DG: CASE Critical Thinking Method
Summary: A practical four-step framework (DG, 2017) for applying critical thinking to information — Conceptualize, Analyze, Synthesize, Evaluate. Rooted explicitly in Pirsig and Alan Watts.
Sources: Raw/CASE critical thinking method_DG .pdf
Last updated: 2026-05-05
The framework
CASE = Conceptualize → Analyze → Synthesize → Evaluate
The process is explicitly recursive: “cogs within cogs within cogs.” You may never be completely finished. Conclusions are optional: “This is where you draw your conclusions. But only if you want them.”
Conceptualize
A concept is a predisposition — a filter we try to see the world through. The first thing anyone does with new information is compare it to what they already believe. This mechanism is very difficult to turn off.
The barrier to good conceptualization is the emotional desire for hierarchical categorization — favorites, brands, teams, binary divisions. The “birds” example demonstrates it: “I’m not interested in birds” immediately deploys the dialectical knife (Pirsig — see quality):
“There are two kinds of people in this world. People who are interested in birds. People who are not interested in birds. I belong to the second category.”
The cut precedes any engagement with the information. Critical thinking requires attenuating this reflex before evaluating anything. See narrative-bias — this is WYSIATI operating as a filter before the information even arrives.
Analyze
Analysis is not quantification. Data collection gives the illusion of analysis — “it is absurdly easy to count stuff these days.” Counting is not thinking.
The method: shake the information. Hold it up to the light. Look from multiple angles. Hold mutually exclusive viewpoints simultaneously — this is a skill to cultivate, and it is not comfortable. The stage is not the time to resolve contradictions; that comes later.
The fitness tracker example makes the point precisely: the device collects data about movement and sleep, but “the principal determiner of my health is my own decision making process.” The data is real; the story the manufacturer sells about it is not the same thing.
Synthesize
Pattern recognition is unavoidable — humans will find patterns in any set of stimuli, including patterns that aren’t there. The task is to compare observed patterns against known verifiable results: dictionaries, technical drawings, peer-reviewed literature. These are not infallible, but they are less likely to be wrong than personal opinion or individual authority.
Synthesis benefits from multiple people. Solo synthesis produces results with lower validity. The ability to hold conflicting perspectives is essential here.
Evaluate
Evaluate reliability, accuracy, authority, appropriateness, bias, and validity — first of the source, then of your own synthesis. Be willing to change your mind, including at the cost of rework. “The right kind of stubbornness can serve you well here.”
Framing
The framing section enacts Frankfurt’s bullshit mechanism as a teaching exercise. The same sentence is presented in four contexts: a Python IDE on Linux, a café in Paris, a beach in Costa Rica, a Moleskine in the Flatiron Building. The content is identical. The question is which feels authoritative — and why.
“Be careful of framing. Framing is used to manipulate you. You can use framing to manipulate other people.”
The location, tool, and setting do not change the truth-value of the sentence. But they change the impression of the speaker — which is precisely Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit: misrepresentation not of the facts but of what the speaker is up to. See frankfurt-on-bullshit.
Sources cited
- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
- Alan Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity
Wiki links
- quality — Pirsig is the explicit source; the dialectical knife is named and used directly
- narrative-bias — Conceptualize step = WYSIATI operating as a pre-filter; we fit information to existing belief before examining it
- dual-process-cognition — the entire CASE process is structured System 2 discipline applied to the default System 1 response
- frankfurt-on-bullshit — the framing section demonstrates Frankfurt’s mechanism as pedagogy; also shares the opening premise (“claims have more weight than facts”)
- bullshit-foundation — companion DG document (2022); same intellectual project, different form
- uncertainty — Watts as a source; the process is iterative and never fully complete