What is Critical Thinking Anyway?
Three things you
can do with a claim.
When presented with a claim, one can accept it as true, reject it as false or suspend judgement about a claim.
For any claim, one might take one of three noetic stances:
· One may accept the claim as true.
· One may reject the claim as false.
· One may neither accept nor reject the claim, but rather suspend belief.[1]
Critical thinking is about determining whether or not one has been given sufficient reason to take one of these three actions. Is there good reason to accept, reject or to abstain from judgment (agnosticism). Which of these responses is most in line with facts in evidence? To do this we have to ask, “What is the proper basis upon which we should decide to accept, reject or withhold judgment?”
Often the proper basis takes the form of an argument, that is, certain claims (premises) that are offered in support of the disputed claim (conclusion). Thus, an evaluation of the quality of the argument will entail some subset of the following:
· determining what information is or is not pertinent
· distinguishing between rational claims and emotional ones
· recognizing the ways in which evidence might be limited or compromised
· spotting deception and holes in the arguments of others
· presenting one’s own analysis of the data or information
· recognizing logical flaws in arguments
· drawing connections between discrete sources of data and information
· attending to contradictory, inadequate, or ambiguous information
· constructing cogent arguments rooted in data rather than speculation
· selecting the strongest set of supporting data
· avoiding overstated conclusions
· identifying holes in the evidence and suggest additional information to collect
· recognizing that a problem may have no clear answer or single solution
· proposing other options and weigh them in the decision
· considering all stakeholders or affected parties in suggesting a course of action
· articulating the argument and the context for that argument
· correctly and precisely using evidence to defend the argument
· logically and cohesively organizing the argument
· avoiding extraneous elements in an argument's development
· presenting evidence in an order that contributes to a persuasive argument
Arguments vs.
Shouting Matches
We shall be spending a good deal of time talking about arguments going forward. For the purposes of our class, I am defining arguments as verbal attempts to persuade. This is not like when one person says, “Shut up.” and the other says, “No, YOU shut up!” We might refer to that as an argument outside of the context of this course, but that would not constitute an argument as far as we're concerned here.
So, these verbal attempts to persuade/ arguments consist of
1. conclusions (That's what I want you to believe.) and
2. premises. (These are the reasons I provide to persuade you to believe my conclusion.)
That's more or less the “anatomy” of an argument. Critical Thinking will involve examining the quality of the premises and their connection to the conclusion. Are the premises of such a quality that they can be persuasive and are they connected to the conclusion in the right way that we should take them to be persuasive. Again, will be spending the remainder of the course looking at those kinds of questions.
But what’s the
issue?
There is an aspect to critical thinking which is perhaps even more fundamental than examining the elements of the argument itself. We must understand the context or what the issue is. An argument is (should be) provided relative to some issue. So, for instance, if I am providing you with an argument to convince you that the death penalty is an inefficient deterrent for capital crimes, then the argument arises from some contention being at issue. We can express the issue as a question[2], in this case:
Is the death penalty an inefficient deterrent for capital crimes?
It's always a good idea when evaluating an argument to step back a moment and ask, “What is the issue?” Sometimes you'll find that two individuals engaged in argumentation might not in fact be dealing with the same issue or are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the issue of their opponents.
For instance, were I to make my case that the death penalty is an inefficient deterrent to capital crimes and my interlocutor responded that the death penalty was warranted for certain very heinous crimes as just retribution, my interlocutor has switched to a different issue. Specifically:
“Is the death penalty warranted for certain very heinous crimes as just retribution?”
This is certainly a worthwhile question, but it is a different question/issue then the one my initial argument was addressing.
So, this is a helpful way of dealing with any arguments that you're confronted with. I think of it as “Step One.” Step back and ask. “What is the issue?” and then put it in the form of a question. After that, determine whether or not the individuals engaged in the argument are all, in fact, operating with the same issue. Are they talking to one another? Or are they actually talking past one another? This can save one from wasting a lot of time.
