Thinking is one of the most essential human characteristics. It is intrinsic to almost everything we do. But do we ever think about thinking? How often do we subject our thought process to critical analysis? The answer is, in fact, not often; rather, we show a belief perseverance effect – we become personally invested – and then hold on tightly – to our beliefs and interpretations – which leads to illogical decisions by downplaying, distorting or ignoring facts that are contrary to our reality. To show this trend and its frequency, let me mention a few: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) - GERMAN NAZI LEADER It's good to be open-minded, but not so open that you lose your mind. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. The above-mentioned personalities tried to demonstrate that we do not think seriously or, more specifically, critically. So what does critical thinking mean? That is, do we think about our thinking? Critical thinking, in simplest terms, can be defined as thinking about thinking. It is a reflective and analytical thinking style. It involves digging deeper, being conscientious about how and why we think a certain way; and questions: How do we process information? Why is this so? Why do we draw the conclusions we do? Where is the evidence? How good is that evidence? Is this a good topic? Is he biased? Is it verifiable? What are the alternative explanations? Why are we quick to accept some information as true without further analysis and treat other information as skeptical? What are the specific tools for thinking critically? With its foundations in rationality, logic and synthesis, critical thinking allows us to think about our own thinking, or in other words, Metha thinking in cross-cultural psychology; takes us beyond simple description, leading us into the realms of scientific inquiry and reasoning. As such, it promotes free thinking, which therefore fosters innovations and discoveries. Meta-thinking is a set of skills that, like any skill set, can and should be taught and cultivated. While the theory of critical thinking can be taught, critical thinking itself must be experienced firsthand. What does this mean for educators seeking to incorporate critical thinking into their curricula? We can teach students the theoretical elements of critical thinking. To this end, there are a number of cognitive skills, known as critical thinking tools, that can be taught and learned to develop analytical thinking. Meta-thoughts or thinking principles are cognitive tools that provide us with specific strategies for investigating, understanding, and solving problems in cross-cultural psychology. They are cognitive antidotes that help us counteract our natural way of thinking (prone to being partial, rigid, simplistic, lazy, etc. Our thinking guides our daily activities and therefore constitutes the most important part of human actions. Yet the attention paid to it – thinking about how to think – and the tools provided to guide critical thinking, are insignificant. It is therefore, with the aim of providing a framework for “critical thinking” that critical thinking in cross-cultural psychology reminds us to. look closely: evaluative bias of language: describing is prescribingDescribing what it is about: various phenomena, events, situations and people: Evaluating (how bad or good) the same phenomenon: "Is it good or bad?" Ideal = descriptions must be objective, while evaluations must be subjective. However, thedistinction between objective description and subjective evaluation is less clear because the words describe and evaluate. Whenever we try to describe something or someone, the words we use are almost invariably valuable! loaded, as it reflects our personal likes and dislikes. And the same word can have different meanings when applied to different things. For example the word hot. By materialsubstances, it literally refers to temperature: “That liquid is very hot.” But for one person, it takes on a decidedly evaluative connotation: “That person is very attractive.” Another difference (even when talking about specific issues and aspects such as the description of a person) are the cultural and value system differences that matter; for example, Old Vs mature narcissist Vs high self-esteem terrorist Vs freedom fighterC. Another aspect is the mutual influence of attitudes and language. Our perceptions, beliefs, values ​​influence our language and vice versa: the way we refer to someone/thing shapes the way we perceive and treat them¢ Examples: “All men cheat” or “All women are money " oriented”D. Bidirectional relationships also influence the choice of words we use. Politically correct terms. Let's see how the names have changed depending on the different social and historical contexts. During the previous periods; Ashebir/ Aschenaki/ Dilnesa /Dem MellashLater: Abiyot, Hige-mengst wetalign….Now: selam/mogesmore western/kana culture such as Obama, Biyonce/Thus, our use of any particular term serves not only to describe, but also to prescribe what is desirable or undesirable for us. Differentiating Between Dichotomous and Continuous Variables Definition: Dichotomous variables are: two mutually exclusive or contradictory categories Male or female, CAfOS doctoral student or not, married or single, etc. Continuous variables: have points between two polar opposites Autonomous dependent ;Normal-abnormalIntelligent-lazyThe problem we often