1)As for what can be done, I suspect that like many problems, the causes, and the solutions are difficult because there’s no single “thing” that can address unprepared trainers, or those who have learned only enough to sound ok, but who are not. Speaking out on the issue is all I got right now.

2)As for the “homework”, part of my point is that, for many issues, questions, statements, one has to “drill down” to the specific meanings in terms of behavior. Critical thinking sounds good, at least to some, but the only way we can even talk about it meaningfully is to figure out what each of us might mean in terms of behavior, that exemplifies “critical thinking”. Most of the time, we don’t do that, hence we don’t move past the glib, facile talk and instruction of a lot of trainers.

3) As for the critical thinker looking inward first, I suppose we’d hope for that, but I’m not sure it’s necessary for someone to do so in order to contribute to making something better. Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s important, particularly over the long haul. I don’t know if it’s a requirement in order to contribute.

As for the postscript homework, it’s an interesting question: on the one hand, who could argue against critical thinking? On the other, who actually wants and doesn’t want the sort of *behaviour* that we associate with critical thinking — lots of questions, putting forward counter-arguments, and so on. And on the third hand (?), wouldn’t a good critical thinker first turn their powers on their own thinking first and evaluate their own effectiveness, given the speakers, relationships, context, culture, and subject? Perhaps we should be careful not to mistake behaviours for (effective) underlying thought.

Good post; thanks for this… Milan