I've been learning how to think critically and I'm not sure I like it

Recently, I completed the LinkedIn learning Critical Thinking and Problem Solving module. In it, different methods of problem solving, and important considerations to take into account are explored and discussed. One thing I found interesting is how more restrictions make people feel more free. By identifying what is out of bounds, people feel freer to make decisions, or as stated in the module “any structure leads to improvement.” The more I think about this, the more obvious it becomes in retrospect. Too much uncertainty can stifle a person. Too much uncertainty has stifled me. It’s one of the reasons figuring out what I wanted to do for my capstone project took more time than finding the sources I need to complete it. If there’s no starting point, people don’t know where to start.

Another thing that’ll be useful for me in the future, is the strategy of starting a conversation by asking questions to stimulate discussion. By asking questions, I allow people to clarify any stances they have and interject subjects they want to discuss. Whereas, if I start a discussion with a definitive statement, the scope of conversation is greatly narrowed.

I also found some of the module material to be pretty self-evident but a good reminder, nonetheless. For instance, the module stressed how important it is to question the source of a piece of information to identify potential biases. Having written more papers than I care to count, this is almost intuitive to me now. Especially considering some of my professors’ enjoyment with having my class debate hot topics like GMOs, food desserts, and pesticide usage. Lots of fun opinions on both sides.

This module wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, however.

One of the things I found myself disagreeing with was a problem-solving technique suggested for when you’re on a time constraint. The “Single question technique” developed by Carl Larson has five steps and are as follows:

Identify the single question the group needs to know to complete its purpose

Identify its relevant sub questions that must be answered in order to answer the single question.

 Determine if you have enough information to sufficiently answer sub questions (if yes go to 5, if no got to 4)

Determine the most reasonable answers to the sub questions

Determine solution to the single question

Before I get into why I disliked this problem-solving method, I will caveat that the module states this is designed for more simple problems, so complex ones are automatically ruled out. So why did I dislike it?

1. In this day and age, how many problems are truly simple? I can’t think of one issue I needed to tackle that didn’t have at least 2-3 main things that needed to be addressed. Even problems that seem deceptively simple on the surface manage to dredge up additional issues once I get into the thick of things.

2. Who is identifying the most important question? It’s rare that I’m in a group comprised exclusively of extroverts, there’s almost always at least one introvert. If we follow this method, will they have a voice? Is this a free for all? Do you speak on what the problem is or forever hold your peace? This method doesn’t say, and I take umbrage with that. Funnily enough, the method I learned right before this one, the nominal group technique, does take this into account, and is by far the better of the two.

3. Who is Carl Larson? After learning and disliking this technique, I decided to look up the person who created it to see if I could get an understanding of why this is the framework he chose. Like I just learned, it’s important to investigate a source for biases. Except, I can’t find him. This man is a ghost in the matrix, googling his name only brought up Swedish painter Carl Larsson and a book from 2002 co-authored by Dr. Frank Lafasto and Carl Larson.  Even odder is the evidence I found of similarities in Larson’s strategy and that of Clayton Christensen, a Harvard Business school professor who in 1995 believed "finding the right answer is impossible without first asking the right question". I’m not sure about others, but “ask the right question to get your answer” and “Identify the single question the group needs to know to complete its purpose” sound pretty similar to me.

Is this the Linkedin version of a professor writing "gullible" on the ceiling? Was I taught to check my sources only to immediately have my "gangster" tested? Have I made a critical misstep in my source acquisitions? Is the evidence behind lock and key, or has Linkedin failed to do the vetting it's telling me to do? ​

As a wise man once said in response to the age old question: "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?"

The world may never know