Questions as tools of critical thinking and orientation in situations and problems

Question words

Approximate basis of action (OOD):

(A revised version of the text of S. P. Beznosov: a Practical Work on Social and Psychological Training. Edited by B. D. Parygin. - SPb .: SKF Russia-Neva, 1994. - P. 84)
Before making a decision, it is necessary to carry out the procedure of problem-situational self-determination. To do this, you must answer the following questions:

• What situation did I get into and what difficulties did I encounter?
• What are the characteristics of this situation (typical it or casus, task or problem) and the difficulties encountered?
• Are there any algorithms or rules for deriving the answer (solution)?
• In what form can the answer be presented?
• What are the options for answers (solutions)?
• What is the best solution?
• What can be the value basis for making a decision?
• What do I want to do or what to achieve?
• What should I do? (What is the situation, the problem and my real possibilities forcing me to do?)
• Do I have all the necessary resources for an optimal solution?
• Are there any additional resources available to me?
• Are there any theoretical approaches, models, specific examples that can be a basis, a model for the development of a solution?
• Who am I in this situation and in relation to this problem?
• What approach should I or can I follow? What variants of approaches to this problem exist?

Thinking Questions

From: Halpern D. Psychology of critical thinking. - SPb .: Peter, 2000. - p. 140.

The structure of the argument in writing and speaking

From: Halpern D. Psychology of critical thinking. - SPb .: Peter, 2000. - p. 222-223.

When you speak or write, you often need to convince your audience that your conclusions are correct. Before you start writing or speaking verbally, you must be sure that you can answer the following questions:

• What is your conclusion? In other words, what thought (or thoughts) do you want to convey to listeners? The argument is built from parts, and if you have no conclusion, then there is no argument.
• What reasons justify your conclusion?
• What assumptions do you make? Are these assumptions correct? Should they be stated explicitly? (223 :)
• Under what conditions can your conclusion be wrong? In other words, do we need determinants?
• What are the counterarguments? Why should the reader or listener not believe your conclusion?
• What is missing? Are other conclusions possible from these assumptions? Are there any other reasons? Other counterarguments? Other assumptions? Here it is necessary to go beyond the limits of the information you have used and think about what else might be important.

Plan evaluation reasoning - even your own

From: Halpern D. Psychology of critical thinking. - SPb .: Peter, 2000. - p. 238.

Of course, we not only analyze other people's arguments, but also put forward our own. When you write a text or plan an oral presentation, consider these criteria.

• Is the conclusion clearly formulated and the necessary terms defined?
• Is the material you include in the text related to the conclusion?
• Is the argument convincing? Do parcels provide good conclusion support?
• Have you considered the question of the reliability of the specialists you refer to?
• Is the text properly structured, are different questions being considered separately, is their consideration not mixed?
• Are alternative points of view and counter arguments sufficiently presented?
• Are your formulations successful in terms of grammar and style? (239 :)

Credibility

From: Halpern D. Psychology of critical thinking. - SPb .: Peter, 2000. - p. 224-225.

What determines the accuracy of the opinion of a specialist? To decide who and what to believe, you should evaluate the source of information. Ask yourself the following questions about the specialist who argues for justifying an opinion:

• Is the "expert" recognized authority in the same field in which he expresses an opinion? Why should you believe a computer graphics specialist when it comes to chemical weapons? (225 :)
• Is the specialist an independent party in this matter? If a specialist who says that the laboratory is safe is hired by the corporation that owns the laboratory, his opinion should be suspicious. It is not necessarily wrong, but you should be vigilant, because personal motives are possible.
• What is the evidence of specialist competence ? Maybe he is the author of several articles on this topic, which were published in respected journals, or his competence is confirmed only by a diploma about the end of evening courses in this specialty? Does he work in this area now? Even a recognized specialist in chemical weapons of the Second World War may not be aware of how this area has developed over the past 40 years.
• Does the specialist have special knowledge and personal experience on this issue? He could conclude that chemical weapon research laboratories are safe in general without first reading the one that is supposed to be built. Did he check the security plan? Does he know what kind of experiments are planned?
• What methods of analysis used a specialist? Are there standard safety assessment methods for laboratories where hazardous chemicals are located? Have they been used?

