when is critical thinking unhealthy

The Disadvantages of Critical Thinking: Don’t Overthink It

Sometimes, critical thinking can lead us to spend too much time and energy on analyzing every detail and possibility of a situation, which can cause stress. Overthinking can also prevent us from taking action or trusting our intuition when it is appropriate. And also make us focus on the flaws, risks, and weaknesses of an idea or a solution, rather than on its strengths, benefits, and opportunities. This can lead to a pessimistic or cynical attitude that can affect our motivation and creativity. Emphasizing the negative can also make us overlook or dismiss positive feedback. It's our duty to identify them and take actions.

Sanju Pradeepa

We’ve all had moments when we spent more time thinking than acting. And that’s usually because we got caught up in the process of critical thinking. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to indulge in. After all, it makes us analyze our decisions, weigh the pros and cons, and come out with a conclusion that is backed by facts and data.

But what if there’s a downside to critical thinking? To be clear, this isn’t an attempt to convince you to just go with your gut feeling all the time. Instead, this article is intended to provide perspective on how excessive overthinking can hinder your progress instead of helping you make an informed decision.

We’ll cover why using critical thinking too much can lead to poor decision-making, how it affects your stress levels, and when it matters most. So don’t overthink it. Let’s dive in and explore the disadvantages of critical thinking together.

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term you’ve probably heard bandied about, but what does it actually mean? In short, it’s a way of examining information and forming opinions or judgments based on the evidence at hand.

It’s the ability to take an analytical approach to a problem. This means that critical thinking involves analyzing information in order to form an opinion and then continuing to assess the data in order to challenge and modify that opinion.

At its best, critical thinking can lead to more informed decisions and more effective problem-solving. But there are also some disadvantages to this method of thinking. Read on for more information.

Let’s know more about Critical Thinking – 7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

Disadvantages of Critical Thinking, When You Have Too Much

We all value the power of critical thinking; it’s an invaluable skill to have in any field. But like anything, too much of a good thing can be a problem.

When we overthink things and become overly critical, the consequences can be significant. Often, it can prevent us from making decisions in a timely manner, if at all. It can also lead to missed opportunities, as we become paralyzed by our analysis and fail to seize the moment.

Furthermore, analysis paralysis can lead to high levels of stress and anxiety as we struggle to make up our minds on a given subject or action. We might even fail to recognize the real risks at hand when focusing too much on minor details and missing out on what matters most for successful outcomes.

The takeaway here is that being critical is valuable but remember to balance it with intuition and trust your instincts before you get too deep into overthinking things.

1. Difficulty in Decision-Making

One of the biggest disadvantages of critical thinking is that it can be difficult to make decisions. Because critical thinkers are constantly analyzing and evaluating data to draw conclusions, this can be a time-consuming process.

Even after all the facts and evidence have been gathered, it can take a long time to weigh the pros and cons of each option before making the best decision possible. This means that in some cases, a critical thinker will not be able to make a decision quickly or easily.

On top of that, if there is not enough data or information available about a particular decision, it can be even harder for a critical thinker to come up with a solid solution in an efficient manner. This can cause even more delays in decision-making and may lead to frustration as well as inadequate solutions.

2. You might be overthinking every situation.

When you engage in critical thinking, you may find yourself overthinking every situation and making an issue out of things that don’t need your attention. Going back to our earlier example, if you were to critically analyze the situation of your friend sleeping at your house, you might start to worry about the extra resources it may consume or about how it may affect your relationship. While this could be true, it might also be a bit excessive. In certain situations, it’s better to accept certain things and not overthink them.

This is one of the most common disadvantages of critical thinking: overthinking can lead to analysis paralysis, where one is so focused on analyzing a situation that one becomes unable to make any decisions at all. This can lead to frustration and decreased productivity as no progress is made. Additionally, engaging in too much critical thinking can lead to stress and burnout , which are both counterproductive in any situation.

Therefore, while it’s important to engage in critical thinking when necessary and appropriate, it’s also important not to overdo it. Otherwise, the outcomes you’re hoping for will never be achieved.

3. Unavoidable biases and prejudices

You may think that critical thinking is the answer to everything, but it has its disadvantages too. Most notably, it’s impossible to completely remove our biases and prejudices when looking at the facts. We all have a unique way of looking at things , and these biases may affect how we interpret evidence.

Confirmation Bias – One of the most common biases is called “ confirmation bias,”  where people seek out evidence that supports what they already believe or look for fault in evidence that contradicts it. This often leads to people discrediting any evidence they don’t agree with.

Overconfidence – Another common bias is overconfidence, which can lead us to make more decisions than necessary or, worse yet, poor decisions based on what we think we know.

These biases can affect how people interpret evidence and make decisions, regardless of how logical and reasoned those decisions might seem. That’s why we need to be aware of our own prior beliefs , values, and experiences to prevent our biases from affecting our judgment when using critical thinking skills.

4. Disruption of Imagination and Creativity

As great as it may sound, critical thinking can have its downsides, particularly in the area of imagination and creativity. The process of critical thinking often encourages a strict focus on facts and evidence, which can lead to tunnel vision and the inability to think outside the box.

When we focus too much on analysis and facts, we can become stifled in our creative pursuits. This means that instead of creating something new or being able to think of novel solutions to problems, we are confined by existing thought patterns that don’t allow for exploration or experimentation outside of what is already known.

Limiting Ourselves – Critical thinking is great when it comes to evaluating or assessing existing information or situations, but when it comes to innovating, critical thinking can be limiting. After all, if we are stuck looking at the same evidence from different perspectives, how much further can we go? We need to be open to new ideas and experiences if we want to move forward in our creative pursuits.

Training our brain for critical thinking – An over-reliance on critical thinking skills means that our brains get trained over time to do less imaginative things because our brains become accustomed to relying on a certain pattern of thinking. This means that our brains become so accustomed to certain types of analysis that there is little room left for coming up with unique solutions or uncovering innovative ideas.

It’s true; critical thinking has its advantages. But relying too heavily on this form of thinking could mean that you’re missing out on opportunities for growth and creativity.

5. Lack of Emotional Engagement

Another possible disadvantage of critical thinking is a lack of emotional engagement. The process of critical thinking involves looking at a problem objectively, dispassionately analyzing the facts, and logically concluding. This can be helpful, but it can also lead to a disconnect with the emotional aspect of the problem or issue at hand.

At times, emotional engagement is essential for tackling certain problems. For example, certain social issues might require individuals to tap into their emotions and empathy to come up with solutions that can bring about positive change without harming anyone or anything.

Moreover, emotional understanding is important for developing solutions that take into account different perspectives and experiences. This can help create solutions that are more inclusive and equitable for everyone involved.

Ultimately, critical thinking should not be used as an exclusive method for problem solving or decision-making; it should be used in conjunction with emotional understanding and empathy. This balance between intellectual analysis and emotional engagement can help to ensure solutions that are highly effective and satisfying for everyone involved.

6. Potential for stress and anxiety

As discussed previously, critical thinking can be a great skill to have. However, it does come with disadvantages. For instance, people who engage in critical thinking can experience significant stress and anxiety as a result of constantly evaluating complex ideas and situations.

This is especially true for those who are very good at it, as they may feel pressure to always think critically and make the “right” decision. Additionally, when you’re constantly taking a hard look at problems from all angles, it can be easier to become overwhelmed. It can be difficult to decide which way to go when you have so many options available.

The constant search for evidence – People who think critically often spend a lot of time searching for evidence or trying to find the correct interpretation of facts. While this might lead to effective problem-solving and decision-making, it can also be exhausting psychologically. When you’re constantly sifting through evidence looking for the right answer, it can be hard not to become overwhelmed or discouraged if you don’t find what you’re looking for right away.

The struggle between intuition and logic – It’s also common for critical thinkers to struggle with integrating intuition into their thought processes since they tend to rely heavily on logic and evidence-based reasoning. While this type of thinking is valuable in certain scenarios, relying solely on logic can lead to overlooking potential solutions that may be based more on emotion or instinct than on facts. This can make it difficult for critical thinkers to make decisions without feeling like they’ve overlooked something important.

7. Critical thinking can be time-consuming.

You know that critical thinking is important, but have you ever considered the time it takes to think critically? Well, thinking critically can be a time-consuming endeavor .

You might not think twice about making a quick decision based on intuition or reverting to old habits, but truly making a thoughtful, well-informed decision requires more effort. It’s easy to underestimate the amount of time it can take to dig into the facts and look at an issue from all angles, but that’s what critical thinking is all about.

To ensure that you get the best possible outcome, there are several steps in critical thinking:

• Identify and analyze the problem.
• Research and gather data from reliable sources.
• Generate alternative solutions and evaluate them logically.
• Choose the most suitable option.
• Implement your chosen option, then evaluate its effectiveness and impact.
• Adjust your plan as needed.

This type of process uses up more of our precious time, but it is worth it when you come out with an informed, well-reasoned solution that you can confidently stand behind. That’s why so many organizations prioritize this way of thinking when faced with tough decisions.

8. Critical thinking can lead to uncertainty.

One of the major disadvantages of critical thinking is that it often leads to uncertainty. When you’re looking at a problem or issue from all angles and considering all the available evidence, it can be difficult to come to a definitive solution. It can be hard to know exactly what steps to take as there may be multiple potential solutions.

This can lead to indecision and doubt, which can slow down progress on any project you’re working on. Furthermore, if there are many possible solutions available, it can take time and effort to evaluate each one fully before coming to a decision.

Another downside of critical thinking is that it requires a lot of mental energy and effort. Balancing this with other aspects of work or life can be tricky, as focusing too much on one area at the expense of others is not desirable. It’s important to remember that there are limits to how much critical thinking you should do in any given situation.

While there are certain disadvantages to critical thinking, it is certainly a skill worth having. It can enable you to see past false claims and identify logical fallacies, form your own well-reasoned opinions, and spot when others might be attempting to manipulate or deceive you.

That said, it’s important to remember that critical thinking doesn’t necessarily lead to the “right” answer. It’s important to keep an open mind and be willing to have your beliefs challenged. When used responsibly, critical thinking can be an invaluable asset to anyone. 

• The Advantages & Disadvantages of Critical Thinking by MICAH MCDUNNIGAN published in CLASSROOM (https://classroom.synonym.com/)
• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking published in EGGCELLENT Work (https://eggcellentwork.com/)

Call to Action

If you want to learn more about this types of topic and discover some tips and tricks to boost your brain power, click the link below and subscribe to our newsletter. You will also get access to exclusive content and offers that will help you achieve your goals and become smarter every day.

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Stop Overthinking

Here's how to recognize the signs that you're overthinking

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Laura Porter

• How to Stop

Overthinking can be a hard habit to break . You might even convince yourself that thinking about something for a really long time is the key to developing the best solution. But that’s usually not the case.

In fact, the longer you think about something, the less time and energy you have to take productive action. Plus, thinking about all the things you could have done differently, second-guessing your decisions, and continuously imagining worst-case scenarios can be exhausting.

Learn what overthinking is, some signs you may be an overthinker, and a few reasons some people think too much. Also, explore different types of overthinking, the effects on your mental health and relationships, and how to stop overthinking things in your life.

What Is Overthinking?

Overthinking involves thinking about a certain topic or situation excessively, analyzing it for long periods of time. When you overthink, you have a hard time getting your mind to focus on anything else. It becomes consumed by the one thing you are thinking about.

While some people believe that overthinking may be helpful since it involves looking at an issue or problem from nearly every viewpoint possible and anticipating future events, the opposite is true. Research suggests that overthinking is associated with feelings of depression , anxiety , and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Everyone overthinks sometimes. Maybe you keep thinking about all the things that could go wrong when you give your presentation next week, or you’ve wasted countless hours trying to decide what to wear to your upcoming job interview.

Finding ways to put an end to overthinking can help you take action in your life versus simply thinking about things that are bothering you. Instead of going over something in your mind again and again, you can start to take the steps necessary to resolve the situation.

Signs You're Overthinking

If you're wondering whether you are overthinking a particular situation or concern, there are a few things you can look for. Signs of overthinking include:

• An inability to think about anything else
• Being unable to relax
• Constantly feeling worried or anxious
• Fixating on things outside of your control
• Feeling mentally exhausted
• Having a lot of negative thoughts
• Replaying a situation or experience in your mind
• Second-guessing your decisions
• Thinking of all the worst-case scenarios

Causes of Overthinking

Overthinking can happen for several reasons. Here are a few to consider.

Not Being Solution-Focused

Overthinking is different from problem-solving. Overthinking is about dwelling on the problem, while problem-solving involves looking for a solution.

Imagine a storm is coming. Here’s an example that shows the difference between overthinking and problem-solving:

• Overthinking: “I wish the storm wouldn’t come. It’s going to be awful. I hope the house doesn’t get damaged. Why do these things always have to happen to me? I can’t handle this.”
• Problem-solving: “I will go outside and pick up everything that might blow away. I’ll put sandbags against the garage door to prevent flooding. If we get a lot of rain I’ll go to the store to buy plywood so I can board up the windows.”

Problem-solving can lead to productive action. Overthinking, on the other hand, fuels uncomfortable emotions and doesn’t look for solutions.

Experiencing Repetitive Thoughts

Ruminating —or rehashing the same things over and over again—isn’t helpful. But, when you’re overthinking, you might find yourself replaying a conversation in your head repeatedly or imagining something bad happening many times.

Dwelling on your problems, mistakes, and shortcomings, increases your risk of mental health problems, according to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.  

As your mental health declines, you are more likely you are to ruminate on your thoughts. It’s a repetitive cycle that can be tough to break.

Your Brain Won't Shut Off

When you’re overthinking you might feel like your brain won’t shut off. When you try to sleep, you might even feel as though your brain is on overdrive as it replays scenarios in your head and causes you to imagine bad things happening.

Research confirms what you likely already know—rumination interferes with sleep. Overthinking makes it harder to fall asleep. 

Overthinking impairs the quality of your sleep too. So it’s harder to fall into a deep slumber when your brain is busy overthinking everything.  