I recall attending a debate a number of years ago and the general topic was pornography and the propriety of pornography. One of the disputing parties was taking the position that pornography, when enjoyed by adults and when not the product of the violation of the rights of others, was perfectly morally permissible and in fact morally neutral. I seem to recall him saying it's not unlike playing a game of tennis. So long as no one is getting hurt and no one's rights are being violated it fails to be a moral issue at all. His opponent’s position was that pornography does indeed violate the rights of women. Now I'm not interested in their respective arguments at this time. I'm mentioning this here because this is one example where they really weren't dealing with the same issue. The first party had already conceded that, should pornography in fact violate rights, it would be morally reprehensible. So, in that sense, he's agreeing with his opponent. However, he did not believe that (all) pornography violated rights in the way that his opponent did. His issue was:
“If pornography harms no one and violates no one's rights, does it fail to be a moral issue at all?”
And his position on this issue was: Yes.
Her issue was:
“Does pornography violate the rights of women?”
And her position (on this different issue) was: Yes
So, there were in fact two issues in play:
1. Is pornography morally permissible per se?
And
2. Does pornography result in the violation of the rights of women?
Note further, the issue: “Is pornography morally permissible when it results in the violation of rights?” is NOT at issue here for either of them, since they both AGREE that, under those conditions, it is not morally permissible. That's my point. Be clear as to what is at issue, precisely what is the question they are debating.
Catching Vagueness and Ambiguity Early
Also note that when the issue is clearly stated we sometimes expose potentially troublesome words and phrases in terms of vagueness and ambiguity. Consider the issue: “Should the wealthy pay their fair share?” This is a horribly flawed presentation of an issue. What, precisely is meant by “wealthy” and what is meant by “fair share.” Any argument offered for an affirmative or negative response to this question would have to clarify these troublesome terms. So, it is better done in the statement of the issue, right up front (when possible). This will reduce the danger of people arguing different issues. Note in the earlier example we may want to specify “all pornography” or “some pornography” when we specify the issue.
We will be looking at an argument in support of vegetarianism in the coming weeks or so. However, it's worth pointing out (and this is a bit of a spoiler alert) that in fact the issue being dealt with in the argument is NOT whether vegetarianism is morally required, but whether or not it is immoral to kill animals for food. Now, I suspect that, were the proponent of the argument successful in pushing through her conclusion (i.e. Yes, it is immoral to kill animals for food.), she might use that conclusion to go on further and argue for the moral superiority of a vegetarian lifestyle. But strictly speaking, that's not what the issue is in the argument that she offers.
Don’t Get Over Your
Skis
So again, just as it's important to be clear on precisely what is being claimed, it's also important to understand what is NOT being claimed. I like to point out the example coming from St. Thomas Aquinas. After St. Thomas concludes his argument for the existence of an “unmoved mover” he goes on to assert “And that all men call God.” Now, Aquinas has been accused of playing fast and loose with the logic here. After all, it's one thing to prove the existence of an unmoved mover. But to identify that thing with God would take another argument or perhaps several. The argument itself does not prove the existence of God. God isn’t even mentioned in the argument.
In Aquinas’s defense, he does provide those arguments elsewhere (actually in thousands of pages). But also, when he makes this claim in the Summa Theologica he may simply have been stating a matter of historical fact. It so happens that everyone, historically, who had considered and affirmed the existence of an unmoved mover, subsequently went on to identify that unmoved mover with God. Hence that, all men have called God. Nevertheless, while the criticism of Aquinas in this case may be misplaced, the general admonition remains. Be attentive to what is at issue and to what has and hasn't been argued for.
Claims, beliefs,
propositions, sentences and statements (They are all
the same things.[3])
In common parlance, we do not always make sharp distinctions between these
items. I might say “Your statement is correct.” or “Your sentence is true.” Or
“Your proposition is accurate.” and by “statement,” “sentence,” or “proposition”
etc. I'm pretty much referring to the same thing. Or at least I don't have clearly distinct
things in mind under normal circumstances. In philosophy of language however, these
things are often distinguished one from another. A belief seems to be a mental item often tied
to latent action. Sentences are physical
strings of words printed on the page or phonemes uttered a within a system of language. Statements too seem to be things which are
linguistic acts. Propositions are often
referred to as “that which is expressed through sentences” and in fact the same
proposition might be expressed through varying sentences. Where I to say, “Snow is white.” and then two
seconds later say, “Snow is white.” I've expressed one proposition with two
different sentences. Were
I to say “Schnee ist
weiß” I have expressed the same proposition, but
with a German sentence. [4]
These distinctions are indeed important for certain purposes and in certain contexts. However, they need not concern us much here. I shall go forward using a more generic, less nuanced, understanding of the terms. I am going to talk about “claims.” A claim is the bearer of a truth value. That is, claims are either true or false. And so, if we come across a bit of language which is neither true nor false then this is simply not a claim. Perhaps it is an imperative (Go to bed!) or an interrogative (Did you eat yet?) It might be a recitation (Four score and seven years ago…) More troublesome for the critical thinker are pseuo-claims. I'm adopting roughly the same idea that The Logical Positivists adopt and which will be examining shortly when we look at Positivism. Likewise, if I just stub my toe and say, “Ow!” this is not a claim. It is neither true nor false. (Note: It IS a sentence. It is an interjection.) Similarly, were I to say “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” this is also a sentence, in this case, a declarative sentence, but it is not a claim. Why? Because it is neither true nor false. It is nonsense. Were I to ask “What time is it?” this also fails to be a claim. I am not making some sort of pronouncement about the world, but rather requesting information. (This last is an interrogative sentence.)
