what is not a critical thinking

Critical Thinking and Non-Critical Thinking: Key Differences

Have you ever asked yourself how to identify critical thinking? Knowing the differences between critical and non-critical thinking can help you understand the process of critical thinking and use it in your daily life. Critical thinking is a process of analyzing information and making decisions based on facts. While Non-critical thinking is a process where people make decisions based on intuition or opinion.

Sanju Pradeepa

Do you ever find yourself stuck in a rut of unproductive thinking? We’ve all been there. It can feel like it takes forever to break out of this cycle and make meaningful progress on a problem.

But what if you learned powerful tools for thinking more effectively and efficiently? Enter critical and non-critical thinking.

The key distinction between these two forms of thinking is that while non-critical thinking evaluates data at face value, critical thinking goes beyond the surface level to ask “why” and “how” questions that help make better decisions. Critical thinkers also examine their own biases and assumptions and look at situations from different perspectives before arriving at a conclusion.

Good news: you’ve come to the right place. In this article, I’m going to explain the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking and how each type of thinking can help us make sound choices in our lives. We’ll also explore why critical thinking can lead to better decision-making, so you can make the most informed decisions for yourself possible.

What is critical thinking.

At its core, critical thinking involves carefully analyzing and evaluating information to make well-reasoned decisions. It can be used to assess an idea, a plan of action, a process, or an argument. It involves asking questions and looking for solutions to problems.

Characteristics of critical thinking include:

Openness: Being open to new ideas and perspectives without prejudice or preconceived notions
Objectivity: Being able to consider opposing points of view objectively and rationally
Flexibility: Being able to adapt quickly in response to new information or changing situations
Accuracy: making sure that facts are accurate and detailed before taking action.
Insightfulness: Being able to draw connections between seemingly unrelated concepts and recognize patterns in complex matters

Ultimately, critical thinking is an invaluable skill that can help you make more informed decisions in all areas of life, both personal and professional.

To Learn more – 7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

What is non-critical thinking?

Non-critical thinking is a method of considering new ideas without any sort of evaluation or judgment. It’s a form of open learning where you are just absorbing information without trying to interpret it or break it down into its separate components. You simply take what’s presented to you as it is, without questioning or doubting it.

Typically, non-critical thinkers rely heavily on intuition and emotion to make decisions. As opposed to critical thinking, there is no attempt made at problem-solving, and any sort of hypothesis testing is avoided.

Some common characteristics of non-critical thinking include:

Being easily influenced by the opinions and ideas of others
Judging people quickly and not considering all perspectives
Focusing on immediate solutions that don’t address root causes
allowing your beliefs to cloud your judgment

The Differences Between Critical and Non-Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a must-have skill in the modern world. It’s not just about passing exams; it’s about taking a well-thought-out approach that gets you to the root cause of an issue . On the other hand, non-critical thinking is more surface level, a kind of “snap judgment” that doesn’t take into account the big picture .

The level of focus each requires.

When deciding between critical thinking and non-critical thinking, one clear difference is the level of focus each requires . Non-critical thinking is more focused on gathering information and facts without any real need to focus on the implications of that information. On the other hand, critical thinking involves a much deeper analysis of the data and its implications.

2. The level of analysis each type of thinking calls for

Another key difference is the level of analysis each type of thinking calls for . Non-critical thinking tends to take a surface-level look at data without really looking at it from all angles. Critical thinking, however, requires you to dig deeper into the data. You have to make sure you understand all sides of an issue before you reach a conclusion.

Real-life examples of critical thinking in action include debating political issues, researching medical treatments, or even discussing how past experiences might influence future decisions. In order to engage in meaningful critical thought, you must be willing to question assumptions, explore ideas from different angles, and use evidence to construct arguments that take multiple perspectives into account.

In short, while non-critical thinkers collect surface-level facts with no real analysis or questioning necessary, critical thinkers take a much deeper dive into data in order to find new insights and draw meaningful conclusions.