Difficulty falling asleep may contribute to more worrisome thoughts. For example, when you don’t fall asleep right away, you might imagine that you’ll be overtired the following day. That may cause you to feel anxious—which may make it even harder to fall asleep.

Making Decisions Is a Struggle

You might try to convince yourself that thinking longer and harder helps you. After all, you’re looking at a problem from every possible angle. But, overanalyzing and obsessing actually becomes a barrier. Research shows thinking too much makes it tough to make decisions.

If you’re indecisive about everything from what to eat for dinner to which hotel you should book, you might be overthinking things.

It's very likely that you are wasting a lot of time looking for second opinions and researching your options, when ultimately, those little choices might not matter so much.

Decisions are Second-Guessed

Overthinking sometimes involves beating yourself up for the decisions you already made.

You could waste a lot of time thinking your life would be better if you’d only taken that other job or not started a business. Or maybe you get upset with yourself for not seeing red flags sooner—because you believe they should have been obvious!

And while a little healthy self-reflection can help you learn from your mistakes, rehashing and second-guessing is a form of mental torture.

Overthinking can take a toll on your mood and may make it even more difficult to make decisions in the future.

Types of Overthinking

There are also different types of overthinking that a person might engage in. Many of these are caused by cognitive distortions , which are negative or distorted ways of thinking.

All-or-Nothing Thinking

This type of overthinking involves only seeing situations in black or white. Instead of looking at both the good and the bad, you might analyze an event only in terms of it being a total success or a total failure. 

Catastrophizing

This type of overthinking involves thinking things are worse than they are. For example, you might fear that you will fail an exam. This then leads to worry that you will fail the class, which will then lead to failing school, not getting a degree, and not being able to find a job. This type of overthinking sets you up to worry about unrealistic worst-case scenarios.

Overgeneralizing

This form of overthinking happens when you base a rule or expectation for the future on a single or random event from the past. Instead of accepting that different outcomes are possible, you might assume that certain things will "always" or "never" happen. In this case, overgeneralizing one event from the past to every event in the future often leads to overthinking and worrying about things that might never occur.

Effects of Overthinking

Overthinking is not a mental illness, and while overthinking can make you anxious, it is not necessarily the same thing as anxiety. However, it can often play a role in the development and maintenance of several mental health conditions. Some disorders that are associated with overthinking include:

• Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
• Panic disorder
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Social anxiety disorder (SAD)

Overthinking can have a bidirectional relationship with mental health issues. Stressful events, depression, and anxiety can make people more prone to overthinking, and then this overthinking contributes to worse stress, anxiety, and depression.

Finding a way to break out of this cycle can often help relieve some symptoms of these conditions.

Overthinking can also take a serious toll on relationships. Assuming the worst and jumping to incorrect conclusions can lead to arguments and conflicts with other people. Obsessing about every little thing other people do and say can also mean that you misunderstand what they are trying to convey.

It can also lead to relationship anxiety , and behaviors like constantly needing reassurance or attempting to control other people. Such behavior can harm your relationships with others.

Research shows thinking less about a problem might actually be the key to developing better solutions. Here are a few ways to stop overthinking .

Distract Yourself

Rather than sit and think about a problem for endless amounts of time, you can distract yourself for a bit.

Your brain may find better ways to work out a solution in the background while you’re distracted with another task—like working in the garden. Or, you might “sleep on it” and discover that your brain solves the problem for you while you’re sleeping.

A brief distraction can give you a break. And it may get your mind focused on something more productive. And, your brain might even develop a solution for you when you stop thinking about the problem.

Challenge Negative Thoughts

Remind yourself that your thoughts are not facts. Every thought you have will not be truthful, accurate, or even realistic. Learning how to reframe them in a more positive way can help relieve the tendency to overthink.

When you find yourself overthinking, challenge these thoughts. Ask yourself if they are realistic. Consider alternative scenarios. It can be difficult at first, but learning to call out your own overthinking can help you learn to replace negative thoughts with more helpful ones.

Work on Your Interpersonal Skills

Studies have found that improving your interpersonal skills can help stop you from overthinking since these skills have a large effect on this particular habit. Ways to develop stronger interpersonal skills include:

• Increasing your self-awareness
• Boosting your self-confidence
• Practicing self-control

Meditation can be an excellent tool for redirecting your thoughts more positively. As you meditate, work on focusing on your breath. The goal is not to clear your mind, but rather to focus it on something and practice redirecting your focus whenever your thoughts wander.

With practice, you will find it much easier to halt overthinking in its tracks before it becomes a more serious problem. Research has found that a 10-minute meditation can be an effective way to stop intrusive thoughts and worry.

Practice Self-Acceptance

Overthinking often stems from dwelling on past mistakes or worrying about things that you cannot change. Instead of berating yourself for things you might regret, try working toward being more accepting and compassionate of yourself. 

Research suggests that people who extend themselves such compassion are more likely to use adaptive coping strategies.

Strategies that may help you become more self-accepting include:

• Practicing gratitude and thinking about the aspects of yourself that you appreciate
• Cultivating a strong support system made up of people who can provide encouragement and love
• Forgive yourself for things you regret

Get Therapy

If you can’t break free from overthinking, consider getting professional help. Overthinking may be a symptom of a mental health issue, like depression or anxiety. On the flip side, it may also increase your susceptibility to developing mental health problems. 

A mental health professional may teach you skills that will help you stop obsessing, ruminating, and dwelling on things that aren’t helpful. They may also help you identify coping strategies that work for you, such as mindfulness or physical exercise.

If you feel like your brain is on overdrive, talk to your physician. Your doctor may be able to refer you to a therapist who can help you put an end to overthinking.

A Word From Verywell

Overthinking can create an endless cycle of stress and worry, which can ultimately cause you to feel less prepared, motivated, and confident. It can also play a role in mental health issues like anxiety and depression, so it is important to find ways to break out of such destructive thought patterns.

Self-help strategies like distracting yourself and challenging your thoughts can help. If overthinking is taking a toll on your well-being, consider talking to a mental health professional. They can help you develop the mental tools and coping skills you need to prevent overthinking.

Kaiser BN, Haroz EE, Kohrt BA, Bolton PA, Bass JK, Hinton DE. "Thinking too much": A systematic review of a common idiom of distress . Soc Sci Med . 2016;147:170-183. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.044

Michl LC, McLaughlin KA, Shepherd K, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Rumination as a mechanism linking stressful life events to symptoms of depression and anxiety: longitudinal evidence in early adolescents and adults .  J Abnorm Psychol . 2013;122(2):339-352. doi:10.1037/a0031994

Thomsen DK, Mehlsen MY, Christensen S, Zachariae R. Rumination—relationship with negative mood and sleep quality . Personality and Individual Differences . 2003;34(7):1293-1301. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00120-4 

Strick M, Dijksterhuis A, van Baaren RB. Unconscious-Thought Effects Take Place Off-Line, Not On-Line .  Psychological Science . 2010;21(4):484-488. doi:10.1177/0956797610363555

Rnic K, Dozois DJ, Martin RA.  Cognitive distortions, humor styles, and depression .  Eur J Psychol . 2016;12(3):348-362. doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1118

Michl LC, McLaughlin KA, Shepherd K, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Rumination as a mechanism linking stressful life events to symptoms of depression and anxiety: longitudinal evidence in early adolescents and adults . J Abnorm Psychol . 2013;122(2):339-52. doi:10.1037/a0031994

Pieter R, Nababan D, Ariawan S, Listio S, Ruben S. Improving interpersonal skills to overcome the negative effects of overthinking in the disruption era . BIRCI-J . 2022;5(2):10632-10642. doi:10.33258/birci.v5i2.4876

Ainsworth B, Bolderston H, Garner M. Testing the differential effects of acceptance and attention-based psychological interventions on intrusive thoughts and worry . Behaviour Research and Therapy . 2017;91:72-77. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.01.012

Chwyl C, Chen P, Zaki J. Beliefs about self-compassion: Implications for coping and self-improvement . Pers Soc Psychol Bull . 2021 Sep;47(9):1327-1342. doi:10.1177/0146167220965303

By Amy Morin, LCSW Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

School's out

A critical take on education and schooling

Let’s stop trying to teach students critical thinking

Professor of Education, University of Derby

View all partners

Many teachers say they strive to teach their students to be critical thinkers. They even pride themselves on it; after all, who wants children to just take in knowledge passively?

But there is a problem with this widespread belief. The truth is that you can’t teach people to be critical unless you are critical yourself. This involves more than asking young people to “look critically” at something, as if criticism was a mechanical task.

As a teacher, you have to have a critical spirit. This does not mean moaning endlessly about education policies you dislike or telling students what they should think. It means first and foremost that you are capable of engaging in deep conversation. This means debate and discussion based on considerable knowledge – something that is almost entirely absent in the educational world. It also has to take place in public, with parents and others who are not teachers, not just in the classroom or staffroom.

The need for teachers to engage in this kind of deep conversation has been forgotten, because they think that being critical is a skill. But the Australian philosopher John Passmore criticised this idea nearly half a century ago:

If being critical consisted simply in the application of a skill then it could in principle be taught by teachers who never engaged in it except as a game or defensive device, somewhat as a crack rifle shot who happened to be a pacifist might nevertheless be able to teach rifle-shooting to soldiers. But in fact being critical can be taught only by men who can themselves freely partake in critical discussion.

The misuses of ‘criticism’

The misuse of the idea of “criticism” first became clear to me when I gave a talk about critical thinking to a large group of first-year students. One student said that the lecturers she most disliked were the ones who banged on about the importance of being critical. She longed for one of them to assert or say something, so she could learn from them and perhaps challenge what they say.

The idea that critical thinking is a skill is the first of three popular, but false views that all do disservice to the idea of being critical. They also allow many teachers to believe they are critical thinkers when they are the opposite:

“Critical thinking” is a skill. No it is not. At best this view reduces criticism to second-rate or elementary instruction in informal and some formal logic. It is usually second-rate logic and poor philosophy offered in bite-sized nuggets. Seen as a skill, critical thinking can also mean subjection to the conformism of an ideological yoke. If a feminist or Marxist teacher demands a certain perspective be adopted this may seem like it is “criticism” or acquiring a “critical perspective”, but it is actually a training in feminism or Marxism which could be done through tick box techniques. It almost acquires the character of a mental drill.

“Critical thinking” means indoctrination. When teachers talk about the need to be “critical” they often mean instead that students must “conform”. It is often actually teaching students to be “critical” of their unacceptable ideas and adopt the right ones. Having to support multiculturalism and diversity are the most common of the “correct ideas” that everyone has to adopt. Professional programmes in education, nursing, social work and others often promote this sort of “criticism”. It used to be called “indoctrination”.

“Critical theories” are “uncritical theories”. When some theory has the prefix “critical” it requires the uncritical acceptance of a certain political perspective. Critical theory, critical race theory, critical race philosophy, critical realism, critical reflective practice all explicitly have political aims.

What is criticism?

Criticism, according to Victorian cultural critic Matthew Arnold , is a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world. We should all be as “bound” by that definition as he was. We need only to teach the best that is known and thought and “criticism” will take care of itself. That is a lesson from 150 years ago that every teacher should learn.

Critical thinking seen as Arnold defined it is more like a character trait – like having “a critical spirit”, or a willingness to engage in the “give and take of critical discussion”. Criticism is always about the world and not about you.

The philosopher most associated with the critical spirit is Socrates. In the 1930s, another Australian philosopher John Anderson put the Socratic view of education most clearly when he wrote: “The Socratic education begins … with the awakening of the mind to the need for criticism, to the uncertainty of the principles by which it supposed itself to be guided.”

But when I discuss Socratic criticism with teachers and teacher trainers I miss out Anderson’s mention of the word “uncertainty”. This is because many teachers will assume that this “uncertainty” means questioning those bad ideas you have and conforming to an agreed version of events, or an agreed theory.

Becoming a truly critical thinker is more difficult today because so many people want to be a Socrates. But Socrates only sought knowledge and to be a Socrates today means putting knowledge first.

• Critical thinking
• Teaching reading

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Program Development Officer - Business Processes

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution. At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions. For effective questioning, start by holding your hypotheses loosely. Be willing to fundamentally reconsider your initial conclusions — and do so without defensiveness. Second, listen more than you talk through active listening. Third, leave your queries open-ended, and avoid yes-or-no questions. Fourth, consider the counterintuitive to avoid falling into groupthink. Fifth, take the time to stew in a problem, rather than making decisions unnecessarily quickly. Last, ask thoughtful, even difficult, follow-ups.

Are you tackling a new and difficult problem at work? Recently promoted and trying to both understand your new role and bring a fresh perspective? Or are you new to the workforce and seeking ways to meaningfully contribute alongside your more experienced colleagues? If so, critical thinking — the ability to analyze and effectively break down an issue in order to make a decision or find a solution — will be core to your success. And at the heart of critical thinking is the ability to formulate deep, different, and effective questions.

• JC John Coleman is the author of the HBR Guide to Crafting Your Purpose . Subscribe to his free newsletter, On Purpose , follow him on Twitter @johnwcoleman, or contact him at johnwilliamcoleman.com.

Partner Center

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole

Critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.

By Charlie Warzel

Mr. Warzel is an Opinion writer at large.

For an academic, Michael Caulfield has an odd request: Stop overthinking what you see online.

Mr. Caulfield, a digital literacy expert at Washington State University Vancouver, knows all too well that at this very moment, more people are fighting for the opportunity to lie to you than at perhaps any other point in human history.

Misinformation rides the greased algorithmic rails of powerful social media platforms and travels at velocities and in volumes that make it nearly impossible to stop. That alone makes information warfare an unfair fight for the average internet user. But Mr. Caulfield argues that the deck is stacked even further against us. That the way we’re taught from a young age to evaluate and think critically about information is fundamentally flawed and out of step with the chaos of the current internet.

“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”

In other words: Resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part, by reimagining media literacy for the internet hellscape we occupy.

It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information. Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford, and Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and look elsewhere , a concept called lateral reading .