Sometimes sentences which look like claims are not because they are not being USED as claims. For instance, when I'm reciting the Gettysburg Address I say, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” it may look like I'm making a claim, and a false one at that because it was longer than four score and seven years ago. But in fact, I'm not. I'm not making a claim at all. That is not the reason I'm uttering these words. I'm uttering them to recite. So (usually) a poetry recitation or a speech recitation are not exercises in making claims.
What we're interested in then would be those speech acts which are trying to express claims that are either true or false. This attempt can fail in a variety of ways, but one we will be looking at in some detail is when the bit of language is not really a claim at all, but rather some other bit of language. This raises an interesting question: “How do we tell genuine claims from what I call pseudo-claims?” Well, we'll look at one possible answer to this question in a future lecture on Logical Positivism.
Hot Sauce on
Scrambled Eggs: Subjective/ Objective Claims
When I first started putting together notes for this lecture on the difference between objective and subjective claims, I thought it would be relatively easy. After all, I know what objective claims are, what subjective claims are and how they differ. And I simply need to explain that to you. In fact, you all might already know the difference between objective and subjective claims which tends to make this part of the lecture unnecessary. But when I actually started to nail down the details, I found it more problematic than I anticipated. So let me begin with where I started. I'll call this a “naive if somewhat serviceable” account of the difference between objective and subjective claims.
An objective claim is a claim the truth of which in no way depends on any facts about the speaker. Were I to say, “The Earth is flat.” whether not that claim is true is completely independent of my beliefs or any other facts about me. You might infer that I do in fact believe that the Earth is flat based on my making this statement, and you are therefore attributing to me a certain subjective state, a belief, but what makes the sentence “The Earth is flat.” true or false is no fact about me, but rather some fact, albeit, some “objective fact,” about the Earth itself.
A subjective claim would be a claim, the truth of which does depend on some feature of the speaker. For instance, where I to say, “Hot sauce goes good on scrambled eggs.” this would be a sentence that would be true based on some feature of me. When I say, “Hot sauce goes good on scrambled eggs.” I'm more or less achieving the same linguistic work were I to say “I enjoy the taste of hot sauce on scrambled eggs.” But notice. “I enjoy the taste of hot sauce on scrambled eggs.” is NOT an objective feature about hot sauce or scrambled eggs, etc. It is in fact a subjective report. It describes a feature about me, the subject. I am not making a claim about the objective world, but rather sharing a subjective state. This, of course, is why these claims are referred to as “subjective.” The truth or falsity of these claims depends on some feature of the speaker.
To be clear, the grammar would suggest that I'm talking about hot sauce and scrambled eggs. And so there is a temptation to regard it as an objective claim. But we must not be misled by the grammar here. The truth of the matter is that I'm really talking about myself. I'm sharing some preference of mine. Were I to say, “Peaches are delicious.” again it may appear that I'm talking about peaches, but in fact I'm talking about me. Hopefully you can see that the sentence “Peaches are delicious.” might plausibly be understood as the linguistic equivalent of the sentence “I like the taste of peaches.” or even simply “Yum Peaches!”
The latter two renderings of the speech act make it clear that I am NOT providing any objective information about peaches. But note the sentence “Peaches are on sale at Winn Dixie.” is NOT a subjective claim. Either they are or they are not, and that has nothing to do with any subjective facts about me or my preferences.