Analysis of a life decision: a test for manipulation and mind control

© Volkov E.N., 1999, 2003

Volkov E. N. Analysis of the life decision: a check for manipulation and mind control // Journal of a practical psychologist, 2000, № 1-2. - p. 126-128.

(126 :)

How did you contact the people around whom you made your decision:

• You were approached on the street, invited to a meeting, a meeting, etc., then it turned out that there was a movement behind this that did not immediately reveal its name, its leader and its goals.
• They came to your home, offered to study the Bible, to talk about topics that were interesting for you.
• Someone from acquaintances, relatives, colleagues insistently invited you to this group, constantly convincing you of how good this would be for you (tremendously valuable, incredibly useful, etc.).
• You yourself have found them in search of something unusual, new.
• You have read some book that is amazingly simple and accessible to answer important questions for you and invited to join the group that embodies these brilliant decisions in life.

In what situation was the decision made:

• In Group.
• Individually.
• Emotionally.
• After a long reflection and analysis.
• Was there someone — one person or group — who pushed for this decision?
• In an environment of strong psychological stress, stress, mental trauma, a difficult life situation.
• In the context of a multi-day training workshop, with a very large amount of new and unusual information. (127 :)

What and how many sources of information were used when making the decision:

• Many different sources, including critical information about the decision being made.
• Only sources of one group, one author, excluding critical evaluation and comparison.

What information about the consequences of the decision was at your disposal at the time of its adoption

• No.
• Very common and vague.
• Advertising "bright future" without specifying the circumstances of the real path to it.
• You knew well and accurately the conditions of life and the results obtained by several people known to you thanks to a similar decision.

How much time is spent on rejecting previous decisions and making a new decision:

• Several days.
• Few weeks.
• Several months.
• Some years.

Do you know people who made such a decision and then refused it:

• You do not consider it necessary to communicate with them.
• You do not know these.
• You have not thought about it.
• The people around you in the group consider them as "traitors", "fallen", "immature", "unworthy", etc.

Questions for in-depth analysis:

• Do you know reliable scientific data on the mechanisms of psychological influence, manipulation, psychological violence?
• Have you read the works of professionals and scientists on the psychology of manipulative influence?
• Do you know the characteristics of your psyche, vulnerable to manipulation?
• Have you read about specific cases, situations that are vivid examples of manipulation and psychological violence? (128 :)
• Do you have the skills of logic and scientific principles of criticism to confidently analyze the proposed texts, lectures, doctrines?
• Do you consider yourself a student, and confidently and smoothly speaking people - teachers?
• Are you able to seek a full and clear answer to your doubts and questions?
• Do you admit that your decision could or may be wrong, did you check in any way the validity of your decision?
• Have you considered the maximum number of options for the possible consequences of your decision?
• How do people, relatives, friends relate to your decision?
• What in your experience, sensations is yours, and what is common, group?
• What have you gained in this experience and what can you do and get results regardless of the group? Can acquired values ​​be your own property outside of your participation in this group?
• Does your decision to join this group, the leader of a “patronizing and rescue” attitude towards all other people who do not share your new beliefs?
• Does not following this teaching (the leader, the group) create almost as many problems as it seems to solve?

Informed consent

From: Tobias, ML and Lalich, Janja. Captive hearts, captive minds: freedom and recovery. Hunter House Inc., Alameda, CA 1994, pp. 32-33. Translation from English - E. N. Volkov.

© 1999, 2004 translation from English E. N. Volkov

Published: Tobias M. L., Lalich J. Cult Relations and Self-Analysis of Their Experience // Journal of Practical Psychologist. 2000. № 1-2. - p. 142-144.