For instance, imagine you were to visit Stormfront, a white supremacist message board, to try to understand racist claims in order to debunk them. “Even if you see through the horrible rhetoric, at the end of the day you gave that place however many minutes of your time,” Mr. Caulfield said. “Even with good intentions, you run the risk of misunderstanding something, because Stormfront users are way better at propaganda than you. You won’t get less racist reading Stormfront critically, but you might be overloaded by information and overwhelmed.”

Our current information crisis, Mr. Caulfield argues, is an attention crisis.

“The goal of disinformation is to capture attention, and critical thinking is deep attention,” he wrote in 2018 . People learn to think critically by focusing on something and contemplating it deeply — to follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies.

That natural human mind-set is a liability in an attention economy. It allows grifters, conspiracy theorists, trolls and savvy attention hijackers to take advantage of us and steal our focus. “Whenever you give your attention to a bad actor, you allow them to steal your attention from better treatments of an issue, and give them the opportunity to warp your perspective,” Mr. Caulfield wrote.

One way to combat this dynamic is to change how we teach media literacy: Internet users need to learn that our attention is a scarce commodity that is to be spent wisely.

In 2016, Mr. Caulfield met Mr. Wineburg, who suggested modeling the process after the way professional fact checkers assess information. Mr. Caulfield refined the practice into four simple principles:

2. Investigate the source.

3. Find better coverage.

4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

Otherwise known as SIFT.

Mr. Caulfield walked me through the process using an Instagram post from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist, falsely alleging a link between the human papillomavirus vaccine and cancer. “If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.

“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said.

He probed deeper into the method to find better coverage by copying the main claim in Mr. Kennedy’s post and pasting that into a Google search. The first two results came from Agence France-Presse’s fact-check website and the National Institutes of Health. His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science.

The SIFT method and the instructional teaching unit (about six hours of class work) that accompanies it has been picked up by dozens of universities across the country and in some Canadian high schools. What is potentially revolutionary about SIFT is that it focuses on making quick judgments. A SIFT fact check can and should take just 30, 60, 90 seconds to evaluate a piece of content.

The four steps are based on the premise that you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more. Also, spending 15 minutes to determine a single fact in order to decipher a tweet or a piece of news coming from a source you’ve never seen before will often leave you more confused than you were before. “The question we want students asking is: Is this a good source for this purpose, or could I find something better relatively quickly?” Mr. Caulfield said. “I’ve seen in the classroom where a student finds a great answer in three minutes but then keeps going and ends up won over by bad information.”

SIFT has its limits. It’s designed for casual news consumers, not experts or those attempting to do deep research. A reporter working on an investigative story or trying to synthesize complex information will have to go deep. But for someone just trying to figure out a basic fact, it’s helpful not to get bogged down. “We’ve been trained to think that Googling or just checking one resource we trust is almost like cheating,” he said. “But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed. But deeper into the process, it often gets weirder. It’s important to know when to stop.”

Christina Ladam, an assistant political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, has seen the damage firsthand. While teaching an introductory class as a Ph.D. student in 2015, she noticed her students had trouble vetting sources and distinguishing credible news from untrustworthy information. During one research assignment on the 2016 presidential race, multiple students cited a debunked claim from a satirical website claiming that Ben Carson, a candidate that year, had been endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. “Some of these students had never had somebody even talk to them about checking sources or looking for fake news,” she told me. “It was just uncritical acceptance if it fit with the narrative in their head or complete rejection if it didn’t.”

Ms. Ladam started teaching a SIFT-based media literacy unit in her political science classes because of the method’s practical application. The unit is short, only two weeks long. Her students latched onto quick tricks like how to hover over a Twitter handle and see if the account looks legitimate or is a parody account or impersonation. They learned how to reverse image search using Google to check if a photo had been doctored or if similar photos had been published by trusted news outlets. Students were taught to identify claims in Facebook or Instagram posts and, with a few searches, decide — even if they’re unsure of the veracity — whether the account seems to be a trustworthy guide or if they should look elsewhere.

The goal isn’t to make political judgments or to talk students out of a particular point of view, but to try to get them to understand the context of a source of information and make decisions about its credibility. The course is not precious about overly academic sources, either.

“The students are confused when I tell them to try and trace something down with a quick Wikipedia search, because they’ve been told not to do it,” she said. “Not for research papers, but if you’re trying to find out if a site is legitimate or if somebody has a history as a conspiracy theorist and you show them how to follow the page’s citation, it’s quick and effective, which means it’s more likely to be used.”

As a journalist who can be a bit of a snob about research methods, it makes me anxious to type this advice. Use Wikipedia for quick guidance! Spend less time torturing yourself with complex primary sources! A part of my brain hears this and reflexively worries these methods could be exploited by conspiracy theorists. But listening to Ms. Ladam and Mr. Caulfield describe disinformation dynamics, it seems that snobs like me have it backward.

Think about YouTube conspiracy theorists or many QAnon or anti-vaccine influencers. Their tactic, as Mr. Caulfield noted, is to flatter viewers while overloading them with three-hour videos laced with debunked claims and pseudoscience, as well as legitimate information. “The internet offers this illusion of explanatory depth,” he said. “Until 20 seconds ago, you’d never thought about, say, race and IQ, but now, suddenly, somebody is treating you like an expert. It’s flattering your intellect, and so you engage, but you don’t really stand a chance.”

What he described is a kind of informational hubris we have that is quite difficult to fight. But what SIFT and Mr. Caulfield’s lessons seem to do is flatter their students in a different way: by reminding us our attention is precious.

The goal of SIFT isn’t to be the arbiter of truth but to instill a reflex that asks if something is worth one’s time and attention and to turn away if not. Because the method is less interested in political judgments, Mr. Caulfield and Ms. Ladam noticed, students across the political spectrum are more likely to embrace it. By the end of the two-week course, Ms. Ladam said, students are better at finding primary sources for research papers. In discussions they’re less likely to fall back on motivated reasoning. Students tend to be less defensive when confronted with a piece of information they disagree with. Even if their opinions on a broader issue don’t change, a window is open that makes conversation possible. Perhaps most promising, she has seen her students share the methods with family members who post dubious news stories online. “It sounds so simple, but I think that teaching people how to check their news source by even a quick Wikipedia can have profound effects,” she said.

SIFT is not an antidote to misinformation. Poor media literacy is just one component of a broader problem that includes more culpable actors like politicians, platforms and conspiracy peddlers. If powerful, influential people with the ability to command vast quantities of attention use that power to warp reality and platforms don’t intervene, no mnemonic device can stop them. But SIFT may add a bit of friction into the system. Most important, it urges us to take the attention we save with SIFT and apply it to issues that matter to us.

“Right now we are taking the scarcest, most valuable resource we have — our attention — and we’re using it to try to repair the horribly broken information ecosystem,” Mr. Caulfield said. “We’re throwing good money after bad.”

Our focus isn’t free, and yet we’re giving it away with every glance at a screen. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, the economics are in our favor. Demand for our attention is at an all-time high, and we control supply. It’s time we increased our price.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

An earlier version of this article misattributed a quotation about determining the reliability of a news source. It was Michael Caulfield — not Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who said, “The question we want students asking is: Is this a good source for this purpose, or could I find something better relatively quickly?”

How we handle corrections

Charlie Warzel , a New York Times Opinion writer at large, covers technology, media, politics and online extremism. He welcomes your tips and feedback: [email protected]  | @ cwarzel

Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts

2023 Update Peter A. Facione, Ph.D.

The late George Carlin worked “critical thinking” into one of his comedic monologue rants on the perils of trusting our lives and fortunes to the decision-making of people who were gullible, uninformed, and unreflective. Had he lived to experience the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009, he would have surely added more to his caustic but accurate assessments regarding how failing to anticipate the consequences of one’s decisions often leads to disastrous results not only for the decision maker, but for many other people as well.

After years of viewing higher education as more of a private good which benefits only the student, we are again beginning to appreciate higher education as being also a public good which benefits society. Is it not a wiser social policy to invest in the education of the future workforce, rather than to suffer the financial costs and endure the fiscal and social burdens associated with economic weakness, public health problems, crime, and avoidable poverty? Perhaps that realization, along with its obvious advantages for high level strategic decision making, is what led the Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to comment on critical thinking in his commencement address to a graduating class of military officers.

Teach people to make good decisions and you have equipped them to improve their own futures and become contributing members of society, rather than burdens on society. Becoming educated and practicing good judgment does not absolutely guarantee a life of happiness, virtue, or economic success, but it surely offers a better chance at those things. And it is clearly better than enduring the consequences of making bad decisions and better than burdening friends, family, and all the rest of us with the unwanted and avoidable consequences of those poor choices.

Defining “Critical Thinking”

Yes, surely, we have all heard business executives, policy makers, civic leaders, and educators talking about critical thinking. At times we found ourselves wondering exactly what critical thinking was and why it is considered so useful and important. This essay takes a deeper look at these questions.

But rather than beginning with an abstract definition – as if critical thinking were about memorization, which is not the case – give this thought experiment a try: Imagine you were invited to a movie by a friend. But it is not a movie you want to see. So, your friend asks you why. You give your honest reason. The movie offends your sense of decency. Your friend asks you to clarify your reason by explaining what bothers you about the film. You reply that it is not the language used or the sexuality portrayed, but you find the violence in the film offensive.

Sure, that should be a good enough answer. But suppose your friend, perhaps being a bit philosophically inclined or simply curious or argumentative, pursues the matter further by asking you to define what you mean by “offensive violence.”

Take a minute and give it a try. How would you define “offensive violence” as it applies to movies? Can you write a characterization which captures what this commonly used concept contains? Take care, though, we would not want to make the definition so broad that all movie violence would be automatically “offensive.” And check to be sure your way of defining “offensive violence” fits with how the rest of the people who know and use English would understand the term. Otherwise, they will not be able to understand what you mean when you use that expression.

Did you produce a definition that works? How do you know?

What you just did with the expression “offensive violence” is very much the same as what had to be done with the expression “critical thinking.” At one level we all know what “critical thinking” means — it means good thinking, almost the opposite of illogical, irrational, thinking. But when we test our understanding further, we run into questions. For example, is critical thinking the same as creative thinking, are they different, or is one part of the other? How do critical thinking and native intelligence or scholastic aptitude relate? Does critical thinking focus on the subject matter or content that you know or on the process you use when you reason about that content?

It might not hurt at all if you formed some tentative preliminary ideas about the questions we just raised. We humans learn better when we stop frequently to reflect, rather than just plowing from the top of the page to the bottom without coming up for air.

Back to critical thinking – let us ask ourselves to generate possible examples of strong critical thinking? How about the adroit and clever questioning of Socrates or a good attorney or interviewer? Or, what about the clever investigative approaches used by police detectives and crime scene analysts? Would we not want to also include people working together to solve a problem as they consider and discuss their options? How about someone who is good at listening to all sides of a dispute, considering all the facts, and then deciding what is relevant and what is not, and then rendering a thoughtful judgment? And maybe too, someone who can summarize complex ideas clearly with fairness to all sides, or a person who can come up with the most coherent and justifiable explanation of what a passage of written material means? Or the person who can readily devise sensible alternatives to explore, but who does not become defensive about abandoning them if they do not work? And the person who can explain exactly how a particular conclusion was reached, or why certain criteria apply?

Or, considering the concept of critical thinking from the opposite direction, we might ask what the consequences of failing to use our critical thinking might be. Imagine for a moment what could happen when a person or a group of people decides important matters without pausing first to think things through.

Expert Opinion

An international group of experts was asked to try to form a consensus about the meaning of critical thinking. One of the first things they did was to ask themselves the question: Who are the best critical thinkers we know and what is it about them that leads us to consider them the best? So, who are the best critical thinkers you know? Why do you think they are strong critical thinkers? Can you draw from those examples a description that is more abstract? For example, consider effective trial lawyers, apart from how they conduct their personal lives or whether their client is guilty or innocent, just look at how the lawyers develop their cases in court. They use reasons to try to convince the judge and jury of their client’s claim of guilt or innocence. They offer evidence and evaluate the significance of the evidence presented by the opposition lawyers. They interpret testimony. They analyze and evaluate the arguments advanced by the other side.

Now, consider the example of a team of people trying to solve a problem. The team members, unlike the courtroom’s adversarial situation, try to collaborate. The members of an effective team do not compete against each other. They work together, like colleagues, for the common goal. Unless they solve the problem, none of them has won. When they find the way to solve the problem, they all have won. So, from analyzing just two examples we can generalize something especially important: critical thinking is thinking that has a purpose (proving a point, interpreting what something means, solving a problem), but critical thinking can be a collaborative, noncompetitive endeavor. And, by the way, even lawyers collaborate. They can work together on a common defense or a joint prosecution, and they can also cooperate with each other to get to the truth so that justice is done.

We will come to a more precise definition of critical thinking soon enough. But first, there is something else we can learn from paradigm examples. When were you thinking about “offensive violence” did you come up with any examples that were tough to classify? Borderline cases, as it were — an example that one person might consider offensive, but another might reasonably regard as non-offensive. Yes, well, so did we. This is going to happen with all abstract concepts. It happens with the concept of critical thinking as well. There are people of whom we would say, on certain occasions, this person is a good thinker, clear, logical, thoughtful, attentive to the facts, open to alternatives, but, wow, at other times, look out! When you get this person on such-and-such a topic, well it is all over then. You have pushed some kind of button, and the person does not want to hear what anybody else has to say. The person’s mind is made up ahead of time. New facts are pushed aside. No other point of view is tolerated.

Do you know any people that might fit that general description?

Now, formulate a list of cases — people that are clearly strong critical thinkers and clearly weak critical thinkers and some who are on the borderline. Considering all those cases, what is it about them that led you to decide which were which? Suggestion: What can the strong critical thinkers do (what mental abilities do they have), that the weak critical thinkers have trouble doing? What skills or approaches do the strong critical thinkers habitually seem to exhibit which the weak critical thinkers seem not to possess?

Core Critical Thinking Skills

Above we suggested you look for a list of mental skills and habits of mind, the experts, when faced with the same problem you are working on, refer to their lists as including cognitive skills and dispositions .

