The topic of disparities and discrimination is probably one of the best examples of the need for high-level critical thinking to navigate a very nuanced and longstanding debate.
Following a related discussion with a close friend, he gifted me a book titled ‘Disparities and Discrimination’ by the economist Thomas Sowell.
Debate aside, I found this book a great example of applying critical thinking and in this blog I want to draw out and reflect on some of the key principles demonstrated in the book that we can apply more broadly.
Critical thinking is the ability to analyse evidence on an issue and form a judgment. This can typically facilitate more effective problem-solving and decision-making.
The exam question presented is:
Are the socioeconomic disparities by ethnicity we witness in many countries driven by discrimination?
The background to this debate starts with headline data in many countries showing disparities across a range of socioeconomic outcomes by ethnicity. The UK Government has a website dedicated to monitoring these disparities, including differences in:
- Educational attainment
- Interaction with the criminal justice system
- Employment
- Home ownership
Discrimination does exist. For example, research has consistency demonstrated discrimination in the UK labour market. However, the debate is around whether it is the most important factor in explaining these disparities, given the various factors that determine someone’s socio-economic outcomes. This is where critical thinking skills are crucial.
Here are a few useful critical thinking principles demonstrated in the book:
Question beliefs using evidence
There are many examples of widespread fallacies. Similarly, there are many examples of widespread truths. Reasoning with evidence and engaging in discussions is the only way to separate the two. This can be particularly hard for longstanding beliefs or those that carry an emotional attachment.
If we are going to excel at critical thinking, there will come times when we have to detach ourselves emotionally and be willing to change our position on things.
The author himself is from a low-income African American background, but has chosen to form his position on the issues of disparities by engaging with the evidence and drawing his own conclusions.
Reframing the question
Reframing a question is an underrated skill. Given the importance of evidence in building an argument, one of the key benefits of reframing a question is presenting a problem in a way that is more easily addressed by the available evidence.
Accordingly, Thomas reframes the key question above to:
If everyone had equal opportunity, would overall outcomes be the same for entire groups?
This allows him to present a range of data on differences between ethnic groups that in themselves have an impact on outcomes, including:
- Average number of children in each family
- Average age of individuals
- Differences in geography
We know of the above have a relationship with socio-economic outcomes, hence a line of logical line of reasoning can start to be drawn between the two.
Be precise with definitions and assumptions
To think critically about something, you need to lay out the rules of the game through your definitions and assumptions.
When I think back to some of the most difficult projects I’ve worked on, in the most successful ones we spent a disproportionate amount of time upfront forming our definitions and assumptions. Although it is tempting to jump straight into problems, doing this groundwork paid dividends.
Thomas invests time defining what is meant by discrimination using examples in a variety of contexts, which aids his arguments going forward.
Understand deductive and inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning: uses specific scenarios to make generalised conclusions. For example, you conduct a survey at work that shows employees believe they are more productive when they work from home. You therefore conclude that you can increase productivity by rolling out a work from home policy.
Deductive reasoning: uses generalised statements to makes conclusions about specific scenarios. For example, you could argue that people are more productive when they have a quite work environment and that the home environment is quieter than the office. Therefore, employees working from home are more productive.
Both forms of reasoning can be effective, and it is useful to be conscious of what type of reasoning you and others are using when making an argument as each has its pros and cons. You can read more about this here.
Here are some examples of Thomas using deductive reasoning:
Claim: Grossly unequal distributions of outcomes are common, both in nature and among people, in circumstances where neither genes nor discrimination are involved.
Proposing argument with deductive reasoning:
“success in many kinds of endeavors depends on prerequisites peculiar to each endeavor—and a relatively small difference in meeting those prerequisites can mean a very large difference in outcomes.”
Therefore….”we should not expect success to be evenly or randomly distributed among individuals, groups, institutions or nations in endeavors with multiple prerequisites – which is to say, most meaningful endeavors.”
Evidence: “A study of Britons in 2003 showed that 22 percent of those who were the eldest child went on to receive a degree, compared to 11 percent of those who were the fourth child and 3 percent of those who were the tenth child”
“If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected—or assumed—when conditions are not nearly so comparable?”
And a range of other evidence provided…
Conclusion: “Neither in nature nor among human beings are either equal or randomly distributed outcomes automatic. On the contrary, grossly unequal distributions of outcomes are common, both in nature and among people, in circumstances where neither genes nor discrimination are involved.”
“Nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, but to automatically make those sins the sole, or even primary, cause of different outcomes among different peoples is to ignore many other reasons for those disparities.”
Refuting an argument made using inductive reasoning:
“Statistics cited in support of claims that the police target blacks for arrests usually go no further than showing that the proportion of black people arrested greatly exceeds the roughly 13 percent of the American population who are black.
If anyone were to use similar reasoning to claim that the NBA referees were racially biased, because the proportion of fouls that referees call against black players in the NBA greatly exceeds 13 percent, anyone familiar with the NBA would immediately see the fallacy—because the proportion of black players in the NBA greatly exceeds the proportion of blacks in the American population.”