1 July 2009 tc 2-33.4 2-5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

often those who believe they are good thinkers, usually assess their thinking in vague terms with no clear

standards. The standards for thought enable us to use explicit definitive standards to assess thinking. The

nine standards above are essential intellectual standards, but they are only some of the many intellectual

standards existing in human thought and language.

Applying the Elements and Standards

2-12. When an analyst exercises self-discipline and thoughtfully analyzes thinking (using the elements of

thought) and then assesses the quality of the elements using intellectual standards, the result is a solid

foundation for critical thinking. It is important to remember that critical thinking is a deliberate choice.

Critical thinking requires self-discipline and a commitment to improve the skills that support this approach.

While critical thinking cannot necessarily solve every problem an analyst may face (because some are so

complex), it can ensure that every analyst is more effective and efficient while conducting the different

intelligence tasks, especially those that are the most complicated or ambiguous. The example on page 2-6

addresses a hypothetical mission that involves effective use of critical thinking.

THE ESSENTIAL INTELLECTUAL TRAITS

2-13. Repeatedly applying and practicing the elements of thought and intellectual standards develop

intellectual traits. These traits are essential to excellence of thought. They influence with what insight and

integrity we think. This section contains brief descriptions of the essential intellectual traits, along with

related questions that foster their development. By routinely asking these questions of yourself, you

develop these dispositions.

Fair-Mindedness

2-14. A fair-minded thinker strives to treat every relevant viewpoint in an unbiased, unprejudiced way.

Fair-mindedness entails an awareness that we tend to prejudge the views of others, placing them into

“favorable” (agrees with us) and “unfavorable” (disagrees with us) categories. We tend to give less weight

to a contrary view than to our own. This is especially true when we have selfish reasons for opposing such

views. Fair-minded thinkers try to see the strengths and weaknesses of any reasoning they assess. Fairmindedness

entails a conscious effort to treat all viewpoints alike in spite of one’s own feelings or selfish

interests, or the feelings of one’s friends, company, community, or social organization.

Intellectual Humility

2-15. Intellectual humility is knowledge of ignorance, sensitivity to what you know and what you do not

know. It means being aware of your biases, prejudices, self-deceptive tendencies and the limitations of

your viewpoint. Questions that foster intellectual humility include—

􀁺What do I really know (about myself, about the situation, about another person, about what is

going on in the world)?

􀁺To what extent do my prejudices or biases influence my thinking?

Intellectual Courage

2-16. Intellectual courage is the disposition to question beliefs you feel strongly about. It includes

questioning the beliefs of your culture and the groups to which you belong, and a willingness to express

your views even when they are unpopular. Questions that foster intellectual courage include—

􀁺To what extent have I analyzed and questioned the beliefs I hold?

􀁺To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to give up my beliefs when sufficient

evidence is presented against them?

􀁺To what extent am I willing to stand up against the majority (even though people ridicule me)?

Chapter 2

2-6 TC 2-33.4 1 July 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Example

An Army unit is given a mission to support the local population in building a well in a village

within the AO. The intelligence staff could apply the elements and standards as they work

through the analytical process in order to provide information and situational understanding to

the commander before undertaking the mission. The section below provides an example of

how the critical thinking elements and standards might apply.

Analysts begin reviewing the mission: one of the first things they must do is to define the

purpose. What is the purpose for building this well? Is it purely a humanitarian mission, or is

there a desire to gain a military advantage by doing so? Let’s say that the purpose of the well

project builds positive relations with the local population. Once this purpose is established, the

analyst would have to work on clearly and accurately defining what is meant by “positive

relations.” This example will show just a few of the complexities that are inherent in this project.

Without the disciplined approach that a critical thinker uses, some of these complexities may

be ignored, thus compromising the mission.

Once the purpose is defined, the analyst will probably have many questions that

need answers. Some questions have a single correct answer: Is there a need for the

well? Some are questions of opinion: What type of well will the villagers prefer? And some are

questions of judgment: Will building this well likely achieve desired results?

Analysts can use questions to get the information needed to best proceed with this mission.

They should gather information from multiple sources. The townspeople, higher headquarters,

hydrologists, cultural awareness experts—all of these will have information to share. Part of the

analyst’s job will be to judge the relevance and significance of the information. An analyst could

certainly find out the average age of citizens in the town, and cross-check records to verify the

accuracy of this information, but would it be relevant to the mission? Is it significant enough to

be meaningful in this project?

This mission will have to be considered from multiple points of view. This ensures that all

thoughts about the well have breadth. Analysts should consider this project from the point of

view of a villager who will want the well in a location that is convenient to use, but recognize

that this might conflict with the point of view of the Soldiers building the well who want it built in

the most convenient location in terms of logistics and security.

Analysts also have to consider the point of view of the local leaders in the selected village and

neighboring village. What are the implications of working with one village over the other to

future missions?

In addition to this level of critical thought, maybe in spite of it, analysts are operating from their

own point of view, and as such they bring their own assumptions to the work being done on this

well project. While there are literally hundreds of assumptions that are likely at play in this

scenario, let’s focus on one.

The unit analysts are working under the assumption that the entire town will be grateful to U.S.

forces if the well is successfully built. This perhaps comes from the western concept of

community-shared resources, but if the locals are operating from the concept that the local

leader “owns” the well, then there could be problems with the project achieving the desired

purpose.

Assumptions will lead directly to inferences or conclusions made about the project. The

assumption just discussed might lead analysts to believe that U.S. forces will be able to move,

effectively operate, and protect themselves within the town after completion of this project. That

belief might cause the unit to go forward with the project when a further logical review of it

might contradict the assumptions made. If analysts do not take time to check their thinking,

these assumptions can hold too much weight in the analytical process and lead to undesired

consequences.

Analytical Processes, Methodologies, and Terms