By understanding the difference between critical and non-critical thinking, evaluating assumptions, and slowing down during decision-making processes, you can develop better critical thinking skills that will enable you to make smarter decisions in the future.

Benefits of Critical Thinking in Everyday Life

When it comes down to it, developing your critical thinking skills has many advantages. So, what are some of the benefits of critical thinking ?

ability to make decisions based on facts and evidence rather than personal biases or opinions
It allows you to analyze a situation from multiple angles.
Understanding complex topics quickly
Greater clarity during decision-making processes
able to construct arguments effectively.
Improved communication skills
enables you to look past potential biases and make informed decisions based on logic, facts, and reliable sources.
It also provides more avenues for innovation and creative problem-solving.

By contrast, non-critical thinking limits your perspective on any given problem. It also tends to be quite binary black or white, good or bad whereas critical thinkers understand that the truth often lies somewhere in between. The result is often a much broader range of solutions than what could be achieved through non-critical thinking alone.

Enhancing your ability for critical thinking

If you want to improve your critical thinking skills, you should start by understanding the difference between critical and non-critical thinking. Non-critical thinking is simply “thinking without criticism.” It involves making decisions based on assumptions or ideas without questioning them. On the other hand, critical thinking involves careful consideration of different perspectives and examining evidence from multiple sources before making a decision; it’s the opposite of just taking things at face value.

So how can you become a better critical thinker? Here are some tips you can use to strengthen your critical thinking skills: Here are a few:

1. Formulate your own opinion.

Before making an opinion on any given matter, take the time to research the different perspectives and form your own judgment. This will help you become more aware of possible cognitive biases that could lead to misinterpretations of facts or events.

2. Question assumptions

Take the time to question any assumptions you’ve made about a situation. For example, if you think that buying a certain product is the only solution to a problem, ask yourself why. Is it really the most effective solution? Doing this will help you evaluate ideas and see if there is any other way of approaching the subject that is more beneficial in the long run.

3. Develop creative solutions.

When facing a challenge, step out of your comfort zone and try to come up with creative solutions to solve it. A creative approach is often better than strictly relying on previous experience, as it encourages outside-the-box thinking and allows for new possibilities to arise.

4. Do not jump to conclusions.

It’s important not to allow our experiences or emotions to shape our opinions or decisions without first analyzing the facts. Before making a conclusion about something, it’s essential to simply stop, think, and reflect on your thought process so that emotion does not overrule rationality. Doing this allows us to make informed decisions, which often lead to better outcomes in the long run.

5. Slow down and promote critical thinking.

Take your time while making decisions rushing to conclusions can lead to misinformed decisions that have unintended consequences down the road. Instead, slow down and encourage others to think critically by asking questions, evaluating data, and challenging ideas so that all perspectives are taken into account when making informed decisions.

6. Evaluate your assumptions and reasons.

Start by taking a step back to evaluate your underlying assumptions and reasons for believing something. Question why you think something is true or right, and consider other possible explanations or perspectives. This will help you assess your information more objectively and weigh more options before concluding.

Practical Exercises to Develop Critical Thinking Abilities

If improving your critical thinking skills is a goal of yours there are a few simple practical exercises you can do to help develop them.

One great place to start is by examining your own beliefs , especially ones that you may have taken for granted.

Take some time to analyze why you hold certain beliefs and assess the evidence that supports them. Consider how you come to conclusions, and be prepared to challenge even your own opinion by looking at it from different angles. Ultimately, this exercise should help you understand how thinking critically can lead to more balanced judgments.

Another exercise you can use involves the scientific method: gather background information, form hypotheses based on those observations, test those hypotheses with experiments, record and analyze data, then draw possible conclusions, and finally communicate results.

By following these steps over and over again in real-life scenarios, you’ll soon learn what it means to think critically. This will not only help in situations that require problem-solving but also give you more of an analytical mindset in daily life, one where reasoning and logic come before emotion or impulse decisions.

