times , it would depict a man engaged in "critical thinking". David B. Ellis, an author of many books including North Americas-best selling college text book, Becoming a Master Student, wrote in 1997, " critical thinkers distinguish between fact and fiction; ask questions, make detailed observations, uncover assumptions and define their terms, and make assertions based on sound logic and solid evidence. Authors Michael Scriven, and Richard Paul suggest that "critical thinkers can be seen as having two components, (1) a set of skills to process and generate information and (2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment of using those skills to guide behavior.

While Scriven, Paul and Ellis define critical thinking differently, each definition contains a common thread, that thread being, critical thinking requires discipline and skill and most importantly consistency and commitment. I think of consistency and commitment with respect to critical thinking as a lifestyle not a diet. I believe its fair to say that lifestyle changes tend to be more permanent, while diets come and go. However, Scriven and Paul also wrote that"critical thinking is never universal in any individual and therefore everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought", which for me clarifies that no matter how often you do anything, as a human being you are bound to get it wrong sometimes. Often its not only about getting it wrong, more often than not, we allow external influences like the media to distract us from critical thinking by sending a barrage of messages and communications that appeal to our emotional impulses. Clement and Lochhead commented in their book , Cognitive Process Instruction (1980) " We should be teaching students how to think instead we are teaching them what to think". Unless we can practice critical thinking and "take charge of our thinking" as Linda Elder and Richard Paul suggest in their article, "critical thinking'; why we must transform our teaching, , we are destined to be on a critical thinking diet rather than making it part of our lifestyle. If we live on on that kind of diet , I'm not sure any of us can accomplish all that we are capable of.