Dive 113: Why Critical Thinking takes Courage
Hey, it’s Alvin!
Critical thinking takes courage.
It takes courage to challenge ideas that sound unchallengeable. Politicians and biased experts know this. They’re exploiting psychology to bypass your critical thinking skills to sell you nonsense. And I can prove it with… speed cameras.
In recent months, 100+ speed cameras were installed around my city. They’re installed along various stretches of road to catch people driving above the posted speed limit. If you’re caught, you’re automatically issued a speeding ticket. Politicians say they’re meant to discourage drivers from speeding to improve safety for all road users.
Sounds good, right? Who doesn’t want to feel safe?
This is precisely an idea that feels unchallengeable.
This is precisely why the idea should be challenged.
But it isn’t.
Even a simple Google search shows result after result that supports speed cameras not as “a” solution for road safety, but “the” solution.
All I had to do was apply 3 simple critical thinking skills to reveal all the B.S. and bias around speed cameras. This isn’t just about speed cameras. This is about learning to think critically and independently in a world where even so-called “trusted news sources” conspire to sell you B.S.
Critical Thinking Technique #1: Specify the Problem
What got me thinking about this was an article (here) talking about how people were vandalizing the speed cameras. The article echoes the marketing mantra that “speed cameras save lives,” but it never explains how, nor shares any evidence that they do.
The article only talks about how speed cameras slow drivers down. In fact, a politician talks about the importance of changing “driver behaviour” in another article. Both articles focus on how more speed cameras have reduced vehicle speed. But wait… what’s the problem again?
Road safety.
And there’s a difference between slower cars and fewer fatalities. A competent critical thinker can see the gap between these two ideas and question why it exists. After all, correlation isn’t causation.
When someone pitches me a solution to a problem, the first thing I like to do is specify the problem. Because diving into the specifics of a problem exposes gaps in understanding. Filling those gaps is key to solving the problem properly. To expose all the specifics, we can use a technique called:
Keep asking “why” to get to the root cause(s) of a problem. What exactly is the problem these politicians and experts are claiming to solve?
People are driving cars too fast.
Why is that problem?
Because cars (and larger vehicles) are colliding with pedestrians (and cyclists) causing serious injuries.
Why would a car and a pedestrian end up in the same spot on the road at the same time?
Because the car could not avoid the pedestrian. And…
Because the pedestrian could not avoid the car.
Why?
The driver might be distracted.
The weather might reduce visibility and make the road slippery.
The car might be moving too fast.
Why would a car be driven too fast?
The driver might not be aware of the speed limit.
The driver might be reckless or overconfident. As younger drivers often are.
The driver might be in a hurry.
The driver might be drunk.
Why would a driver be unaware of a speed limit?
Speed limit signs may be posted too far apart.
Speed limit signs might be obscured by foliage.
The driver might be new to the area.
Dive below the surface of the matter, and it’s clear that a speed camera does nothing to address most of these issues. If someone’s in a hurry, they may decide the risk of paying a speeding ticket is still worth it if they can get to their destination on time.
Sure, the average driver might drive slower. But I’m less concerned about the law-abiding citizen who might go 10 km/h over the limit sometimes. Distracted, reckless, and drunk drivers cause disproportionate harm. So, why do the “experts” believe that a mere speeding ticket is enough to discourage those drivers who already flaunt the law?
In fact, some contributing factors also apply to pedestrians.
Pedestrians get distracted? They sure can. It shocks me how many people stare down at their phones while crossing the street.
Pedestrians can be reckless? Yup. I’ve seen the elderly stumble with their walkers across an active, six-lane road posted to a 50 km/h (30 mph) limit.
Pedestrians can be in a hurry? Of course. We all have places to be. And in a moment of haste, we might think we can dash across the street before the oncoming vehicle arrives and… not make it across.
By diving into the specifics of the problem, we can see all the nuances the politicians and “experts” refuse to address. As author, Matthew Frederick once said “Being honest means not telling lies. Being truthful means actively making known all the full truth of a matter.” Unfortunately, when even “trusted news sources” aren’t truthful, they undermine their own credibility.
Specifying the problem is a critical thinking technique that helps you bring the truth to light. But there are two more techniques I’ll share with you that take things to a whole other level.
Critical Thinking Technique #2: Assume the Premise.
Speed camera advocates say that the cameras slow down drivers. I’ve seen no convincing evidence. But I’ll be generous.
Let’s assume this premise is true and think about what it implies.
If it’s true that a car moving slower reduces the frequency and severity of injuries, then why don’t we reduce speed limits more?
If the speed limit on a street is currently 50 km/h, why not drop it to 40? Or 30? Or 10?
Because reducing speed is like taking medication. A small dose might reduce risk. But taking more and more doesn’t mean you’ll keep getting healthier. At some point, the side effects outweigh the benefits.
We could make parking lots safer by banning all cars from them. But that makes no sense. So, we compromise with low speed limits, painted zones and speed bumps because we understand there’s a point where the safety of pedestrians meets usability for drivers.
One professor purportedly said that “the pushback against speed cameras is concerning.” What’s more concerning is the lack of critical thinking. Pushback is healthy and reasonable if you understand the simple idea that a road is shared by different users with conflicting interests. A road that is 100% safe for pedestrians is not a road cars can ever drive on.
Assuming a premise is true and taking it to its logical conclusion(s) doesn’t just reveal absurd arguments; it reveals other perspectives that give you a more balanced view of the world. There’s one more technique to help you think critically that most people don’t use.
Critical Thinking Technique #3: Explore the Consequences.
Actions have consequences.
But consequences also have consequences that affect everyone.
Exploring the latter is what some call, Second Order Thinking.
So, ok, the “leaders” of society say we need to add speed cameras to slow down drivers.
Adding the cameras is the action.
Slower drivers are a consequence.
But what are the consequences of slower drivers? Speed camera advocates insist that road safety improves. But is that true? Is that the full truth of the matter? In fact, psychology suggests there may be undesirable unintended consequences.
Safety measures can encourage riskier behaviours, too. It’s called the Peltzman Effect and risk compensation. For example, in a community where drivers are slower, it’s tempting for pedestrians to think, “Well, it’s safer now, so it’s more ok if I cross the street without looking.” But all it takes is an awkward fall. If your head hits the pavement at full fall speed, it’s game over. Even a low-speed collision can kill.
Risk compensation has consequences, too. If pedestrians feel safer because of slower cars on smaller streets, then they might be equally less cautious on streets with higher speed limits. The consequence of that is more accidents on bigger roads, even if the smaller side streets become safer. And that’s just one example of a second-order effect.
But of course, as I said in the beginning, none of this is specifically about speed cameras. It’s about the value and importance of critical thinking. It’s about how…
Specifying the problem,
Assuming the premise, and
Exploring the consequences
… can open up your point of view to nuances that political leaders, educators, and even journalists refuse to share these days.
These are societal “leaders” we’re told to trust.
But these are also “leaders” who refuse to shed light on the full truth of a matter.
These are “leaders” who lie by saying that speed camera vandals “are killing people.”
These are “leaders” who discourage skepticism and curiosity by calling pushback “concerning.”
Why?
It doesn’t matter. Because it’s clear that these “leaders” don’t want us to think critically and independently.
And that’s precisely why we need to.
Critical thinking takes courage because critical thinking is power.
And it takes courage to wield power against those who look down upon us.
Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com if you have questions or comments.
Check out Dive 89 where I explore why a “safer” society can actually be more dangerous.
Thank you for reading. Think critically. And I’ll see you in the next one.