Quoting from the consensus statement of the national panel of experts: interpretation is “to comprehend and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures, or criteria.” [1] Interpretation includes the sub-skills of categorization, decoding significance, and clarifying meaning. Can you think of examples of interpretation? How about recognizing a problem and describing it without bias? How about reading a person’s intentions in the expression on her face; distinguishing a main idea from subordinate ideas in a text; constructing a tentative categorization or way of organizing something you are studying; paraphrasing someone’s ideas in your own words; or, clarifying what a sign, chart or graph means? What about identifying an author’s purpose, theme, or point of view? How about what you did above when you clarified what “offensive violence” meant?

Again, from the experts: analysis is “to identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions, or other forms of representation intended to express belief, judgment, experiences, reasons, information, or opinions.” The experts include examining ideas, detecting arguments, and analyzing arguments as sub-skills of analysis. Again, can you come up with some examples of analysis? What about identifying the similarities and differences between two approaches to the solution of a given problem? What about picking out the main claim made in a newspaper editorial and tracing back the reasons the editor offers in support of that claim? Or, what about identifying unstated assumptions; constructing a way to represent a main conclusion and the reasons given to support or criticize it; sketching the relationship of sentences or paragraphs to each other and to the main purpose of the passage? What about graphically organizing this essay, in your own way, knowing that its purpose is to give a preliminary idea about what critical thinking means?

The experts define evaluation as meaning “to assess the credibility of statements or other representations which are accounts or descriptions of a person’s perception, experience, situation, judgment, belief, or opinion; and to assess the logical strength of the actual or intended inferential relationships among statements, descriptions, questions or other forms of representation.” Your examples? How about judging an author’s or speaker’s credibility, comparing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative interpretations, determining the credibility of a source of information, judging if two statements contradict each other, or judging if the evidence at hand supports the conclusion being drawn? Among the examples the experts propose are these: “recognizing the factors which make a person a credible witness regarding a given event or a credible authority with regard to a given topic,” “judging if an argument’s conclusion follows either with certainty or with a high level of confidence from its premises,” “judging the logical strength of arguments based on hypothetical situations,” “judging if a given argument is relevant or applicable or has implications for the situation at hand.”

Do the people you regard as strong critical thinkers have the three cognitive skills described so far? Are they good at interpretation, analysis, and evaluation? What about the next three? And your examples of weak critical thinkers, are they lacking in these cognitive skills? All, or just some?

To the experts, inference means “to identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypotheses; to consider relevant information and to reason to the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation.” As sub-skills of inference the experts list querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, and drawing conclusions. Can you think of some examples of inference? You might suggest things like seeing the implications of the position someone is advocating. Or drawing out or constructing meaning from the elements in a reading. You may suggest predicting what will happen next based on what is known about the forces at work in a given situation. Or formulating a synthesis of related ideas into a coherent perspective. How about this: after judging that it would be useful to you to resolve a given uncertainty, developing a workable plan to gather that information? Or, when faced with a problem, developing a set of options for addressing it. What about conducting a controlled experiment scientifically and applying the proper statistical methods to attempt to confirm or disconfirm an empirical hypothesis?

Beyond being able to interpret, analyze, evaluate, and infer, strong critical thinkers can do two more things. They can explain what they think and how they arrived at that judgment. And they can apply their powers of critical thinking to themselves and improve on their previous opinions. These two skills are called “explanation” and “self-regulation.”

The experts define explanation as being able to present in a cogent and coherent way the results of one’s reasoning. This means to be able to give someone a full look at the big picture: both “to state and to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, and contextual considerations upon which one’s results were based; and to present one’s reasoning in the form of cogent arguments.” The sub-skills under explanation are describing methods and results, justifying procedures, proposing, and defending with good reasons one’s causal and conceptual explanations of events or points of view, and presenting full and well-reasoned, arguments in the context of seeking the best understandings possible. Your examples first, please… Here are some more: to construct a chart which organizes one’s findings, to write down for future reference your current thinking on some important and complex matter, to cite the standards and contextual factors used to judge the quality of an interpretation of a text, to state research results and describe the methods and criteria used to achieve those results, to appeal to established criteria as a way of showing the reasonableness of a given judgment, to design a graphic display which accurately represents the subordinate and super-ordinate relationship among concepts or ideas, to cite the evidence that led you to accept or reject an author’s position on an issue, to list the factors that were considered in assigning a final course grade.

Maybe the most remarkable cognitive skill of all, however, is this next one. This one is remarkable because it allows strong critical thinkers to improve their own thinking. In a sense this is critical thinking applied to itself. Because of that some people want to call this “meta-cognition,” meaning it raises thinking to another level. But “another level” really does not fully capture it, because at that next level up what self-regulation does is look back at all the dimensions of critical thinking and double check itself. Self-regulation is like a recursive function in mathematical terms, which means it can apply to everything, including itself. You can monitor and correct an interpretation you offered. You can examine and correct an inference you have drawn. You can review and reformulate one of your own explanations. You can even examine and correct your ability to examine and correct yourself! How? It is as simple as stepping back and saying to yourself, “How am I doing? Have I missed anything important? Let me double check before I go further.”

The experts define self-regulation to mean “self-consciously to monitor one’s cognitive activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis, and evaluation to one’s own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either one’s reasoning or one’s results.” The two sub-skills here are self-examination and self-correction. Examples? Easy — to examine your views on a controversial issue with sensitivity to the possible influences of your personal biases or self-interest, to check yourself when listening to a speaker in order to be sure you are understanding what the person is really saying without introducing your own ideas, to monitor how well you seem to be understanding or comprehending what you are reading or experiencing, to remind yourself to separate your personal opinions and assumptions from those of the author of a passage or text, to double check yourself by recalculating the figures, to vary your reading speed and method mindful of the type of material and your purpose for reading, to reconsider your interpretation or judgment in view of further analysis of the facts of the case, to revise your answers in view of the errors you discovered in your work, to change your conclusion in view of the realization that you had misjudged the importance of certain factors when coming to your earlier decision. [2]

The Delphi Research Method

The panel of experts we keep referring to included forty-six men and women from throughout the United States and Canada. They represented many different scholarly disciplines in the humanities, sciences, social sciences, and education. They participated in a research project that lasted two years and was conducted on behalf of the American Philosophical Association. Their work was published under the title Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction . The executive summary is available from www.insightassessment.com

You might be wondering how such a large group of people could collaborate on this project over that long a period and at those distances and still come to a consensus. Good question. Remember we are talking the days before e-mail.

Not only did the group have to rely on snail mail during their two-year collaboration; they used a method of interaction, known as the Delphi Method, which was developed precisely to enable experts to think effectively about something over large spans of distance and time. In the Delphi Method a central investigator organizes the group and feeds them an initial question. [In this case it had to do with how college level critical thinking should be defined so that people teaching at that level would know which skills and dispositions to cultivate in their students.] The central investigator receives all responses, summarizes them, and transmits them back to all the panelists for reactions, replies, and additional questions.

Wait a minute! These are all well-known experts, so what do you do if people disagree? And what about the possible influence of a big-name person? Good points. First, the central investigator takes precautions to remove names so that the panelists are not told who said what. They know who is on the panel, of course. But that is as far as it goes. After that each experts’ argument must stand on its own merits. Second, an expert is only as good as the arguments she or he gives. So, the central investigator summarizes the arguments and lets the panelists decide if they accept them or not. When consensus appears to be at hand, the central investigator proposes this and asks if people agree. If not, then points of disagreement among the experts are registered. We want to share with you one important example of each of these. First, we will describe the expert consensus view of the dispositions which are vital to strong critical thinking. Then we will note a point of separation among the experts.

The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking

What kind of a person would be apt to use their critical thinking skills? The experts poetically describe such a person as having “a critical spirit.” Having a critical spirit does not mean that the person is always negative and hypercritical of everyone and everything.

The experts use the metaphorical phrase critical spirit in a positive sense. By it they mean “a probing inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind, a zealous dedication to reason, and a hunger or eagerness for reliable information. ”

Almost sounds like Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Sherlock Holmes The kind of person being described here is the kind that always wants to ask “Why?” or “How?” or “What happens if?”. The one key difference, however, is that in fiction Sherlock always solves the mystery, while in the real world there is no guarantee. Critical thinking is about how you approach problems, questions, issues. It is the best way we know of to get to the truth. But! There still are no guarantees — no answers in the back of the book of real life. Does this characterization, that strong critical thinkers possess a “critical spirit, a probing inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind…” fit with your examples of people you would call strong critical thinkers?

But you might say, I know people who have skills but do not use them. We cannot call someone a strong critical thinker just because she or he has these cognitive skills, however important they might be, because what if they just do not bother to apply them?

One response is to say that it is hard to imagine an accomplished dancer who never dances. After working to develop those skills it seems such a shame to let them grow weak with lack of practice. But dancers get tired. And they surrender to the stiffness of age or the fear of injury. In the case of critical thinking skills, we might argue that not using them once you have them is hard to imagine. It’s hard to imagine a person deciding not to think.

Considered as a form of thoughtful judgment or reflective decision-making, in a very real sense critical thinking is pervasive . There is hardly a time or a place where it would not seem to be of potential value. As long as people have purposes in mind and wish to judge how to accomplish them, as long as people wonder what is true and what is not, what to believe and what to reject, strong critical thinking is going to be necessary.

And yet weird things happen, so it is probably true that some people might let their thinking skills grow dull. It is easier to imagine times when people are just too tired, too lax, or too frightened. But imagine it you can, Young Skywalker, so there must be more to critical thinking than just the list of cognitive skills. Human beings are more than thinking machines. And this brings us back to those all-important attitudes which the experts called “dispositions.”

The experts were persuaded that critical thinking is a pervasive and purposeful human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker can be characterized not merely by her or his cognitive skills but also by how she or he approaches life and living in general. This is a bold claim. Critical thinking goes way beyond the classroom. In fact, many of the experts fear that some of the things people experience in school are harmful to the development and cultivation of strong critical thinking. Critical thinking came before schooling was ever invented; it lies at the very roots of civilization. It is a cornerstone in the journey humankind is taking from beastly savagery to global sensitivity. Consider what life would be like without the things on this list and we think you will understand.

The approaches to life and living which characterize critical thinking include:

* inquisitiveness regarding a wide range of issues,

* concern to become and remain well-informed,

* alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking,

* trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry,

* self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason,

* open-mindedness regarding divergent world views,

* flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions

* understanding of the opinions of other people,

* fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning,

* honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies,

* prudence in suspending, making, or altering judgments,

* willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted.

What would someone be like who lacked those dispositions?

It might be someone who does not care about much of anything, is not interested in the facts, prefers not to think, mistrusts reasoning as a way of finding things out or solving problems, holds his or her own reasoning abilities in low esteem, is close-minded, inflexible, insensitive, cannot understand what others think, is unfair when it comes to judging the quality of arguments, denies his or her own biases, jumps to conclusions or delays too long in making judgments, and never is willing to reconsider an opinion. Not someone prudent people would want to ask to manage their investments!

The experts went beyond approaches to life and living in general to emphasize that strong critical thinkers can also be described in terms of how they approach specific issues, questions, or problems. The experts said you would find these sorts of characteristics:

* clarity in stating the question or concern,

* orderliness in working with complexity,

* diligence in seeking relevant information,

* reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria,

* care in focusing attention on the concern at hand,

* persistence though difficulties are encountered,

* precision to the degree permitted by the subject and the circumstances.

So, how would a weak critical thinker approach specific problems or issues? Obviously, by being muddle-headed about what he or she is doing, disorganized and overly simplistic, spotty about getting the facts, apt to apply unreasonable criteria, easily distracted, ready to give up at the least hint of difficulty, intent on a solution that is more detailed than is possible, or being satisfied with an overly generalized and uselessly vague response. Remind you of anyone you know?

Someone positively disposed toward using critical thinking would probably agree with statements like these:

“I hate talk shows where people shout their opinions but never give any reasons at all.”“Figuring out what people really mean by what they say is important to me.”

“I always do better in jobs where I’m expected to think things out for myself.”

“I hold off making decisions until I have thought through my options.”

“Rather than relying on someone else’s notes, I prefer to read the material myself.”

“I try to see the merit in another’s opinion, even if I reject it later.”

“Even if a problem is tougher than I expected, I will keep working on it.”

“Making intelligent decisions is more important than winning arguments.”

A person disposed to be averse or hostile toward using critical thinking would probably disagree with the statements above but be likely to agree with these:

“I prefer jobs where the supervisor says exactly what to do and exactly how to do it.”“No matter how complex the problem, you can bet there will be a simple solution.”

“I don’t waste time looking things up.”

“I hate when teachers discuss problems instead of just giving the answers.”

“If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.”

“Selling an idea is like selling cars, you say whatever works.”

We used the expression “strong critical thinker” to contrast with the expression “weak critical thinker.” But you will find people who drop the adjective “strong” (or “good”) and just say that someone is a “critical thinker” or not. It is like saying that a soccer (European “football”) player is a “defender” or “not a defender”, instead of saying the player’s skills at playing defense are strong or weak. People use the word “defender” in place of the phrase “is good at playing defense.” Similarly, people use “critical thinker” in place of “is a strong critical thinker” or “has strong critical thinking skills.” This is not only a helpful conversational shortcut, it suggests that to many people “critical thinker” has a laudatory sense. The word can be used to praise someone at the same time that it identifies the person, as in “Look at that play. That’s what I call a defender!”

“If we were compelled to make a choice between these personal attributes and knowledge about the principles of logical reasoning together with some degree of technical skill in manipulating special logical processes, we should decide for the former.”

John Dewey, How We Think , 1909. Republished as How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educational Process . D. C. Heath Publishing. Lexington, MA. 1933.

We said the experts did not come to full agreement on something. That thing has to do with the concept of a “strong critical thinker.” This time the emphasis is on the word “good” because of the crucial ambiguity it contains. A person can be good at critical thinking, meaning that the person can have the appropriate dispositions and be adept at the cognitive processes, while still not being a good (in the moral sense) critical thinker. For example, a person can be adept at developing arguments and then, unethically, use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullible person, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberately confuse and confound, and frustrate a project.

