Neither Critical, nor Thinking as words together are found in USPAP. Nor are they found in my copy of The Appraisal of Real Estate! Must be important . . .
- What is it?
- Do we need it?
- Is it worth the effort?
I realized that although I have been promoting critical thinking in my classes and writings, it only seemed intuitive. I had never really connected why it seemed important. It was only a belief! I had never done any rational, logical, factual reasoning, nor any research on the topic. It was simply belief-based!
Interesting. A belief-based credibility, worthy of everyone to simply agree with me. Of course.
And my support was simply reiterating my position. No evidence. No facts. No research. No logic. And no tracks for anyone else to follow my “support.”
I had my opinion. Now I will find a way to support it. To sell it to you. I want to be credible. I want to support. And I want to feel “worthy of belief.” So please review and validate my worthiness.
Here goes. “What is it? Critical thinking:
- Has several, but similar definitions. In general it is: a) to establish a new belief or direction; and, b) to meet some minimal level of logical adequacy and accuracy.
- Is necessary to go beyond my belief versus your belief. Any system to help make decisions (like lending, investing, or fairness decisions), needs more than selling.
- May be required as a critical part of modern valuation practice.
American philosopher John Dewey is credited with the concept. However, his reliance on earlier writers influenced his advocacy of “a scientific attitude of mind.” (Recall our definition: “Science is a systematic study, by observation or experiment; by an expert in scientific method and the field of study.”)
Do we need it? It depends.
Traditional vintage appraisal focuses on the worthiness of the appraiser. The focus is on credibility of the actor, not the accuracy or usefulness or the reliability of the result. Recall that there are only three clear ‘violations’ in USPAP: 1) Identify the user; 2) keep records; and, 3) do no gross negligence. (Presumably small or medium-sized is ok!)
Modern valuation has a different focus: measurable results. The focus is on the analysis, not the worthiness or believability of the appraiser. The focus is on the trueness and sureness (accuracy and precision) of the investigation. The focus is on quantifiable subject/market data, predictive methods, risk/reliability measures and useful user perception tools (such as summary numbers and visuals).
It turns out that data science, combining computation, perception tools, and expert judgment – emphasizes the expert judgment. Expert judgment can only be effectuated through critical thinking.
Strong opinions, big beliefs, massive confidence, even an “established body of knowledge” sometimes is not enough.
Is it worth it to think about critical thinking?
If you strongly believe that the old way of doing things – no need to think about it. Just go with you beliefs. Don’t let anyone bamboozle you into actually questioning the ‘established’ ways.
If you believe the world has changed, and continues to change – then it might be worth doing some thinking about thinking.
September 7, 2022 @ 3:24 am
Great insight, as always. I will take issue with one assertion, however. Traditional appraisal does NOT focus on the worthiness of the appraiser. In appraisal review, reviewers are always taught to focus on the credibility of the work, NOT the appraiser (credibility: worth of belief). Ditto for USPAP. If you do a word search for “credible” or “credibility,” these descriptors are NEVER associated with the appraiser, but always with some component of the work product – results/assignment results, appraisal, appraisal review, opinions and conclusions, analysis, data, work, comparisons, method, output, etc. In a professional context, credibility should always be about the work product, NEVER about the individual.
March 11, 2023 @ 9:56 am
Excellent