So this is one way of trying to distinguish between objective and subjective claims. That seems simple and straightforward enough. However, notice the sentence “Kenton Harris likes the taste of peaches.” is an objective claim (about Kenton Harris). Either it is true or false. It's not an objective claim about peaches, but it is an objective claim about Kenton Harris. So that makes things just a little bit more complicated. I might be tempted to say that the sentence “Peaches are delicious;” is a subjective claim because its truth depends upon some feature of the speaker, but that is, in a way, misleading. Were I to reinterpret that sentence as “The speaker likes the taste of peaches.” this would be an objective claim about the world. Granted it's an objective claim about the subjective states of the speaker, but it is objective, nonetheless.
But it messes up the neat little divide between objective and subjective claims. Let's try this again. In a standard, genuinely objective claim you are not talking about or expressing the subjective states of any speaker, but rather you are talking about an objective state of affairs. If a sentence could plausibly be recast as a sentence about the subjective states of the speaker and achieve the same linguistic work, then this is a subjective claim. BY this measure, “Peaches are delicious.” and “Hot sauce is good on scrambled eggs.” are subjective. They both are literally talking about the gustatorial matters of pure taste. If the sentence cannot plausibly be re-written as a sentence about the subjective states of a speaker such as “The Earth is flat.” or “There are 50 states in the United States.” or “Paris is the capital of France.” then these would be objective claims.
Where the difference between subjective and objective claims becomes most interesting and perhaps most important is in the realms of moral and aesthetic judgment. Some people have suggested that aesthetic judgements are like judgements of pure taste, that is, subjective, doing nothing other than reporting the subjective preferences of the speaker. On such a view, sentences such as “The Mona Lisa is the greatest painting in the world.” would be equivalent to the claim “I admire the Mona Lisa more than I admire any other painting in the world.” “The Miami City Ballet Company is a better ballet company than the San Francisco Ballet Company.” would be relegated to a mere expression of the speaker’s preference. Some have suggested this is also what is going on in cases of moral judgements. We will discuss both of these positions within this course. But for now, we need only be clear about the difference between the two types of claims.
Fact and Opinion
Sometimes people talk about the difference between "fact" and "opinion." You might make a statement like “Recreational marijuana should be legalized.” And your friend may respond with something like, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” In other words, in common conversations often “opinion” is distinguished from “fact.” This is close to the distinction we have already drawn between objective claims (True ones state facts.) and subjective claims. But I do not like this use of the word “opinion.” It is vague and imprecise. Besides, we can just as often refer to opinions people hold which are actually also facts. For instance, it may be my opinion that the Marlins will win the World Series this year. Well, time will tell whether my opinion states a fact or a falsehood. Regardless, it is either true or false. Now, I am willing to grant that somethings that are referred to as opinions are NEITHER true nor false. But rather than refer to these as opinions, I prefer to identify them as pseudo-claims (see above) or, as we shall see presently, what Logical Positivists consider pseudo-assertions.
Cognitive Biases
Cognitive biases are unconscious psychological factors that can affect human mental processes, sometimes in unexpected ways. For instance, it has been shown that formal business attire or a physician's white lab coat might improve a person's performance on a cognitive test.[5] People are perceived as more trustworthy when wearing blue[6]. In another study, male subjects, if dressed in sweats, made less profitable deals in simulated negotiations than did subjects dressed in suits.
Were we entirely rational, our conclusions would be grounded in logic and based on evidence objectively weighed. But unconscious features of human psychology prevent this from happening. Cognitive biases skew our perceptions and other cognitive processes. We tend to agree with arguments when we want to believe the conclusion, even if it is not a very good argument. Consider the following:
All pit bulls are dogs.
Some dogs bite.
Therefore
Some pit bulls bite.
This might appear like a good argument if you don’t examine it critically. But it isn’t. Look at an argument with identical form.
All pit bulls are dogs.
Some dogs are named Mary.
Therefore
Some pit bulls are named Mary.
You realize right away that the premises of the second argument give you little to no reason to accept the conclusion. But you may not have seen that initially with the first argument however. This is probably due to the fact that the conclusion to the first argument states something you already believed and the conclusion to the second argument does not. In the second case, since you do not already believe the conclusion, you need to determine whether the conclusion states something you should accept, reject or about which you should suspend judgment. So, since you do not already accept the conclusion, you need to determine whether you have been given good reason to accept it or not by the premise set. (You have not BTW.) The techniques of critical thinking are meant to be a corrective to some of these cognitive biases.