The experts were faced with an interesting problem. Some, a minority, would prefer to think that critical thinking, by its very nature, is inconsistent with the kinds of unethical and deliberately counterproductive examples given. They find it hard to imagine a person who was good at critical thinking not also being good in the broader personal and social sense. In other words, if a person were “really” a “strong critical thinker” in the procedural sense and if the person had all the appropriate dispositions, then the person simply would not do those kinds of exploitive and aggravating things.

What We All Need Most Right Now

The large majority, however, hold the opposite judgment.

The majority are firm in the view that strong critical thinking has nothing to do with any given set of political or religious tenets, ethical values, cultural mores, orthodoxies, or ideologies of any kind. Rather, the commitment one makes as a strong critical thinker is to always seek the truth with objectivity, integrity, and fair-mindedness. Most experts maintain that critical thinking conceived of as we have described it above, is, regrettably, consistent with abusing one’s knowledge, skills, or power. There have been people with superior thinking skills and strong habits of mind who, unfortunately, have used their talents for ruthless, horrific, and immoral purposes. Would that it was not so! Would that experience, knowledge, mental horsepower, and ethical virtues were all the same. But from the time of Socrates, if not thousands of years before that, humans have known that many of us have one or more of these without having the full set.

Any tool, any approach to situations, can go either way, ethically speaking, depending on the character, integrity, and principles of the persons who possess them. So, in the final analysis most experts maintained that we cannot say a person is not thinking critically simply because we disapprove ethically of what the person is doing. The majority concluded that, “what ‘critical thinking’ means, why it is of value, and the ethics of its use are best regarded as three distinct concerns.”

Perhaps this realization forms part of the basis for why people these days are demanding a broader range of learning outcomes from our schools and colleges. “Knowledge and skills,” the staples of the educational philosophy of the mid-twentieth century, are not sufficient. We must look to a broader set of outcomes including habits of mind and dispositions, such as civic engagement, concern for the common good, and social responsibility.

“Thinking” in Popular Culture

We have said so many good things about critical thinking that you might have the impression that “critical thinking” and “good thinking” mean the same thing. But that is not what the experts said. They see critical thinking as making up part of what we mean by good thinking, but not as being the only kind of good thinking. For example, they would have included creative thinking as part of good thinking.

Creative or innovative thinking is the kind of thinking that leads to new insights, novel approaches, fresh perspectives, whole new ways of understanding and conceiving of things. The products of creative thought include some obvious things like music, poetry, dance, dramatic literature, inventions, and technical innovations. But there are some not so obvious examples as well, such as ways of putting a question that expand the horizons of viable solutions, or ways of conceiving of relationships which challenge presuppositions and lead one to see the world in imaginative and different ways.

The experts working on the concept of critical thinking wisely left open the entire question of what the other forms good thinking might take. Creative thinking is only one example. There is a kind of purposive, kinetic thinking that instantly coordinates movement and intention as, for example, when an athlete dribbles a soccer ball down the field during a match. There is a kind of meditative thinking which may lead to a sense of inner peace or to profound insights about human existence. In contrast, there is a kind of hyper-alert, instinctive thinking needed by soldiers in battle. In the context of popular culture, one finds people proposing all kinds of thinking or this kind of intelligence or that kind of intelligence. Sometimes it is hard to sort out science from pseudo-science – the kernel of enduring truth from the latest cocktail party banter.

“Thinking” in Cognitive Science

Theories emerging from more scientific studies of human thinking and decision-making in recent years propose that thinking is more integrated and less dualistic than the notions in popular culture suggest. We should be cautious about proposals suggesting oversimplified ways of understanding how humans think. We should avoid harsh, rigid dichotomies such as “reason vs. emotion,” “intuitive vs. linear,” “creativity vs. criticality,” “right brained vs. left brained,” “as on Mars vs. as on Venus.”

There is often a kernel of wisdom in popular beliefs, and perhaps that gem this time is the realization that sometimes we decide things very quickly almost as spontaneous, intuitive, reactions to the situation at hand. Many accidents on the freeways of this nation are avoided precisely because drivers can see and react to dangerous situations so quickly. Many good decisions which feel intuitive are really the fruit of expertise. Decisions good drivers make in those moments of crisis, just like the decisions which practiced athletes make in the flow of a game or the decisions that a gifted teacher makes as she or he interacts with students, are borne of expertise, training, and practice.

Recent integrative models of human decision-making propose that the thinking processes of our species is not best described as a conflictive duality as in “intuitive vs. reflective” but rather an integrative functioning of two mutually supportive systems “intuitive and reflective.” These two systems of thinking are present in all of us and can act in parallel to process cognitively the matters over which we are deciding.

One system is more intuitive, reactive, quick and holistic. So as not to confuse things with the notions of thinking in popular culture, cognitive scientists often name this system, “System 1.” The other (yes, you can guess its name) is more deliberative, reflective, computational and rule governed. You are right, it is called “ System 2 .”

In System 1 thinking, one relies heavily on several heuristics (cognitive maneuvers), key situational characteristics, readily associated ideas, and vivid memories to arrive quickly and confidently at a judgment. System 1 thinking is particularly helpful in familiar situations when time is short and immediate action is required.

While System 1 is functioning, another powerful system is also at work, that is, unless we shut it down by abusing alcohol or drugs, or with fear or indifference. Called “ System 2 ,” this is our more reflective thinking system. It is useful for making judgments when you find yourself in unfamiliar situations and have more time to figure things out. It allows us to process abstract concepts, to deliberate, to plan, to consider options carefully, to review and revise our work in the light of relevant guidelines or standards or rules of procedure. While System 2 decisions are also influenced by the correct or incorrect application of heuristic maneuvers, this is the system which relies on well-articulated reasons and more fully developed evidence. It is reasoning based on what we have learned through careful analysis, evaluation, explanation, and self-correction. This is the system which values intellectual honesty, analytically anticipating what happens next, maturity of judgment, fair-mindedness, elimination of biases, and truth-seeking. This is the system which we rely on to carefully think trough complex, novel, high-stakes, and highly integrative problems. [3]

Educators urge us to improve our critical thinking skills and to reinforce our disposition to use those skills because that is perhaps the best way to develop and refine our System 2 reasoning.

Cognitive heuristics are thinking maneuvers which, at times, appear to be almost hardwired into our species. They influence both systems of thinking, the intuitive thinking of System 1 and the reflective reasoning of System 2. Five heuristics often seem to be operating more frequently in our System 1 reasoning are known as availability, affect, association, simulation, and similarity .

Availability , the coming to mind of a story or vivid memory of something that happened to you or to someone close to you, inclines a person to make inaccurate estimates of the likelihood of that thing’s happening again. People tell stories of things that happened to themselves or their friends all the time as a way of explaining their own decisions. The stories may not be scientifically representative, the events may be mistaken, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. But all that aside, the power of the story is to guide, often in a good way, the decision toward one choice rather than another.

The Affect heuristic operates when you have an immediate positive or a negative reaction to some idea, proposal, person, object, whatever. Sometimes called a “gut reaction” this affective response sets up an initial orientation in us, positive or negative, toward the object. It takes a lot of System 2 reasoning to overcome a powerful affective response to an idea, but it can be done. And at times it should be, because there is no guarantee that your gut reaction is always right.

The Association heuristic is operating when one word or idea reminds us of something else. For example, some people associate the word “cancer” with “death.” Some associate “sunshine” with “happiness.” These kinds of associational reasoning responses can be helpful at times, as for example if associating cancer with death leads you not to smoke and to go in for regular checkups. At other times the same association may influence a person to make an unwise decision, as for example if associating “cancer” with “death” were to lead you to be so fearful and pessimistic that you do not seek diagnosis and treatment of a worrisome cancer symptom until it was really too late to do anything.

The Simulation heuristic works when you are imagining how various scenarios will unfold. People often imagine how a conversation will go, or how they will be treated by someone else when they meet the person, or what their friends or boss or lover will say and do when they must address some difficult issue. These simulations, like movies in our heads, help us prepare and do a better job when the difficult moment arrives. But they can also lead us to have mistaken expectations. People may not respond as we imagined, things may go much differently. Our preparations may fail us because the ease of our simulation misled us into thinking that things would have to go as we had imagined them. And they did not.

The Similarity heuristic operates when we notice some way in which we are like someone else and infer that what happened to that person is therefore more likely to happen to us. The similarity heuristic functions much like an analogical argument or metaphorical model. The similarity we focus on might be fundamental and relevant, which would make the inference more warranted. For example, the boss fired your coworker for missing sales targets, and you draw the reasonable conclusion that if you miss your sales target, you will be fired too. Or the similarity that comes to mind might be superficial or not connected with the outcome, which would make the inference unwarranted. For example, you see a TV commercial showing trim-figured young people enjoying fattening fast foods and infer that because you are young too you can indulge your cravings for fast foods without gaining a lot of excess unsightly poundage.

Heuristics and biases often appearing to be somewhat more associated with System 2 thinking include: satisficing, risk/loss aversion, anchoring with adjustment, and the illusion of control.

CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS MAP ON TO LEADERSHIP DECISION MAKING

Successful professionals with leadership responsibilities, like those in business or the military, apply all their critical thinking skills to solve problems and to make sound decisions. At the risk of oversimplifying all the ways that our critical thinking intersects with problem solving and leadership decision making, here are some of the more obvious connecting points:

• Analyze the strategic environment, identify its elements and their relationships
• Interpret events and other elements in the strategic environment for signs of risk, opportunity, weakness, advantage
• Infer , given what is known with precision and accuracy within the strategic environment, the logical and most predictable consequences of various courses of action
• Infer , given the range of uncertainty and risk in the strategic environment, the full range of the possible and probable consequences of each possible course of action
• Evaluate anticipated results for positive and negative impacts
• Evaluate risks, opportunities, options, consequences
• Explain the rationale (evidence, methodology, criteria, theoretical assumptions, and context) for deciding on the integrated strategic objectives and for the planning and action parameters that compose the strategy
• Double Check Everything: At every step review one’s own thinking and make necessary corrections.

© 2013 Measured Reasons LLC, Hermosa Beach, CA. From Jan 2013 briefing “Critical and Creative Thinking” for Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy, MacDill AFB.

Satisficing occurs as we consider our alternatives. When we come to one which is good enough to fulfill our objectives, we often regard ourselves as having completed our deliberations. We satisficed. And why not? The choice is, after all, good enough. It may not be perfect, it may not be optimal, it may not even be the best among the options available. But it is good enough. Time to decide and move forward.

The running mate of satisficing is temporizing. Temporizing is deciding that the option which we have come to is “good enough for now.” We often move through life satisficing and temporizing. At times we look back on our situations and wonder why it is that we have settled for far less than we might have. If we had only studied harder, worked out a little more, taken better care of ourselves and our relationships, perhaps we would not be living as we are now. But, at the time each of the decisions along the way was “good enough for the time being.”

We are by nature a species that is averse to risk and loss . We often make decisions based on what we are too worried about losing, rather than based on what we might gain. This works out to be a rather serviceable approach in many circumstances. People do not want to lose control, they do not want to lose their freedom, they do not want to lose their lives, their families, their jobs, their possessions. High stakes gambling is best left to those who can afford to lose the money. Las Vegas did not build all those multi-million-dollar casino hotels because vacationers are winning all the time! And so, in real life, we take precautions. We avoid unnecessary risks. The odds may not be stacked against us, but the consequences of losing at times are so great that we would prefer to forego the possibilities of gain in order not to lose what we have. And yet, on occasion this can be a most unfortunate decision too. History has shown time and time again that businesses which avoid risks often are unable to compete successfully with those willing to move more boldly into new markets or into new product lines.

Any heuristic is only a maneuver, perhaps a shortcut or impulse to think or act in one way rather than another, but certainly not a failsafe rule. It may work out well much of the time to rely on the heuristic, but it will not work out for the best all the time.

For example, people with something to lose tend toward conservative choices politically as well as economically. Nothing wrong with that necessarily. Just an observation about the influence of Loss Aversion heuristic on actual decision making. We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to call for “radical” change. Regrettably, however, when the call for change comes, it often requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations, or, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations, we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something.

The heuristic known as Anchoring with Adjustment is operative when we find ourselves making evaluative judgments. The natural thing for us to do is to locate or anchor our evaluation at some point along whatever scale we are using. For example, a professor says that the student’s paper is a C+. Then, as other information comes our way, we may adjust that judgment. The professor, for example, may decide that the paper is as good as some others that were given a B-, and so adjust the grade upward. The interesting thing about this heuristic is that we do not normally start over with a fresh evaluation. We have dropped anchor, and we may drag it upward or downward a bit, but we do not pull it off the bottom of the sea to relocate our evaluation. First impressions, as the saying goes, cannot be undone. The good thing about this heuristic is that it permits us to move on. We have done the evaluation; there are other papers to grade, other projects to do, other things in life that need attention. We could not endure long if we had to constantly reevaluate everything anew. The unfortunate thing about this heuristic is that we sometimes drop anchor in the wrong place; we have a tough time giving people a second chance at making a good first impression.

The heuristic known as Illusion of Control is evident in many situations. Many of us overestimate our abilities to control what will happen. We make plans for how we are going to do this or that, say this or that, manipulate the situation this way or that way, share or not share this information or that possibility, all the time thinking that somehow our petty plans will enable us to control what happens. We function as if others are dancing on the ends of the strings that we are pulling, when the influences our words or actions have on future events may be quite negligible. At times we do have some measure of control. For example, we may exercise, not smoke, and watch our diet to be more fit and healthy. We are careful not to drink if we are planning to drive so that we reduce the risks of being involved in a traffic accident. But at times we simply are mistaken about our ability to exercise full control over a situation. Sadly, we might become ill even if we do work hard to take care of ourselves. Or we may be involved in an accident even if we are sober. Our business may fail even if we work hard to make it a success. We may not do as well on an exam as we might hope even if we study hard.

