How We Think: Thinking Critically and Creatively and How Military Professionals Can Do it Better

摘要

Military professionals prefer thinking that is rational and analytical, and which helps in the selection of ideas that meet feasibility, acceptability, and suitability criterion. In addition, they prefer to select rational and analytical ideas that have a history of working in similar situations as before. This creates a 'paradigmatic' mode of typical thinking, which is the opposite of deep, reflective, multi-perspective thinking. This 'field expedient' means of just enough thinking to find usual solutions has been so successful, through trial and error, that it takes a deliberate act of will to do original thinking that may take practitioners out of their professional paradigm. It has been so successful that there is great pressure among practitioners to keep doing it precisely because it has been a good way to solve problems that fit within the accepted paradigm of the military profession. In fact, it has made those kinds of problems so 'solvable' that we are increasingly only left with the kinds of hard problems that our paradigmatic thinking is not well suited to handle. However, it is not the paradigmatic way of thinking that is 'faulty,' but rather that when we try to apply it outside of the appropriate context, it begins failing us. The fault is not in the mode of thinking but in its improper application to certain contexts. These contexts are the medium- to ill-structured problems that FM 5-0 introduces to the profession. To meet these types of problems, the military profession is expanding its thinking repertoire to include concepts such as 'Design,' in order to allow its critical and creative thinking to account for problems that fall outside of the assumed context of the military operating parameters. This essay will summarize how cognitive theorists have described critical and creative thinking in general, and how some military practitioners have applied them.