In conclusion, the difference between critical thinking and non-critical thinking can be a difficult concept to grasp but understanding it can be invaluable to making better decisions and forming effective strategies. Critical thinking requires us to be open to the possibility of change and to accept the fact that not everything is as it seems at first glance. Non-critical thinking, on the other hand, can lead us to become entrenched in our beliefs and to reject new information, even if it could potentially benefit us. With practice, we can learn to separate the two and make more informed decisions.

What is the difference between critical and non critical thinking by Answers Team published in Answers.com https://www.answers.com/
C ritical Thinking vs. Non-Critical Thinking by SUSIE ZAPPIA published in Classroom (https://classroom.synonym.com/)

Call to Action

If you enjoyed this blog post and want to learn more about the topic, don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media. You’ll be part of a community of like-minded people who share your interests and passions. So what are you waiting for? Join us today and start your journey of learning and discovery!

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
–––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
–––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
–––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
–––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
–––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
–––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
–––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
–––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
–––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
–––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
–––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
–––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
–––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
–––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
–––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
–––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
–––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
–––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
–––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
–––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
–––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
–––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
–––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
–––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
–––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
–––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
–––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
–––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
–––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
–––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
–––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
–––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
–––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
–––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
–––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
–––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
–––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
–––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
–––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
–––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
–––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
–––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
–––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
–––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
–––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
–––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
–––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
–––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
–––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
–––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
–––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
Foundation for Critical Thinking
Insight Assessment
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
The Critical Thinking Consortium
The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Working with sources
What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

Identify credible sources
Evaluate and respond to arguments
Assess alternative viewpoints
Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

Is free from research bias
Provides evidence to support its research findings
Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

Missing commas and periods
Incorrect usage of “et al.”
Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
Missing reference entries

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
When did they say this? Is the source current?
Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

ChatGPT vs human editor
ChatGPT citations
Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
Using ChatGPT for your studies
What is ChatGPT?
Chicago style
Paraphrasing

Plagiarism

Types of plagiarism
Self-plagiarism
Avoiding plagiarism
Academic integrity
Consequences of plagiarism
Common knowledge

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

Who is the author? Are they an expert?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:

The information should be up to date and current.
The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

Know how to find credible sources
Use relevant sources to inform your research
Understand what constitutes plagiarism
Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
What was education like in ancient Athens?
How does social class affect education attainment?
When did education become compulsory?
What are alternative forms of education?
Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

Girl student writing in her notebook in classroom in school.

critical thinking

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Critical Thinking
Monash University - Student Academic Success - What is critical thinking?
Oklahoma State University Pressbooks - Critical Thinking - Introduction to Critical Thinking
University of Louisville - Critical Thinking

Recent News

critical thinking , in educational theory, mode of cognition using deliberative reasoning and impartial scrutiny of information to arrive at a possible solution to a problem. From the perspective of educators, critical thinking encompasses both a set of logical skills that can be taught and a disposition toward reflective open inquiry that can be cultivated . The term critical thinking was coined by American philosopher and educator John Dewey in the book How We Think (1910) and was adopted by the progressive education movement as a core instructional goal that offered a dynamic modern alternative to traditional educational methods such as rote memorization.

Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to

break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions
recognize and account for one’s own biases in judgment and experience
collect and assess relevant evidence from either personal observations and experimentation or by gathering external information
adjust and reevaluate one’s own thinking in response to what one has learned
form a reasoned assessment in order to propose a solution to a problem or a more accurate understanding of the topic at hand

Theorists have noted that such skills are only valuable insofar as a person is inclined to use them. Consequently, they emphasize that certain habits of mind are necessary components of critical thinking. This disposition may include curiosity, open-mindedness, self-awareness, empathy , and persistence.

Although there is a generally accepted set of qualities that are associated with critical thinking, scholarly writing about the term has highlighted disagreements over its exact definition and whether and how it differs from related concepts such as problem solving . In addition, some theorists have insisted that critical thinking be regarded and valued as a process and not as a goal-oriented skill set to be used to solve problems. Critical-thinking theory has also been accused of reflecting patriarchal assumptions about knowledge and ways of knowing that are inherently biased against women.