Related to the Illusion of Control heuristic is the tendency to misconstrue our personal influence or responsibility for past events. This is called Hindsight Bias. We may overestimate the influence our actions have had on events when things go right, or we may underestimate our responsibility or culpability when things go wrong. We have all heard people bragging about how they did this and how they did that and, as a result, such and such wonderful things happened. We made these great plans and look at how well our business did financially. Which may be true when the economy is strong but not when the economy is failing. It is not clear how much of that success came from the planning and how much came from the general business environment. Or, we have all been in the room when it was time to own up for something that went wrong and thought to ourselves, hey, I may have had some part in this, but it was not entirely my fault. “It was not my fault the children were late for school! Hey, I was dressed and ready to go at the regular time.” As if seeing that the family was running late, I had no responsibility to take some initiative and help.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.”

Albert Einstein

Research on our shared heuristic patterns of decision-making does not aim to evaluate these patterns as necessarily good or bad patterns of thinking. I fear that my wording of them may not have been as entirely neutral and descriptive as perhaps it should have been. In truth, reliance on heuristics can be an efficient way of deciding things, given how complicated our lives are. We cannot devote maximal cognitive resources to every single decision we make.

Those of us who study these heuristic thinking phenomena are simply trying to document how we humans do think. There are many useful purposes for doing this. For example, if we find that people repeatedly make a given kind of mistake when thinking about a commonly experienced problem, then we might find ways to intervene and to help ourselves not repeat that error repeatedly.

This research on the actual patterns of thinking used by individuals and by groups might prove particularly valuable to those who seek interventions which could improve how we make our own heath care decisions, how we make business decisions, how we lead teams of people to work more effectively in collaborative settings, and the like.

Popular culture offers one other myth about decision-making which is worth questioning. And that is the belief that when we make reflective decisions, we carefully weigh each of our options, giving due consideration to all of them in turn, before deciding which we will adopt. Although perhaps it should be, research on human decision-making shows that this simply is not what happens. [4] When seeking to explain how people decide on an option with such conviction that they stick to their decision over time and with such confidence that they act on that decision, the concept that what we do is build a Dominance Structure has been put forth.

In a nutshell this theory suggests that when we settle on a particular option which is good enough, we tend to elevate its merits and diminish its flaws relative to the other options. We raise it up in our minds until it becomes for us the dominant option. In this way, as our decision takes shape, we gain confidence in our choice and we feel justified in dismissing the other options, even though the objective distance between any of them and our dominant option may not be very great at all. But we become invested in our dominant option to the extent that we can put the other possibilities aside and act based on our choice. In fact, it comes to dominate the other options in our minds so much that we can sustain our decision to act over time, rather than going back to re-evaluate or reconsider constantly. Understanding the natural phenomenon of dominance structuring can help us appreciate why it can be so difficult for us to get others to change their minds, or why it seems that our reasons for our decisions are so much better than any of the objections which others might make to our decisions. This is not to say that we are right or wrong. Rather, this is only to observe that human beings are capable of unconsciously building up defenses around their choices which can result in the warranted or unwarranted confidence to act based on those choices.

Realizing the power of dominance structuring, one can only be more committed to the importance of education and critical thinking. We should do all that we can to inform ourselves fully and to reflect carefully on our choices before we make them, because we are, after all, human and we are as likely as the next person to believe that we are right and they are wrong once the dominance structure begins to be erected. Breaking through that to fix bad decisions, which is possible, can be much harder than getting things right in the first place.

There are more heuristics than only those mentioned above. There is more to learn about dominance structuring as it occurs in groups as well as in individuals, and how to mitigate the problems which may arise by prematurely settling on a “good enough” option, or about how to craft educational programs or interventions which help people be more effective in their System 1 and System 2 thinking. There is much to learn about human thinking and how to optimize it in individuals of different ages; how to optimize the thinking of groups of peers and groups where organizational hierarchies influence interpersonal dynamics. And, happily, there is a lot we know today about human thinking and decision-making that we did not know a few years ago.

Why critical thinking?

Let us start with you first. Why would critical thinking be of value to you to have the cognitive skills of interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation?

Apart from, or maybe in light of, what we said at the beginning of this essay about the utility of positive critical thinking and about the problems that failures of critical thinking contribute to, why would it be of value to you to learn to approach life and to approach specific concerns with the critical thinking dispositions listed above? Would you have greater success in your work? Would you get better grades?

The answer to the grades question, scientifically speaking, is very possibly Yes! A study of over 1100 college students shows that scores on a college level critical thinking skills test significantly correlated with college GPA. [5] It has also been shown that critical thinking skills can be learned, which suggests that as one learns them one’s GPA might well improve. In further support of this hypothesis is the significant correlation between critical thinking and reading comprehension. Improvements in one are paralleled by improvements in the other. Now if you can read better and think better, you probably will do better in your classes, learn more, and get higher grades. It is, to say the least, very plausible.

Learning, Critical Thinking, and Our Nation’s Future

“The future now belongs to societies that organize themselves for learning… nations that want high incomes and full employment must develop policies that emphasize the acquisition of knowledge and skills by everyone, not just a select few.”

Ray Marshall & Marc Tucker, Thinking For A Living: Education And The Wealth of Nations , Basic Books. New York. 1992.

But what a limited benefit — better grades. Who really cares in the long run? Two years after college, five years out, what does GPA really mean? These days a college level technical and professional program has a half-life of about four years, which means that the technical content is expanding so fast and changing so much that in about four years after graduation your professional training will be in serious need of renewal. So, if the only thing a college is good for is to get the entry level training and the credential needed for a particular job, then college would be a time-limited value.

The APA Delphi Report, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction 1990 ERIC Doc. NO.: ED 315423

Is that the whole story? A job is a good thing, but is that what a college education is all about? Just getting started in a job? Maybe some cannot see its further value, but many do. A main purpose, if not the main purpose, of the collegiate experience, at either the two-year or the four-year level, is to achieve what people have called a “liberal education.” Not liberal in the sense of a smattering of this and that for no particular purpose except to fulfill the unit requirement. But liberal in the sense of “liberating.” And who is being liberated? You! Liberated from a kind of slavery. But from whom?

From professors. From dependence on professors so that they no longer stand as infallible authorities delivering opinions beyond our capacity to challenge, question, and dissent. In fact, this is exactly what the professors want. They want their students to excel on their own, to go beyond what is currently known, to make their own contributions to knowledge and to society. [Being a professor is a curious job — the more effective you are as a teacher, less your students require your aid in learning.]

Liberal education is about learning to learn, which means learning to think for yourself on your own and in collaboration with others.

Liberal education leads us away from naive acceptance of authority, above self-defeating relativism, and beyond ambiguous contextualism. It culminates in principled reflective judgment. Learning critical thinking, cultivating the critical spirit, is not just a means to this end, it is part of the goal itself. People who are weak critical thinkers, who lack the dispositions and skills described, cannot be said to be liberally educated, regardless of the academic degrees they may hold.

Yes, there is much more to a liberal education than critical thinking. There is an understanding of the methods, principles, theories, and ways of achieving knowledge which are proper to the different intellectual realms. There is an encounter with the cultural, artistic, and spiritual dimensions of life. There is the evolution of one’s decision making to the level of principled integrity and concern for the common good and social justice. There is the realization of the ways all our lives are shaped by global as well as local political, social, psychological, economic, environmental, and physical forces. There is the growth that comes from the interaction with cultures, languages, ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, and social classes other than one’s own. There is the refinement of one’s humane sensibilities through reflection on the recurring questions of human existence, meaning, love, life, and death. There is the sensitivity, appreciation, and critical appraisal of all that is good and all that is bad in the human condition. As the mind awakens and matures, and the proper nurturing and educational nourishment is provided, these others central parts of a liberal education develop as well. Critical thinking plays an essential role in achieving these purposes.

Anything else? What about going beyond the individual to the community?

The experts say critical thinking is fundamental to, if not essential for, “a rational and democratic society.” What might the experts mean by this?

Well, how wise would democracy be if people abandoned critical thinking? Imagine an electorate that did not care for the facts. An electorate that did not wish to consider the pros and cons of the issues. Or, worse, had neither the education nor the brain power to do so. Imagine your life and the lives of your friends and family placed in the hands of juries and judges who let their political allegiance, biases and stereotypes govern their decisions, who do not attend to the evidence, who are not interested in reasoned inquiry, who do not know how to draw an inference or evaluate one. Without critical thinking, people could easily be exploited not only politically but economically.

The impact of abandoning critical thinking would not be confined to the micro-economics of the household checking account. Suppose the people involved in international commerce were lacking in critical thinking skills, they would be unable to analyze and interpret the market trends, evaluate the implications of interest fluctuations, or explain the potential impact of those factors which influence large scale production and distribution of goods and materials. Suppose these people were unable to draw the proper inferences from the economic facts, or unable to evaluate the claims made by the unscrupulous and misinformed. In such a situation, serious economic mistakes would be made. Whole sectors of the economy would become unpredictable and large-scale economic disaster would become extremely likely. So, given a society that does not value and cultivate critical thinking, we might reasonably expect that in time the judicial system and the economic system would collapse. And, in such a society, one that does not liberate its citizens by teaching them to think critically for themselves, it would be madness to advocate democratic forms of government.

Is it any wonder that business and civic leaders are maybe even more interested in critical thinking than educators? Critical thinking employed by an informed citizenry is a necessary condition for the success of democratic institutions and for competitive free-market economic enterprise. These values are so important that it is in the national interest that we should try to educate all citizens so that they can learn to think critically. Not just for their personal good, but for the good of the rest of us too.

Look at what has happened around the world in places devastated by economic embargoes, one-sided warfare, or the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Or, consider the problem of global climate change, and how important it is for all of us to cooperate with efforts to curtail our use of fossil fuels to reduce emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Consider the “cultural revolutions” undertaken by totalitarian rulers. Notice how in virtually every case absolutist and dictatorial despots seek ever more severe limitations on free expression. They label “liberal” intellectuals “dangers to society” and expel “radical” professors from teaching posts because they might “corrupt the youth.” Some use the power of their governmental or religious authority to crush not only their opposition but the moderates as well — all in the name of maintaining the purity of their movement. They intimidate journalists and those media outlets which dare to comment “negatively” on their political and cultural goals or their heavy-handed methods.

The historical evidence is there for us to see what happens when schools are closed or converted from places of education to places for indoctrination. We know what happens when children are no longer being taught truth-seeking, the skills of good reasoning, or the lessons of human history and basic science: Cultures disintegrate; communities collapse; the machinery of civilization fails; massive numbers of people die; and sooner or later social and political chaos ensues.

Or, imagine a media, a religious or political hegemony which cultivated, instead of critical thinking, all the opposite dispositions? Or consider if that hegemony reinforced uncritical, impulsive decision making and the “ready-shoot-aim” approach to executive action. Imagine governmental structures, administrators, and community leaders who, instead of encouraging critical thinking, were content to make knowingly irrational, illogical, prejudicial, unreflective, short-sighted, and unreasonable decisions.

How long might it take for the people in this society which does not value critical thinking to be at serious risk of foolishly harming themselves and each other?

The news too often reports about hate groups, wanton shooting, terrorists, and violently extreme political, ideological, or religious zealots. Education which includes a good measure of critical thinking skills and dispositions like truth-seeking and open-mindedness, is a problem for terrorists and extremists of every stripe because terrorists and extremists want to control of what people think. They are ideologists of the worst kind. Their methods include indoctrination, intimidation, and the strictest authoritarian orthodoxy. In the “black-and-white” world of “us vs. them” a good education would mean that the people might begin to think for themselves. And that is something these extremists do not want.

History shows that assaults on learning, whether by book burning, exile of intellectuals, or regulations aimed at suppressing research and frustrating the fair-minded, evidence-based, and unfettered pursuit of knowledge, can happen wherever and whenever people are not vigilant defenders of open, objective, and independent inquiry.

Does this mean that society should place an extremely high value on critical thinking?

Absolutely!

Does this mean society has the right to force someone to learn to think critically?

Maybe. But, really, should we have to?

EXPERT CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDING CRITICAL THINKING AND THE IDEAL CRITICAL THINKER

NEW! For Students and Professionals

Online mini-courses strengthen critical thinking in as little as 1 hour.

• Correctly analyze problems and develop effective problem-solving strategies
• Interpret information correctly to make informed decisions
• Draw sound and reasonable inferences
• Evaluate arguments and credibility of sources for robust decision-making
• Persuasively explain reasoning for your point of view,
• Enhancing your analytical and interpretive communication skills
• Make more thoughtful decisions in your personal and professional life
• Protect yourself from being misled by rhetorical deceptions and fallacies
• Strengthening your ability to reason well with quantitative information
• Learn how to evaluate comparative, ideological, and scientific reasoning
• Discover the benefits and the risks of both reactive and reflective thinking

www.insightbasecamp.com

Critical Thinking Skill Builders Mindset Boosters Deep Dives into How Humans Reason Self Quizzes

With Insight Basecamp’s expert-led online courses, students and professionals can strengthen their critical thinking skills and mindset. Choose from a wide range of courses to help you come to well-reasoned judgments, analyze problems correctly, draw sound inferences, and make thoughtful decisions.

Our lifelong learning opportunities are designed for students and professionals from various industries, providing relevant and applicable knowledge. Whether you are advancing your career or building your learning and decision-making skills, our courses are designed to meet your needs.

Tactics for Training, Triggering, and Teaching Critical Thinking

. Images in this white paper are copyrighted from keynote presentations and professional development workshops.

Contact the author at Measured Reasons LLC for more information.

“Critical Thinking for Life: Valuing, Measuring, and Training Critical Thinking in All its Forms,” describes the work of Drs. Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione. The essay can be found in the Spring 2013 issue of Inquiry (Vol. XXVIII, No.1).

They and their co-investigators have been engaged in research and teaching about reasoning, decision-making, and effective individual and group thinking processes since 1967. Over the years they developed instruments to measure the core skills and habits of mind of effective thinking, these instruments are now in use in many different languages throughout the world. Since 1992 they have presented hundreds of workshops about effective teaching for thinking and about leadership, decision-making, leadership development, planning and budgeting, and learning outcomes assessment at national and international professional association meetings, business organizations, military bases, healthcare agencies, and on college and university throughout the nation.

READINGS and REFERENCES

American Philosophical Association, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. “The Delphi Report,” Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423). 1990

Brookfield, Stephen D. : Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting . Josey-Bass Publishers. San-Francisco, CA. 1987.