One time when I was teaching this course before I had a student challenge me about this particular example. She was pointing out that not only is it perfectly plausible that some pit bulls bite, but it is equally plausible that some pit bulls are named Mary. I think she is quite correct here. But this is not the point in this example. For here I was trying to demonstrate that the arguments themselves give us no reason to accept their conclusions, though we might have independent reasons to accept those claims.
The formal assessment for what is wrong with this argument is that the “middle term” of the argument is “dogs” and it is “undistributed.” I don’t expect this to mean anything to you yet. We will cover that later in this course when we get to Categorical Syllogistic Logic. Here I was just appealing to your intuition that, from the facts that some dogs are named Mary and all pit-bulls are dogs, you cannot be certain that any pit-bulls are named Mary. The premises could be true and the conclusion false. Let me give another argument that may be more intuitive.
All of my sisters are women.
Some women are named Mary
Therefore:
Some of my sisters are named Mary.
But of course, the premises, even if true, give us absolutely no reason to believe the conclusion. (In point of fact, I have two sisters: Joan and Kelly. Not a Mary among them. 😊) The reason it might be a bit more difficult to detect that the argument about pit-bulls and biting is a bad argument form is because many of us already believe the conclusion.
Remember that, when assessing the argument you have been given, you must NOT begin by considering how plausible the conclusion is in general, but rather whether the premise set gives you any reason to accept the conclusion, regardless of how plausible the conclusion may be for other reasons.
Now if I had said
All pit-bulls are dogs.
Twenty-five percent of dogs develop cancer.
Therefore:
There is a 25% chance a pit-bull will develop cancer.
This is an inductive argument (statistical syllogism), but only slightly better than the original. While the truth of the premises gives us some reason to think the conclusion is true, it presumes that the cancer rates among pit-bulls is the same as the cancer rates among dogs generally. And this may not be the case.
Belief Bias: The tendency to evaluate reasoning by the believability of its conclusion.
Confirmation Bias: the tendency to attach more weight to evidence that supports your viewpoint without justification.
Some cognitive biases are actually helpful heuristics, general rules we unconsciously follow in estimating probabilities. If we hear about a particular type of event occurring frequently, we might assign a high degree of probability to this type of event occurring in general. While this may be helpful in some cases, technically it is unwarranted. The actual probability of an event occurring has little to nothing to do with how frequently I have heard about such events. It does not follow that if one hears about spectacular airline crashes more often these days than in the past, their probability has increased.
We will be looking at these and other cognitive biases when we look at informal fallacies later on in the course. In large part the biases explain why these fallacies are often effective in persuading people despite providing no rational ground for persuasion.
Rational Choice
Critical thinking is aimed at coming to correct conclusions and making wise choices or decisions. We know from everyday experience that desires, fears, personal objectives, and various emotions affect choices. Experimental psychologists have discovered other, more unexpected and surprising, influences on our thinking.
In a recent experiment, researchers at Yale and Harvard Universities asked subjects to evaluate a job candidate by reading an applicant's resume, which had been attached to a clipboard. Some of the clipboards weighed 3/4 pound; the others weighed 4/4 pounds. Subjects holding the heavier clipboard rated the applicant as better overall. Evidently a "rational evaluation" of a person's qualifications may be affected by irrelevant physical cues.[7]
So what is the best defense of not falling prey to these biases? Making it a habit to think critically and to be especially critical of arguments and evidence that seem to accord with what we already believe.
Rhetoric:
When speaking to an audience, the first rule of rhetoric is “know your audience.” One might include logical syllogisms to persuade one’s audience. However, it is important to know how the premises of the argument will be understood and received. Also, complex and convoluted social forces make drawing clear conclusions even from reliable premises difficult. In fact, in some cases it may be that syllogistic reasoning may undercut a point you were making, not for logical reason but rather for rhetorical reasons. For example, when dealing with the behaviors of close friends or family members the seeming sterility of a syllogistic argument may in fact put off the person one is addressing. Personality, relationships, personal history, and timing all intersect sometime making is difficult to draw a simple conclusion. Syllogisms are a critical part of the speaking process for Aristotle. And speakers can use them to enhance the effectiveness in their speeches. However, in addition to logic, speakers need also to incorporate what Aristotle terms the canons of rhetoric.
