Could you please do an "objective" conversational response on how this person has done on their discussion on thinking critically on the Mozart effect on babies?
Your expert objective response should contribute thoughtful, unique and interesting information to add to their discussion.
This is their discussion:
There are 8 guidelines to follow in order to ensure critical and scientific thinking in psychology. You first have to ask questions and be open to speculation. You have to have a willingness to ask the why, what, or how because there may always be questions that have not been answered by the experts or media. Secondly, you have to be able to define the problem because an insufficient formulation of questions can ultimately produce confusing or incomplete answers, therefore it is essential to ask unbiased questions so the answers are not taken for granted and are accepted. Examining the evidence is also important because you must know what evidence supports or proves to be false in the argument or conflict. We all have a right to our own opinion and just because there are several people including experts who may believe that its true, doesn't make it true; it has to be proven. The first step to proving something is to analyze the assumptions and biases of the subject because each of us is subjected to biases that can stop us from being fair or impartial. Evaluation of the assumptions including our own should be evaluated. When evaluating these assumptions we have to avoid emotional reasoning because we tend to believe what we feel is the truth especially when we are passionate about a subject and it could be catastrophic in the long haul. Also, it is important not to take on a broad view and try to look beyond the evident by avoiding generalizations. Last but not least, we have to be willing to consider other interpretations and tolerate uncertainty. If you formulate hypotheses that may present a rational clarification of characteristics, behavior, and events may allow us to draw tentative conclusions through the evidence. It is okay to not be sure and important not to demand results.
Mozart for babies became popularized in the 1990s. Many parents were misled by marketing campaigns to believe that playing Mozart would make their babies smarter.
In the Mozart scenario I found no validation after reading The Mozart effect: A closer look and the text. In the first article I learned that the child may grow fond of the music, but it would not make them smarter. When the study was done on college students the effect didn't last long at all. There is belief that music does have an impact on cognitive abilities, but there is still no hard evidence saying such. Ultimately, when parents took notice of these experiments taking place on babies they were bias and their emotions took over because of course every parent wants their children to be smart therefore they participated.
Belief perseverance is the predisposition to adhere to ideas even when you come face to face with evidence that is divergent. This conflict may cause people to clutch onto any kind of belief or view when the evidence is shown to be groundless or completely untrue. This belief can ultimately prevent the honest evaluation needed for making good decisions. Once we set our mind to something we tend to run with it even after we are given the facts. In most cases when we learn we are wrong, we refuse to be wrong so we stick with our own beliefs instead of changing what we thought because it is hard to remove a belief we truly believed in.
Everyday people have to face and disregard contradicting evidence. For example, a person who believes they drive perfect while under the influence of alcohol, but later gets into an accident while under the influence cannot see the alcohol played a role in the accident and this does not prove anything in general concerning his ability to drink and drive. He feels that this one accident cannot depict his ability to drink and drive. Versus a person who gets a ticket for driving under the influence and gets the picture right away that it's wrong. Nevertheless when it came down to Mozart's music having an effect on the babies most parent believed it and there mindset couldn't be changed even though there was no proven facts, only experiments. As far as we know the Mozart effect does not exist.
In order to recognize belief perseverance we must be able to identify self-impression, social impression, and naïve theories. Self-impression is the example I gave above because it would either understate or overate the present qualities or abilities in the person. Social impression is related to a specific person and the qualities they have, while naïve theories are impressions concerning how our world functions within social groups, stereotypes, religious system of belief, and even expectations of the future.
I think I can encourage others to keep an open mind by allowing them the opportunity to think out of the box. If our minds seem to be on one track how can we ever be open to growth or learning new things. I also believe that if we get a person to talk about their beliefs alone and not in public you may have a better chance at getting them to change their belief. The goal is to get the people to talk about the beliefs you want them to speak about publicly. Also it is important to pay attention to the evidence provided and never bypass what you have seen just because you have already come to your conclusion.
This individual has done a very good job in this discussion, due to the fact that they point out that there is no empirical evidence that supports the belief that Mozart had an appreciable affect ...
This solution describes an analysis of an individual's discussion on critical thinking.