What
are the Universal
Intellectual Standards?
And what are the
questions that can be used to apply them?
Universal
intellectual standards are standards which should be applied to thinking to
ensure its quality. To be learned they must be taught explicitly. The ultimate
goal, then, is for these standards to become infused in the thinking of
students, forming part of their inner voice, guiding them to reason better.
They are:
1.
Clarity,
2.
Accuracy,
3.
Precision,
4. Relevance,
5.
Depth,
6. Breadth,
7.
Logic,
8.
Significance, and,
9. Fairness.
1.
Clarity,
Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot
determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything
about it because we don’t yet know what it is saying. For example, the question
“What can be done about the education system in America?” is unclear. In order
to adequately address the question, we would need to have a clearer
understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the
“problem” to be. A clearer question might be “What can educators do to ensure
that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function
successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?”
2.
Accuracy
A statement can be clear but not
accurate, as in “Most dogs are over 300 pounds in
weight.”
3.
Precision
A
statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is
overweight.”
(We
don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)
4.
Relevance
A
statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question
at
issue.
For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a
course
should
be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, “effort” does not
measure
the quality of student learning, and when that is so, effort is irrelevant to
their
appropriate
grade.
5.
Depth
A
statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that
is, lack
depth).
For example, the statement “Just Say No”, which is often used to discourage
children
and
teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant.
Nevertheless, it
lacks
depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of
drug
use
among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of
the issue.
6.
Breadth
A
line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack
breadth
(as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoints which
gets
deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the
question).
7.
Logic
Before
you implied this and now you are saying that, I don’t see how both can be true.
When
we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the
combination
of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the
thinking
is “logical.” When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory
in
some sense, or does not “make sense,” the combination is “not logical.”
8.
Fairness
We
naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends
to
privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant
viewpoints alike
without
reference to one’s own feelings or interests. Because we tend to be biased in
favor
of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the
forefront
of
our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to
see
things we don’t want to see, or give something up that we want to hold onto.
what are the questions that can be used to apply Universal Intellectual Standards?
Clarity
Could
you elaborate further?
Could
you give me an example?
Could
you illustrate what you mean?
Accuracy
How
could we check on that?
How
could we find out if that is true?
How
could we verify or test that?
Precision
Could
you be more specific?
Could
you give me more details?
Could
you be more exact?
Relevance
How
does that relate to the problem?
How
does that bear on the question?
How
does that help us with the issue?
Depth
What
factors make this a difficult problem?
What
are some of the complexities of this question?
What
are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?
Breadth
Do
we need to look at this from another perspective?
Do
we need to consider another point of view?
Do
we need to look at this in other ways?
Logic
Does
all this make sense together?
Does
your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does
what you say follow from the evidence?
Significance
Is
this the most important problem to consider?
Is
this the central idea to focus on?
Which
of these facts are most important?
Fairness
Do
I have any vested interest in this issue?
Am
I sympathetically representing the viewpoints
of
others?