confuse these two types of variables. Specifically, describe things that are continuous as dichotomous/false dichotomizations, for example: ¢ Black vs. White ¢ Old vs. Young ¢ Mental Health – Mental Illness, Introvert – Partial Extrovert – Unbiased; competitive-cooperative autonomous-dependent Pregnant vs. not pregnant (can't be both...or somewhere in between)Not everything is black and white ¢ They tend to do this when describing people or behaviors Continuous variables tend to be more accurate and meaningful descriptions or explanationsThe similarity-difference paradox : First of all, every phenomenon has something in common and difference!! Since any two events are similar and different, it is essential to take both into account when evaluating the phenomenon. And dimensions or variables that you select for evaluation purposes ultimately determine how “similar” or “unique” the phenomena turn out to be. Antidotes When comparing and contrasting two phenomena, ask yourself, “How are they similar?” and “How are they similar?” different?" "What is the purpose of this analysis?" and choose the most appropriate and relevant dimensions and sorting variables. Carefully select the dimensions on which you will evaluate the various phenomena. Recognize that the dimensions selected will ultimately determine the degree of “similarity” or “uniqueness” shown between the two phenomena. Be influenced by individuals who claim that “These events are exactly the same” or “You cannot compare these events because they have absolutely nothing in common”. The Burnum Effect: The “One-Fit-All” Description/Approach A Barnum statement is a description of the personality of a particular individual or group that is true of virtually all human beings; or is it a general statement that it has “something for everyone.” Examples: theEthiopians have good tourism potential. (But also other countries!). Women hate being rejected (who doesn't?) Eritreans love their country. The Barnum effect refers to the acceptance of the validity of overly inclusive and general assessments of particular individuals. Antidotes/Remedy Differentiate Barnum statements from people and group-specific descriptions and interpretations. Where feasible and appropriate, reduce the Barnum effect by qualifying descriptions and interpretations of personality in terms of magnitude or degree. Example where the above example is debarnumized: Ethiopians have good tourism potential given their historical heritage. Assimilation bias: Seeing the world through a glass colored with a pattern. A schema is a cognitive structure that organizes our knowledge, beliefs, and past experiences, thus providing a structure for understanding new events and future experiences. It can be seen as an eyepiece or a lens with which we see the world. In the cross-cultural domain, these include perceptual sets about people based on their age, gender, race, religion, vocation, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, social role, or any other characteristic. See the world through pink glasses. If your glasses are pink, you will see the world as rosy (and probably full of optimism). If your glasses are broken and dirty, your outlook on life will likely be distorted. As Jean Piaget (1954, 1970) identified two complementary processes that we use when there is a clash between our schemas and new/information or data: Accommodation: modifying our schema to adapt it to the data and Assimilation: modifying the data to adapt it to the our schemaAssimilation bias: the tendency to engage in assimilation rather than adaptation to reject rather than accept information. The Representativeness Bias: Fits and Misfits of CategorizationHeuristics: A mental shortcut that reduces complex, time-consuming tasks to simpler, more manageable, practical, and efficient problem-solving strategies. Practical problem-solving strategy. In general, heuristics can be useful because they allow us to process information quickly. Who has time to fully process everything However, shortcuts sometimes cause errors in processing that could have been avoided if we had fully processed the information Sometimes, the use of heuristics can lead us to underestimate or overestimate Example: the way we represent ethnic groups Availability bias: the persuasive power of vivid events Availability heuristic: refers to the process of drawing on easily accessible or “available” instances from our memory. It helps us answer questions like: “How many are there?” “How often does something happen?” “What are the chances that something will happen?” of particular events. Availability bias: When the availability heuristic causes a systematic error in information processing. It leads us to conclude about the general based on a few vivid but false cases/individuals, thus developing false beliefs about the characteristics of a wide variety of groups in our society. The fundamental attribution error: understanding the impact of external influence: Fundamental attribution error Fundamental attribution error - tendency of the individual to associate behaviors with internal factors and give less consideration to external factors or ignore them completely. Cognitive bias - errors produced by our limited thinking capacity, for example caused by tiredness, distraction, low IQ Motivational bias - errors produced by efforts to satisfy our selfish needs The self-fulfilling prophecy - when expectations create the).