Verified by 
"If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room," was a piece of advice I was once given. Indeed, it is a good piece of advice – it promotes the notion of individual betterment in the sense that if you’re indeed the smartest or most knowledgeable person in the room, there’s less of a chance to learn something of value from the others around you than the alternative situation. That is, not being the smartest or most knowledgeable person in the room ensures that there’s someone there from whom you can learn something of value.
For me, I find the best intellectual stimulation from the latter scenario. I look forward to being challenged and I look forward to conversations with people who can teach me things. Unfortunately, as many of you will know, this is not always the case in academic circles.
Have you ever been to a conference where research is presented? Think of the Q&A session that follows each presentation. Inevitably, someone will say, "Yeah, this isn’t so much a question as it is a comment." Uggh is generally my response whether I’m the presenter or in the crowd. Such is academia though, I’m afraid.
With that, the beauty of critical thinking is that there is great emphasis on the concepts of intellectual humility (Paul & Elder, 2008) and uncertainty (King & Kitchener, 1994) and so, though people in this field will debate certain perspectives, it’s perhaps less likely that they will engage in self-righteous/promotional, "I’m right, you’re wrong," grandiose bravado at such conferences – or so you would hope.
Though I’ve been at higher-order cognition and critical thinking conferences in the past where attendees engaged such intellectual humility and modesty in light of uncertainty, unfortunately, I presented at one recently where it seemed that everyone else who presented felt the need to discuss how expert they were, how much experience in the area they’ve had over the years and their associated achievements. Notably, the only other person who didn’t engage such bravado was the only person presenting that I had heard of before.
It seemed so odd that people discussing critical thinking should advise the audience not to rely on one’s experience alone, yet feel obligated to tell the audience all about theirs and how that in some way qualifies their opinion above and beyond anyone else’s in the room. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of expert opinion – depending on the credibility of the individual, it’s almost always based on research evidence or, at the very least, reasonable speculation based on some form of synthesis of past research. Nevertheless, the bravado and one-upmanship of the conference experience is grating – especially in the contexts of critical thinking and being in a room full of people with some form of expertise in the area.
I myself was asked a great question of how we can train groups in critical thinking and potentially eradicate groupthink. I began by acknowledging one of the fundamental tenants of critical thinking – when we don’t know an answer, it’s perfectly acceptable and highly encouraged to admit such uncertainty. I added that the answer to such a question is one that has been researched for years and is still being researched. It’s a million-dollar question, for sure, and that I’d be sceptical of any response that has a definitive answer.
I was barely finished responding when someone interjected with their confident response to the question… and their response was followed up by another. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fine to have an opinion on complex matters, especially if you have expertise in the field; however, the manner in which such opinions are provided requires consideration. You can’t simply state an opinion as if it is the be-all, end-all answer. Uncertainty and caution need to be exercised when providing opinions – no matter how educated such opinions might be.
Overall, I can undoubtedly say that I was not the smartest person in that (virtual) conference room, which was great. I had an opportunity to learn. I listened, took notes and kept my mouth shut when I wasn’t au fait with a particular topic. In fact, I said very little outside of my presentation. In light of that, I guess it gave me more of an opportunity to observe other attendees, their thoughts and their behaviours. Unfortunately, too much time better spent learning was paid listening to others ramble on about their qualifications as experts, speculations as facts and awkward explanations when challenged by credible research.
Just because you teach critical thinking doesn’t make you an expert in it. You might very well be teaching the wrong things. Research it – what it is, what it consists of and how best such knowledge can be transferred to others. Even if you do know what it is – even if you are an expert in it — acknowledge that you don’t always apply it. I sure don’t and I’m often wrong, just like everyone else can be. Acknowledge caution and uncertainty. Engage intellectual humility.
