Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "How To Think - Thinking Skills, Focusing On HOW Not WHAT To Think" discusses various aspects of thinking skills and provides practical tools and resources to improve cognitive capabilities. However, upon critical analysis, several issues can be identified.

Firstly, the article starts by stating that the world is currently living in an age of unreason where experts are denigrated and ignorance, bias, and prejudice are celebrated. While this may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide sufficient evidence or examples to support this claim. It presents a biased view without considering alternative perspectives or acknowledging any positive aspects of the current societal climate.

Furthermore, the article mentions woke thinking taking precedence over reasoned debate and virtue signaling taking precedence over private philanthropy. These statements seem to reflect a particular ideological bias rather than providing a balanced analysis of the situation. The article does not explore different viewpoints or consider the complexities of these issues.

Additionally, the article highlights the importance of patience, persistence, and self-learning for creative thinking. While these qualities may indeed contribute to creativity, it oversimplifies the process by suggesting that creative geniuses simply make connections between unrelated subjects and come up with unconventional solutions. This overlooks the years of hard work, study, and practice that often underlie creative achievements.

Moreover, when discussing critical thinking skills, the article provides a definition but does not delve into specific strategies or techniques for improving critical thinking. It briefly mentions the Five Whys Technique but does not provide any further explanation or examples.

The article also introduces concepts such as metacognition and mental models but fails to explore them in depth or provide practical guidance on how to apply them effectively. It merely lists these concepts without offering any meaningful insights or analysis.

Furthermore, throughout the article, there are numerous links to external sources without proper context or evaluation of their credibility. This raises questions about potential biases or promotional content within those sources.

Overall, while the article attempts to discuss thinking skills and provide resources for improvement, it falls short in several areas. It lacks balanced analysis, fails to provide sufficient evidence or support for its claims, overlooks alternative perspectives, and does not offer practical guidance or in-depth exploration of the concepts it introduces.