Has this actually helped anyone with critical thinking or is it a load of hooey? what's your take on it /lit/
guess nobody's read it
>>8102051
Why would anyone read this?
You don't need a cutsie pop non-fic book about critical thinking. Looks like it's geared toward tweens, to be honest. (Pic related is one of the pages, if you didn't already waste your money on buying this crap.)
You can learn critical thinking skills, but this book is pandering and stupid.
>>8102133
do you know any books that can help develop critical thinking?
>>8102172
There are a few on-line, and each one is essentially the same, so you shouldn't bother wasting money on one.
http://bookzz.org/book/2380419/0e60e3
>>8102133
link the epub
isn't his a good intro for logic? or was i rused
>>8102433
what do you mean
>>8102433
Yes, but the way it's mentioned (or was, I haven't read anything about her in a while) in every article about her, without qualification, shows that that particular factoid is being used to legitimize her """work""" by implying that all that vapid pop trash is really 'high art' (I can remember several people responding to my distaste for her by saying, 'well yeah it sounds poppy, but she's a real artist who went to, like, art school') that we'd all understand if only we were more schooled in the contemporary art world.
>>8102172
Dialectics of the Enlightenment is p. good
>>8102640
>this triggers the /pol/ack
>>8102172
all of them, if you approach with the assumption that they are "missing" something crucial. try reading through Freud's works with this in mind. it's practically a right of passage
Ive got a copy of it and read it last summer. It's a good primer on logic and fallacies. A little preachy and redundant in parts. However, on the whole I enjoyed it and took away a couple ideas.
>>8102727
>a right of passage
These are the people with whom I share a literature board.
>>8102745
do you have something better that you could recommend?