Browne, M. Neil, and Keeley, Stuart M.: Asking the Right Questions . Prentice-Hall Publishers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2003.

Costa, Arthur L., & Lowery, l Lawrence F.: Techniques for Teaching Thinking. Critical Thinking Press and Software. Pacific Grove, CA. 1989.

Facione, Noreen C, and Facione Peter A..: Critical Thinking and Clinical Judgment in the Health Sciences – An International Teaching Anthology . The California Academic Press, Millbrae CA. 2008.

Facione, Noreen C. and Facione, Peter A.: Critical Thinking Assessment and Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data Analysis . The California Academic Press. Millbrae, CA 1997.

Facione, Noreen. C., and Facione, Peter A., Analyzing Explanations for Seemingly Irrational Choices, International Journal of Applied Philosophy , Vol. 15 No. 2 (2001) 267-86.

Facione, Peter A and Noreen C.: Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making. The California Academic Press. Millbrae CA, 2007

Facione, Peter A and Giddens C. A.: Think Critically , Pearson Education: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2016.

Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., Talking Critical Thinking, Change: The Magazine of Higher Education , March-April. 2007.

Facione, P.A., Facione N. C., and Giancarlo, C: The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skills, Journal of Informal Logic, Vol. 20 No. 1 (2000) 61-84.

Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; and Kahneman, Daniel: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment . Cambridge University Press. 2002.

Goldstein, William, and Hogarth, Robin M. (Eds.): Research on Judgment and Decision Making . Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Esterle, John, and Clurman, Dan: Conversations with Critical Thinkers . The Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993.

Janis, I.L. and Mann, L: Decision-Making . The Free Press, New York. 1977.

Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; and Tversky, Amos: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases . Cambridge University Press. 1982.

Kahneman Daniel: Knetsch, J.L.; and Thaler, R.H.: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives . 1991, 5;193-206.

King, Patricia M. & Kitchener, Karen Strohm: Developing Reflective Judgment. Josey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA. 1994

Kurfiss, Joanne G., Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice and Possibilities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report # 2, Washington DC, 1988.

Marshall, Ray, and Tucker, Marc, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations , Basic Books. New York, NY. 1992.

Resnick, L. W., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, 1987.

Rubenfeld, M. Gaie, & Scheffer, Barbara K., Critical Thinking in Nursing: An Interactive Approach . J. B. Lippincott Company. Philadelphia PA, 1995.

Siegel, Harvey: Educating Reason: Rationality, CT and Education. Routledge Publishing. New York. 1989.

Sternberg, Robert J.: Critical Thinking: Its Nature, Measurement, and Improvement. National Institute of Education, Washington DC, 1986.

Toulmin, Stephen: The Uses of Argument . Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Wade, Carole, and Tavris, Carol: Critical & Creative Thinking: The Case of Love and War . Harper Collins College Publisher. New York. NY 1993.

GOVERNMENT REPORTS

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Documents National Assessment of College Student Learning: Getting Started, A Summary of Beginning Activities. NCES 93-116.

National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identification of the Skills to Be Taught, Learned, and Assessed, A Report on the Proceedings of the Second Design Workshop, November 1992. NCES 94-286.

National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates’ Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and Listening, and Critical Thinking. NCES 95-001.

• The findings of expert consensus cited or reported in this essay are published in Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Peter A. Facione, principal investigator, The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990. (ERIC ED 315 423). In 1993/94 the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The Pennsylvania State University studied 200 policymakers, employers, and faculty members from two-year and four-year colleges to determine what this group took to be the core critical thinking skills and habits of mind. The Pennsylvania State University Study, under the direction of Dr. Elizabeth Jones, was funded by the US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Instruction. The Penn State study findings, published in 1994, confirmed the expert consensus described in this paper. ↑
• The California Critical Thinking Skills Test , the Test of Everyday Reasoning , the Health Science Reasoning Test , the Military and Defense Reasoning Profile , The Business Critical Thinking Skills Test , and Educate Insight Series for K-12, and the INSIGHT Series for employers and business, health, legal, first responder, educator, science and engineering, and defense professionals and executives. along with other testing instruments authored by Dr. Facione and his research team for people in K-12, college, and graduate / professional work target the core critical thinking skills identified here. These instruments are published in English and several authorized translations exclusively by Insight Assessment. ↑
• Chapters 10 and 11 of Think Critically , Pearson Education, locate critical thinking within this integrative model of thinking. The cognitive heuristics, which will be described next, and the human capacity to derive sustained confidence decisions (right or wrong), — known as “dominance structuring,” – are presented there too. There are lots of useful exercises and examples in that book. You may also wish to consult the references listed at the end of this essay. The material presented in this section is derived from these books and related publications by many of these same authors and others working to scientifically explain how humans make decisions. ↑
• Henry Montgomery, “From cognition to action: The search for dominance in decision making.” In Process and Structure in Human Decision-Making , Montgomery H, Svenson O (Eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1989. For a more accessible description along with reflective exercises on how to avoid becoming “locked in” to a poor decision prematurely, see chapter 11 of Think Critically . ↑
• (Findings regarding the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction, and correlations with GPA and reading ability are reported in “Technical Report #1, Experimental Validation and Content Validity” (ERIC ED 327 549), “Technical Report #2, Factors Predictive of CT Skills” (ERIC ED 327 550), and “Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test” (ERIC ED 326 584). These findings remain consistent in research using the tools in the California Critical Thinking Skills Test family of instruments published by Insight Assessment.) ↑

Sign up for the Health News Florida newsletter

How do you counter misinformation critical thinking is step one.

Late last year, in the days before the Slovakian parliamentary elections, two viral audio clips threatened to derail the campaign of a pro-Western, liberal party leader named Michal Šimečka. The first was a clip of Šimečka announcing he wanted to double the price of beer, which, in a nation known for its love of lagers and pilsners, is not exactly a popular policy position.

In a second clip, Šimečka can be heard telling a journalist about his intentions to commit fraud and rig the election. Talk about career suicide, especially for someone known as a champion of liberal democracy.

There was, however, just one issue with these audio clips: They were completely fake.

The International Press Institute has called this episode in Slovakia the first time that AI deepfakes — fake audio clips, images, or videos generated by artificial intelligence — have played a prominent role in a national election. While it's unclear whether these bogus audio clips were decisive in Slovakia's electoral contest, the fact is Šimečka's party lost the election, and a pro-Kremlin populist now leads Slovakia.

In January, a report from the World Economic Forum found that over 1,400 security experts consider misinformation and disinformation (misinformation created with the intention to mislead) the biggest global risk in the next two years — more dangerous than war, extreme weather events, inflation, and everything else that's scary. There are a bevy of new books and a constant stream of articles that wrestle with this issue. Now even economists are working to figure out how to fight misinformation.

In a new study , "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Misinformation: Evidence from a Demand Side Field Experiment on Critical Thinking," economists John A. List, Lina M. Ramírez, Julia Seither, Jaime Unda and Beatriz Vallejo conduct a real-world experiment to see whether simple, low-cost nudges can be effective in helping consumers to reject misinformation. (Side note: List is a groundbreaking empirical economist at the University of Chicago, and he's a longtime friend of the show and this newsletter ).

While most studies have focused on the supply side of misinformation — social media platforms, nefarious suppliers of lies and hoaxes, and so on — these authors say much less attention has been paid to the demand side: increasing our capacity, as individuals, to identify and think critically about the bogus information that we may encounter in our daily lives.

A Real-Life Experiment To Fight Misinformation

The economists conducted their field experiment in the run-up to the 2022 presidential election in Colombia. Like the United States, Colombia is grappling with political polarization. Within a context of extreme tribalism, the authors suggest, truth becomes more disposable and the demand for misinformation rises. People become willing to believe and share anything in their quest for their political tribe to win.

To figure out effective ways to lower the demand for misinformation, the economists recruited over 2,000 Colombians to participate in an online experiment. These participants were randomly distributed into four different groups.

One group was shown a video demonstrating "how automatic thinking and misperceptions can affect our everyday lives." The video shows an interaction between two people from politically antagonistic social groups who, before interacting, express negative stereotypes about the other's group. The video shows a convincing journey of these two people overcoming their differences. Ultimately, they express regret over unthinkingly using stereotypes to dehumanize one another. The video ends by encouraging viewers to question their own biases by "slowing down" their thinking and thinking more critically.

Another group completed a "a personality test that shows them their cognitive traits and how this makes them prone to behavioral biases." The basic idea is they see their biases in action and become more self-aware and critical of them, thereby decreasing their demand for misinformation.

A third group both watched the video and took the personality test.

Finally, there was a control group, which neither watched the video nor took the personality test.

To gauge whether these nudges get participants to be more critical of misinformation, each group was shown a series of headlines, some completely fake and some real. Some of these headlines leaned left, others leaned right, and some were politically neutral. The participants were then asked to determine whether these headlines were fake. In addition, the participants were shown two untrue tweets, one political and one not. They were asked whether they were truthful and whether they would report either to social media moderators as misinformation.

What They Found

The economists find that the simple intervention of showing a short video of people from politically antagonistic backgrounds getting along inspires viewers to be more skeptical of and less susceptible to misinformation. They find that participants who watch the video are over 30 percent less likely to "consider fake news reliable." At the same time, the video did little to encourage viewers to report fake tweets as misinformation.

Meanwhile, the researchers find that the personality test, which forces participants to confront their own biases, has little or no effect on their propensity to believe or reject fake news. It turns out being called out on our lizard brain tribalism and other biases doesn't necessarily improve our thinking.

In a concerning twist, the economists found that participants who both took the test and watched the video became so skeptical that they were about 31 percent less likely to view true headlines as reliable. In other words, they became so distrustful that even the truth became suspect. As has become increasingly clear, this is a danger in the new world of deepfakes: not only do they make people believe untrue things, they also may make people so disoriented that they don't believe true things.

As for why the videos are successful in helping to fight misinformation, the researchers suggest that it's because they encourage people to stop dehumanizing their political opponents, think more critically, and be less willing to accept bogus narratives even when it bolsters their political beliefs or goals. Often — in a sort of kumbaya way — centrist political leaders encourage us to recognize our commonalities as fellow countrymen and work together across partisan lines. It turns out that may also help us sharpen our thinking skills and improve our ability to recognize and reject misinformation.

Critical Thinking In The Age Of AI

Of course, this study was conducted back in 2022. Back then, misinformation, for the most part, was pretty low-tech. Misinformation may now be getting turbocharged with the rapid proliferation and advancement of artificial intelligence.

List and his colleagues are far from the first scholars to suggest that helping us become more critical thinkers is an effective way to combat misinformation. University of Cambridge psychologist Sander van der Linden has done a lot of work in the realm of what's known as "psychological inoculation," basically getting people to recognize how and why we're susceptible to misinformation as a way to make us less likely to believe it when we encounter it. He's the author of a new book called Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity . Drawing an analogy to how vaccinations work, Van der Linden advocates exposing people to misinformation and showing how it's false as a way to help them spot and to reject misinformation in the wild. He calls it "prebunking" (as in debunking something before it happens).

Of course, especially with the advent of AI deepfakes, misinformation cannot only be combated on the demand side. Social media platforms, AI companies, and the government will all likely have to play an important role. There's clearly a long way to go to overcoming this problem, but we have recently seen some progress. For example, OpenAI recently began "watermarking" AI-generated images that their software produces to help people spot pictures that aren't real. And the federal government recently encouraged four companies to create new technologies to help people distinguish between authentic human speech and AI deepfakes.

This new world where the truth is harder to believe may be pretty scary. But, as this new study suggests, nudges and incentives to get us to slow our thinking, think more critically, and be less tribal could be an important part of the solution.

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Planet Money

• Planet Money Podcast
• The Indicator Podcast
• Planet Money Newsletter Archive
• Planet Money Summer School

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

How do you counter misinformation? Critical thinking is step one

Greg Rosalsky

Late last year, in the days before the Slovakian parliamentary elections, two viral audio clips threatened to derail the campaign of a pro-Western, liberal party leader named Michal Šimečka. The first was a clip of Šimečka announcing he wanted to double the price of beer, which, in a nation known for its love of lagers and pilsners, is not exactly a popular policy position.

In a second clip, Šimečka can be heard telling a journalist about his intentions to commit fraud and rig the election. Talk about career suicide, especially for someone known as a champion of liberal democracy.

There was, however, just one issue with these audio clips: They were completely fake.

The International Press Institute has called this episode in Slovakia the first time that AI deepfakes — fake audio clips, images, or videos generated by artificial intelligence — have played a prominent role in a national election. While it's unclear whether these bogus audio clips were decisive in Slovakia's electoral contest, the fact is Šimečka's party lost the election, and a pro-Kremlin populist now leads Slovakia.

In January, a report from the World Economic Forum found that over 1,400 security experts consider misinformation and disinformation (misinformation created with the intention to mislead) the biggest global risk in the next two years — more dangerous than war, extreme weather events, inflation, and everything else that's scary. There are a bevy of new books and a constant stream of articles that wrestle with this issue. Now even economists are working to figure out how to fight misinformation.

In a new study , "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Misinformation: Evidence from a Demand Side Field Experiment on Critical Thinking," economists John A. List, Lina M. Ramírez, Julia Seither, Jaime Unda and Beatriz Vallejo conduct a real-world experiment to see whether simple, low-cost nudges can be effective in helping consumers to reject misinformation. (Side note: List is a groundbreaking empirical economist at the University of Chicago, and he's a longtime friend of the show and this newsletter ).

While most studies have focused on the supply side of misinformation — social media platforms, nefarious suppliers of lies and hoaxes, and so on — these authors say much less attention has been paid to the demand side: increasing our capacity, as individuals, to identify and think critically about the bogus information that we may encounter in our daily lives.

A Real-Life Experiment To Fight Misinformation

The economists conducted their field experiment in the run-up to the 2022 presidential election in Colombia. Like the United States, Colombia is grappling with political polarization. Within a context of extreme tribalism, the authors suggest, truth becomes more disposable and the demand for misinformation rises. People become willing to believe and share anything in their quest for their political tribe to win.

