Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the thinking process by which one collects relevant facts to arrive at reliable conclusions and understandings about the world. It is not the carrying out of tasks such as driving, or basic arithmetic. It is not getting the answer by "asking the audience" - well suited for trivia questions. It is a higher-order thinking such as deciding which candidate to vote for, or deciding how best to change to a greener, more ecologically friendly lifestyle. It entails finding the relevant information, filtering through the irrelevant, and making logical responsible decisions based on that.

Examples Of Critical Thinking

• Distinguishing between socially conditioned/emotional (less relevant) responses and moral/ethical/biological (more relevant) responses

• Recognizing a conditioned response: I have always done. I have only known. I have only been taught

• Keeping procedures and understandings on a simple level, and eliminating unnecessary complexity (Occam's Razor)

• Checking your own objectivity on a matter by asking yourself this question: What would be your position on the matter if there was no one who would care about your previous beliefs (and would therefore call you out on your change of view), and you aren't attached to your previous views and beliefs (no ego)?

• When applicable, getting the gist of several different opinions, the "essence" in other words, and disregarding the specifics particular to each individual's point of view which do not alter the essence

• What assumptions are being made, either explicitly or implicitly?

• Looking at the situation from the point of view of each of those who argue their point

• Looking at the situation from the eyes of a man, woman, and child

• If you are in a happy mood, or sad mood, or angry mood, or indifferent mood, what are your conclusions?

• Rights of the individual vs. the greater good. In what instances is appealing to the greater good not relevant?

• The conflicting parties can each be part right and part wrong. Balance and compromise is sometimes the best solution

• Holding up beliefs against ethical, moral principles, and common sense

• Deconstructing opposing view points and asking the right questions to determine which argument is most valid

• Recognizing the deficiencies in your own knowledge and determining who to consult with the necessary experience, and what questions to ask, to help you make an informed decision

• Finding the crux or cruxes. For instance, asking the question that, when answered, can refute the argument or claim. For example, consider the claim: "People who test positive for disease X always have Y symptoms. There are a lot of people with Y symptoms, therefore the disease is widespread". Ask the question: "Are there people with Y symptoms who will test negative for disease X". Answering Yes could mean that the epidemic is exaggerated.

• Imagine if you were that person arguing for or against. How would you perceive the other persons counterarguments? What would make them worth considering, or false in your mind? What would cause you to change your mind? What would prevent you from changing your mind? Does this correlate with a personality trait? Does that person seem to exhibit this trait?

• Is there a precedent to follow? Have there been similar circumstances which have been resolved? By what means?

• Recognize that someone can tell a non-truth more convincingly than someone telling the truth

• Looking to nature and history for clues (unbiased)


Examples Showing Lack Of Critical Thinking And Logical Fallacies

• You arguing in terms of, or in a manner, that you would disapprove of if someone else were to do the same (you are blind to your own behavior)

• Having a desire to validate prior knowledge, decisions and beliefs to satisfy your ego

• Straw man arguments. For instance, making judgements on someone's personality rather than addressing their argument. For example,

Person A: "You ran through that stop sign, and you don't keep your eyes on the road. This is the last time I get in a car with you (harsh tone)"

Person B: "You seem like the kind of person who would get up in people's faces just to make yourself feel better!"

The straw man argument is the accusation that person A is rude and obnoxious, removing focus from the bad driving of person B.

Another example,

Person A: "Hierarchies are natural in society. If you look at the animal kingdom..."

Person B: (interrupting) "So you think people are like animals!"

The straw man argument is that person A is insinuating that humans are like animals, ignoring person A's principle argument, and not allowing him to explain.

Misinterpreting or picking apart fragments of a statement (ignoring the whole) and taking it out of context is common in straw man arguments. This can put the original statement in a less favorable light in the eyes of some people.

• Failing to consider the meaning behind words. For example,

Woman A: "I like dominant men". In her mind, dominant means "assertive and strong"

Woman B: "I find dominant men a turn off". In her mind, dominant means "bossy and insecure"

At first glance, it might seem that some women like dominant men and some don't. But both women have a different view of what "dominance" means. So both would probably agree that they like assertive, strong men and both would agree that they dislike bossy, insecure men.

• Counterarguments made more as witty comebacks than as having substance

• Claims made on anecdotal evidence. For example, "That happened to me once...I totally agree with you"

• Conditioned to think a certain way about a certain subject. And when questioned on it, reaching out for the conditioned response rather than the rational answer

• Circular logic:

Assume A

A implies B

B implies C

C implies A

Therefore A is true


• Rationale based on popular opinion. For example, "This is what other people do and it works for them, so you should do it too"

• Error in causality. Correlation does not imply causality. For example, "Young people are terrible at answering the phone. They're immature". Possible reason: Young people often live with their parents and don't have access to their own phone

• Irrelevant tangents to the main argument (emotional reaction), which can result in change of subject (red herring)

• Blanket statements and sweeping generalizations based on one possible "symptom"

• Interpreting wrong answers as if you were right all along

• Making premature assumptions based on past experiences, and voicing those experiences prematurely (emotional reaction)

• Misinterpretation. For example,

"He should get hobbies. He should also go out and meet new people without wanting anything from them. That should be his only goal".

Misinterpretation: "He should have more goals than just going out".

It was originally stated that he should also get hobbies. He had meant that meeting new people and not wanting anything from them should be his only goal when going out. It may have been better to be clearer from the onset, but sometimes, innocent misinterpretations happen.

Critical thinking is a very useful skill, which takes time to develop. My formal education helped me to think critically, as well as my natural inclination towards wanting to understand as opposed to rote learning. Mind you, this doesn't always result in getting the highest marks or being the most efficient worker. But the savings is that you build a sort of momentum as you get a deeper understanding and appreciation of the world, enabling you to work better and reach farther than those people who don't bother to think in-depth. Critical thinking is a way to deal with information overload in a society where many people are trying to convince you of something or sell you something.

Quote: Never fearing where the "why" will take you will yield great dividends.

Reference Material To Help Develop Critical Thinking Skills: Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, from his book The Demon Haunted World