From classical times onward, Aristotle’s guidelines for making a speech more compelling have been advocated by teachers of rhetoric.
· Invention
· Arrangement
· Style
· Memory
· Delivery
Social Media and Cognitive Biases
The Social Dilemma
2020 | PG-13 | 1h 34m | Documentary Films
2021 Emmy Nominee
From Jeff Orlowski, director of the News and Documentary Emmy Award-winning film "Chasing Ice."
This Netflix documentary-drama hybrid explores the dangerous human impact of social networking, with tech experts sounding the alarm on their own creations.
I am recommending that you watch this documentary, however I am requiring that you listen to the following podcast by Kim Komando.[8]
Kim Komando Explains
See Kim Komando’s Podcast with Jeff Orlowski, Director of Netflix’s documentary “The Social Dilemma: where they discuss how social media exploits these biases.
After some of Hollywood’s most recognized celebrities (big names like Leonardo Di Caprio, Kim Kardashian, and Ashton Kutcher just to name a few) took part in a social media boycott to fight back against online hatred, the attempt failed at doing so. The boycott lasted a whole day. It’s no secret we depend on social media for much of our information and news, “The Social Dilemma” on Netflix is a docudrama that explores the behind the scenes of big tech and highly influential social media outlets like Facebook, Instagram, and twitter.
Kim Komando, the podcaster, was so impressed and captivated by this film that she reached out to the director, Jeff Orlowski. She then proceeds to interview Orlowski. Some of the topics include how social media platforms have “ripped away” how information is shared. Those companies that use an advertising business model make more money, their incentives are for us to spend more time on the platform they present to us. They achieve this by presenting the user with customized information and feeds. There is a manipulation that is being purposefully played out where the goal is to change behavior. Algorithms are also used extensively to create content for viewers and keep users coming back. Algorithms are deployed, when it comes to politics for instance, but not exclusively, emphasizes content the used has a track record of preferring (or at least taking an interest in) and it excluded discourse with views of people with whom the user disagrees. There are so many layers of this manipulation that it has been demonstrated to feed and reaffirm cognitive biases and result in mental health issues for the users. These result in inaccurate perceptions, misinformation, unwarranted speculations and suspicions and conspiracy theories. Tracking while engaging these social media is also discussed. Even once we leave our Facebook or Instagram, if we remain “signed in,” the tracking continues. The concept of a digital avatar is also explored in the film and discussed in the podcast. Here again, our “likes” and “dislikes” are monitored and our digital avatars are able to model our behavior. This in turn, allows marketers and others to predict how we will respond to certain stimuli. This business model has led to the phrase “Facebook is always listening with a mic” and is the standard right now. This “social dilemma” has had and continues to have tremendous consequences on teenagers producing false ideas of what a good life is supposed to look like. It leads to unrealistic expectations when users base their perspectives on a social media feed. The question which confronts the critical thinker now is how the younger generations will react to years of relentless social media stimulation.
[1] I am assuming here that we are talking about genuine claims here and not pseudo-claims. There are occasions when one might be presented with what is purported to be a claim, but in fact it is not a genuine claim and is in fact neither true nor false. We will have more to say on this when we look at Logical Positivism.
[2] This is almost always the case. Incidentally, this is why in many forms of competitive high school and college debates the issue is stated: “Resolve – ls death penalty an effect deterrent to capital crimes?” Or “Resolve: Should The United States have an universal single-payer healthcare system?” With the issue being clearly stated, the two sides would be yes (Affirmative) and no (Negative) and the debate will move on from there.
[3] My philosophy of language professor would have a heart attack if I said this in front of him.)
[4] Note if the sentence as the property of being German, and the proposition does not, then they cannot be the same thing. One has a property the other does not share.
[5] Referenced in Scientific American Mind, January/February 2016, p. 13
[7] Reported by Randolph E. Schmid of the Associated Press, in The Sacramento Bee, June 23, 2010.
[8] Kimberly Ann Komando is the host of a weekend radio broadcast and syndicated on over 435 radio stations in the United States and two stations in Ontario, Canada, to an estimated 3.5+ million listeners.