To figure out effective ways to lower the demand for misinformation, the economists recruited over 2,000 Colombians to participate in an online experiment. These participants were randomly distributed into four different groups.

One group was shown a video demonstrating "how automatic thinking and misperceptions can affect our everyday lives." The video shows an interaction between two people from politically antagonistic social groups who, before interacting, express negative stereotypes about the other's group. The video shows a convincing journey of these two people overcoming their differences. Ultimately, they express regret over unthinkingly using stereotypes to dehumanize one another. The video ends by encouraging viewers to question their own biases by "slowing down" their thinking and thinking more critically.

Another group completed a "a personality test that shows them their cognitive traits and how this makes them prone to behavioral biases." The basic idea is they see their biases in action and become more self-aware and critical of them, thereby decreasing their demand for misinformation.

A third group both watched the video and took the personality test.

Finally, there was a control group, which neither watched the video nor took the personality test.

To gauge whether these nudges get participants to be more critical of misinformation, each group was shown a series of headlines, some completely fake and some real. Some of these headlines leaned left, others leaned right, and some were politically neutral. The participants were then asked to determine whether these headlines were fake. In addition, the participants were shown two untrue tweets, one political and one not. They were asked whether they were truthful and whether they would report either to social media moderators as misinformation.

What They Found

The economists find that the simple intervention of showing a short video of people from politically antagonistic backgrounds getting along inspires viewers to be more skeptical of and less susceptible to misinformation. They find that participants who watch the video are over 30 percent less likely to "consider fake news reliable." At the same time, the video did little to encourage viewers to report fake tweets as misinformation.

Meanwhile, the researchers find that the personality test, which forces participants to confront their own biases, has little or no effect on their propensity to believe or reject fake news. It turns out being called out on our lizard brain tribalism and other biases doesn't necessarily improve our thinking.

In a concerning twist, the economists found that participants who both took the test and watched the video became so skeptical that they were about 31 percent less likely to view true headlines as reliable. In other words, they became so distrustful that even the truth became suspect. As has become increasingly clear, this is a danger in the new world of deepfakes: not only do they make people believe untrue things, they also may make people so disoriented that they don't believe true things.

As for why the videos are successful in helping to fight misinformation, the researchers suggest that it's because they encourage people to stop dehumanizing their political opponents, think more critically, and be less willing to accept bogus narratives even when it bolsters their political beliefs or goals. Often — in a sort of kumbaya way — centrist political leaders encourage us to recognize our commonalities as fellow countrymen and work together across partisan lines. It turns out that may also help us sharpen our thinking skills and improve our ability to recognize and reject misinformation.

Critical Thinking In The Age Of AI

Of course, this study was conducted back in 2022. Back then, misinformation, for the most part, was pretty low-tech. Misinformation may now be getting turbocharged with the rapid proliferation and advancement of artificial intelligence.

List and his colleagues are far from the first scholars to suggest that helping us become more critical thinkers is an effective way to combat misinformation. University of Cambridge psychologist Sander van der Linden has done a lot of work in the realm of what's known as "psychological inoculation," basically getting people to recognize how and why we're susceptible to misinformation as a way to make us less likely to believe it when we encounter it. He's the author of a new book called Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity . Drawing an analogy to how vaccinations work, Van der Linden advocates exposing people to misinformation and showing how it's false as a way to help them spot and to reject misinformation in the wild. He calls it "prebunking" (as in debunking something before it happens).

Of course, especially with the advent of AI deepfakes, misinformation cannot only be combated on the demand side. Social media platforms, AI companies, and the government will all likely have to play an important role. There's clearly a long way to go to overcoming this problem, but we have recently seen some progress. For example, OpenAI recently began "watermarking" AI-generated images that their software produces to help people spot pictures that aren't real. And the federal government recently encouraged four companies to create new technologies to help people distinguish between authentic human speech and AI deepfakes.

This new world where the truth is harder to believe may be pretty scary. But, as this new study suggests, nudges and incentives to get us to slow our thinking, think more critically, and be less tribal could be an important part of the solution.

• misinformation

How to Escape the Cycle of Negative Thinking

Concrete strategies can help you reframe your negative thoughts..

Posted July 16, 2021 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

• It can be easy to get overwhelmed and discouraged by negative thoughts.
• Trying to always think positively isn't a realistic solution to negative thinking.
• Reframing thoughts can help control negative thought patterns and improve one's perspective.

We all think negatively sometimes. We’re having a bad day, and it feels like the world is against us. We start to believe that things are harder for us, that life is unfair, or that other people do not have good intentions.

The more that we allow ourselves to think negatively, the more often we will have negative thoughts and the harder it will be to break the cycle. But thinking positively all the time is not the solution to conquering negative thinking . It is possible to have fewer negative thoughts and reframe them so they are more realistic. The strategies that I will suggest make it possible to be realistic, to be human, and to remain hopeful during difficult circumstances.

The key to keeping negative thinking under control so that it doesn’t turn into a negative attitude toward life is to first recognize that negative, pessimistic, or critical thoughts are a typical experience for most people. Being hard on ourselves is not the solution, nor is coming up with a positive alternative to every negative thought we have. If we’ve had a terrible day, it’s OK to say it was a rough day. When you have an argument with someone, thinking they are treating you badly or that they are being unfair may be accurate. We don’t want to treat negative thoughts as unacceptable.

However, if you notice that most of your thinking lately has been negative and that it’s becoming harder and harder to be hopeful or optimistic , it might be time to try to put your thoughts into perspective. You definitely don’t want to dampen every situation by finding the negative aspects and focusing on them. Sometimes, when we allow negative thoughts to consume us, it becomes harder to enjoy ourselves, to be kind to others, and to be grateful for our experiences. Below are some suggestions to keep negative thinking under control:

Let negative thoughts come and go.

Allow yourself to have negative thoughts. Refrain from responding by saying you shouldn’t think that way. Acknowledge the thought, and then let it go. Your thoughts don’t define you or your circumstances. Some people visualize their thoughts as balloons that float away right after they have them. We don’t have to give each thought equal weight or let it define every future situation.

Be proactive in gratitude.

No matter what kind of day you’re having, take the time to think of some things you appreciate. It might be something as small as the cup of coffee that you are drinking or the fact that it’s Friday. Practicing gratitude when you are not struggling will allow you to remember what you were grateful for if times get harder.

Avoid all-or-nothing thinking.

Absolute thinking prevents us from taking each situation as it comes. The frequent use of words like “never“ or “always“makes it hard for us to remember that things can change over time and that we don’t want to predict the future. Instead, use words such as “often” or “occasionally.”

Manage your expectations.

Often, we expect things to work out one way and they don’t. We are disappointed, and that is totally understandable. That is why we don’t want to place a lot of specific expectations on an outcome that we really can’t predict. We don’t know if relationships will work out right away. We don’t know if a job is going to be the right opportunity for us. Things can seem like they are going well and then something changes. We are less prepared for surprises when we already have a preconceived set of ideas about how something will turn out.

Allowing ourselves to feel every emotion , without pushing it away, means that even when we are disappointed, we know it will be OK. Feeling hurt, sad, or skeptical about a situation doesn’t mean that we can’t survive it. Let your thoughts exist, sit with them, and be intentional about recognizing the positive things in your life. You will start to notice that you can handle anything and that your negative thinking will be under control.

LinkedIn image: Nittaya Khuangthip/Shutterstock. Facebook image: cheapbooks/Shutterstock.

Carla Shuman, Ph.D., is the owner and director of Mindful Solutions, LLC in Arlington, Virginia, a private practice that provides comprehensive mental health services with a mission to promote resilience.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Trump 2.0 would be destructive for the economy, as the former president embraces 'crank' doctrine and economic fantasy, Paul Krugman says

• Trump's re-election could bring loads of problems to the US economy, Paul Krugman warned.
• The former president is prone to "magical thinking" and could pursue "destructive" policies, Krugman said.
• Inflation in particular could get worse if Trump imposes tariffs and erodes the Fed's independence.

Trump's re-election would not be good news for the US economy. Blame the former president's "quack" economic policy and his tendency to deny reality, according to Nobel economist Paul Krugman.

Krugman wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times this week on Trump's propensity for "magical thinking," the same way of thinking that led Latin American dictatorships to pursue reckless and inflationary monetary policy in the 1970s and '80s.

Similar "destructive" policies could be re-enacted in the US if Trump is re-elected in November, Krugman said. 

Related stories

"His behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that he's as addicted to magical thinking and denial of reality as any petty strongman or dictator, which makes it all too likely that he might preside over the type of problems that result when policies are based on quack economics," Krugman wrote.

Some of Trump's economic policies during his presidency were flawed, Krugman said. He pointed, for instance, to Trump's tax cuts in 2017, which ended up favoring the rich over working-class Americans.

If re-elected, Trump has said he plans on cracking down on immigration and imposing tariffs on US imports , especially those from China. But those are deeply flawed ideas about what it would take to bolster US economic strength, Krugman said, as immigration has been key to robust growth in recent years, while high tariffs could easily stoke inflation. 

Inflation could also get worse if Trump looks to exert control over the Federal Reserve, Krugman warned. He pointed to recent reports that suggested Trump's advisors were looking to reduce the independence of the Fed, putting the former president more in control of monetary policy. Presumably, that's to "juice the economy and the stock market the way he wanted to in 2019," Krugman said.

"What's really worrisome, however, are indications that a future Trump regime would manipulate monetary policy in pursuit of short-run political advantage, justifying its actions with crank economic doctrines ... The details of these bad ideas are probably less important than the mindset they reveal, one that rejects hard-learned lessons from the past and buys into economic fantasies," Krugman added.

Other economists have warned of potential chaos if Trump is re-elected as president. Top economist Nouriel Roubini said recently a second term for Trump would be one of the biggest risks for the world economy , making inflation and debt worse while hobbling economic growth. 

Watch: The biggest revelations from Trump's tax returns

• Main content

TikTok-UMG Deal Unmutes Your Videos, Restores Music From Top Artists

TikTok has been a critical promotional tool for musicians and an important venue for creative experimentation and for building communities.

UMG and TikTok reached a deal to end a dispute that had kept music from the likes of Taylor Swift, The Weeknd and Bad Bunny off the social media platform.

Universal Music Group and TikTok just called time on their three-month spat. On Thursday, the label and the social platform struck a "multi-dimensional licensing agreement" that will see music from UMG's artists, including SZA, Bad Bunny, Kendrick Lamar and Ariana Grande, available for you to use as TikTok audio once more. 

Not only will you be able to use music from UMG artists in new videos, but your existing TikToks that have been muted because they featured songs from the UMG catalog will now be unmuted.

"This new chapter in our relationship with TikTok focuses on the value of music, the primacy of human artistry and the welfare of the creative community," said UMG Chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge in a statement. Huge stars including Billie Eilish, The Weeknd, Drake and The Beatles were caught up in the dispute, but their music has now been restored to the platform.

@cnetdotcom Check in on your Swiftie friends 🩷 #swiftie #taylorswift #universalmusic #umg #tiktok #music #swifttok #lanadelrey #oliviarodrigo ♬ original sound - CNET

It's felt like a long three months since TikTok and UMG announced in early February that they'd failed to reach a new deal . UMG accused TikTok of failing to compensate it fairly for using artists' music, as well as not protecting its artists from AI or doing enough to keep the platform safe. In the intervening period, one UMG artist, Taylor Swift, did return to TikTok with her new double album, signaling that the record label and video-sharing platform were on better terms, and potentially close to hashing out a deal.

Read more:   TikTok Is Changing the Way You Discover Music. Meet the Young Creators Making It Happen

Now that deal is a reality, and it's designed to help UMG artists and songwriters reach their full creative and commercial potential. The platform has been a critical promotional tool for musicians in recent years, but has also become an important venue for creative experimentation and building communities . A fresh start for the pair will allow TikTok's 1 billion-plus users around the world to create videos using tracks by their favorite artists and discover new music by artists and songwriters.

As part of the new deal, TikTok and UMG say they'll also be working closely on artist campaigns and new opportunities for artists to make money on the platform. The deal includes protections with respect to generative AI , including a commitment on TikTok's part to remove AI-generated music and beef up artist and songwriter attribution.

While the breakthrough is being celebrated by all parties, this isn't the end of TikTok's woes. On April 24, President Joe Biden signed a bill that could result in TikTok being banned in the US , which would affect the platform's more than 100 million American users. Lawmakers are concerned that TikTok's China-linked parent company ByteDance could be a threat to national security and want it to sell the platform to a company the US approves of.

For now, US-based TikTok users have full access to the platform and UMG's library, but TikTok's wider fight to prove itself continues.

Editors' note: CNET used an AI engine to help create several dozen stories, which are labeled accordingly. The note you're reading is attached to articles that deal substantively with the topic of AI but are created entirely by our expert editors and writers. For more, see our  AI policy .

Computing Guides

• Best Laptop
• Best Chromebook
• Best Budget Laptop
• Best Cheap Gaming Laptop
• Best 2-in-1 Laptop
• Best Windows Laptop
• Best Macbook
• Best Gaming Laptop
• Best Macbook Deals
• Best Desktop PC
• Best Gaming PC
• Best Monitor Under 200
• Best Desktop Deals
• Best Monitors
• M2 Mac Mini Review
• Best PC Speakers
• Best Printer
• Best External Hard Drive SSD
• Best USB C Hub Docking Station
• Best Keyboard
• Best Webcams
• Best Laptop Backpack
• Best Camera to Buy
• Best Vlogging Camera
• Best Tripod
• Best Waterproof Camera
• Best Action Camera
• Best Camera Bag and Backpack
• Best E-Ink Tablets
• Best iPad Deals
• Best E-Reader
• Best Tablet
• Best Android Tablet
• Best 3D Printer
• Best Budget 3D Printer
• Best 3D Printing Filament
• Best 3D Printer Deals
• Dell Coupon Codes
• Newegg Promo Codes
• HP Coupon Codes
• Microsoft Coupons
• Anker Coupons
• Logitech Promo Codes
• Western Digital Coupons
• Monoprice Promo Codes
• A4C Coupons