There are contracts in the medical profession that guarantee “fully informed consent.” That is, if the doctor is unable to inform his patient about the risks and side effects of treatment, the patient is given the right to appeal to the law. That would be the same rules applied to the participants of the cult!
We made a “contract” of cult membership based on a similar document developed by psychotherapist Jenny Sharma for use with clients who have relationship difficulties (with someone). Ask yourself if you would give your informed consent during your recruitment, or you would have joined, knowing all the conditions of the contract below.

Cult group membership or relationship (relationship) contract

__, thereby agree to join.
I understand that my life will change in the following ways. I know what I enter and agree to all of the following conditions:

• My good sense of well-being will be based on the sympathy of other members of the group and / or my leader and on receiving approval from the group / leader.
• All my mental attention will focus entirely on solving the problems of the group / leader and the belief that there are no conflicts (between me and the group / leader).
• My mental focus will be on pleasing and protecting the group / leader.
• My self-esteem will be maintained by solving group problems and reducing the leader's pain.
• My own hobbies and interests will be postponed with pleasure. My time will be spent in the way that the group / leader wants.
• My clothes and personal appearance will be dictated by the desires of the group / leader.
• I don't have to figure out how I feel. I will focus only on what the group / leader feels.
• I will ignore my own needs and desires. The needs and desires of the group / leader are all that matter.
• Dreams of the future that I have will be associated with a group / leader.
• My fear of rejection will determine what I am saying or doing.
• My fear of the group / leader’s anger will determine what I say or do.
• I will use (my) pliability as a way to feel safe in a group / with a leader.
• My social circle will diminish or disappear, as I limit myself to a group / leader.
• I will give up my family because I limit myself to a group / leader.
• The values ​​of the group / leader will be my values.
• I will cherish the views of the group / leader and ways of behavior (problem solving) more than my own.
• The quality of my life will be determined by the quality of life of the group, not the quality of life of the leader.
• All that is right and good is only because of the beliefs of the group, the leader, or the teachings.
• Everything that is manifested or goes wrong, just because of me (solely through my fault). (12)
• In addition, I waive the following rights:
• leave (group) at any time;
• maintain contact with the outside world;
• have an education and career of their choice;
• have acceptable medical care (health care);
• have the right to their own statements and to their order in their family;
• have control over your body, including choices related to sex, marriage and childbirth;
• expect honesty in business relationships with government figures in the group;
• have any complaints that are heard and resolved fairly (fairly);
• be supported and receive self-care in old age in gratitude over the years of their ministry.

Questions to the devotee of Scientology (and not only)

Author - E. N. Volkov

• • Please list all the achievements and useful results that you think you got there (in Scientology or something similar) and which are reliably confirmed by independent observers and objective data, and answer whether it is possible to get the same from another source ?
  • Can you read a few pages of a Scientology book with you, ask questions about the statements and arguments that are cited there, and get your own answers?
  • What and to what extent are questions allowed there during class? When? For what reason? What kind? Are there questions left virtually unanswered or rejected on the fly? How to answer - argued, respectfully, in detail, or standard formulas?
  • Is it possible to discuss, compare, give other opinions and facts? Is it possible to express doubts and argue them? Provide contradictory considerations and facts?
  • How truly detailed, concrete and demonstrative are examples of the success of other Scientologists, their firms?
  • Can it be understood that Scientology cannot be criticized by anyone, never, in any form, on any basis (etc.) - and only for the sole reason that Scientology itself and its adherents insist on this?
  • Does it mean that Scientology has absolute and final truth, and it is so strange that it is afraid of any criticism, any verification, any doubt, as if she is absolutely not sure of herself?
  • The question of the validity of references to the use of Scientology (admintech) in well-known companies and the strange selectivity of the success of admintech (simple business - trade, services, consulting on the same admintech).
  • The question of the state of permanent orgasm when the OT level is reached - and in this state can something else be done?
  • etc.