Dewey, who also used the term reflective thinking , connected critical thinking to a tradition of rational inquiry associated with modern science . From the turn of the 20th century, he and others working in the overlapping fields of psychology , philosophy , and educational theory sought to rigorously apply the scientific method to understand and define the process of thinking. They conceived critical thinking to be related to the scientific method but more open, flexible, and self-correcting; instead of a recipe or a series of steps, critical thinking would be a wider set of skills, patterns, and strategies that allow someone to reason through an intellectual topic, constantly reassessing assumptions and potential explanations in order to arrive at a sound judgment and understanding.

In the progressive education movement in the United States , critical thinking was seen as a crucial component of raising citizens in a democratic society. Instead of imparting a particular series of lessons or teaching only canonical subject matter, theorists thought that teachers should train students in how to think. As critical thinkers, such students would be equipped to be productive and engaged citizens who could cooperate and rationally overcome differences inherent in a pluralistic society.

Beginning in the 1970s and ’80s, critical thinking as a key outcome of school and university curriculum leapt to the forefront of U.S. education policy. In an atmosphere of renewed Cold War competition and amid reports of declining U.S. test scores, there were growing fears that the quality of education in the United States was falling and that students were unprepared. In response, a concerted effort was made to systematically define curriculum goals and implement standardized testing regimens , and critical-thinking skills were frequently included as a crucially important outcome of a successful education. A notable event in this movement was the release of the 1980 report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities that called for the U.S. Department of Education to include critical thinking on its list of “basic skills.” Three years later the California State University system implemented a policy that required every undergraduate student to complete a course in critical thinking.

Critical thinking continued to be put forward as a central goal of education in the early 21st century. Its ubiquity in the language of education policy and in such guidelines as the Common Core State Standards in the United States generated some criticism that the concept itself was both overused and ill-defined. In addition, an argument was made by teachers, theorists, and others that educators were not being adequately trained to teach critical thinking.

The Big Think Interview
Your Brain on Money
Explore the Library
The Universe. A History.
The Progress Issue
A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics
6 Flaws In Our Understanding Of The Universe
Michio Kaku
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Michelle Thaller
Steven Pinker
Ray Kurzweil
Cornel West
Helen Fisher
Smart Skills
High Culture
The Present
Hard Science
Special Issues
Starts With A Bang
Everyday Philosophy
The Learning Curve
The Long Game
Perception Box
Strange Maps
Free Newsletters
Memberships

How to think effectively: Six stages of critical thinking

Credit: Elder / Paul

Researchers propose six levels of critical thinkers: Unreflective thinkers, Challenged thinkers, Beginning thinkers, Practicing thinkers, Advanced thinkers, and Master thinkers.
The framework comes from educational psychologists Linda Elder and Richard Paul.
Teaching critical thinking skills is a crucial challenge in our times.

The coronavirus has not only decimated our populations, its spread has also attacked the very nature of truth and stoked inherent tensions between many different groups of people, both at local and international levels. Spawning widespread conspiracy theories and obfuscation by governments, the virus has also been a vivid demonstration of the need for teaching critical thinking skills necessary to survive in the 21st century. The stage theory of critical thinking development, devised by psychologists Linda Elder and Richard Paul , can help us gauge the sophistication of our current mental approaches and provides a roadmap to the thinking of others.

The researchers identified six predictable levels of critical thinkers, from ones lower in depth and effort to the advanced mind-masters, who are always steps ahead.

As the scientists write , moving up on this pyramid of thinking “is dependent upon a necessary level of commitment on the part of an individual to develop as a critical thinker.” Using your mind more effectively is not automatic and “is unlikely to take place “subconsciously.” In other words – you have to put in the work and keep doing it, or you’ll lose the faculty.

Here’s how the stages of intellectual development break down:

Unreflective thinker

These are people who don’t reflect about thinking and the effect it has on their lives. As such, they form opinions and make decisions based on prejudices and misconceptions while their thinking doesn’t improve.

Unreflective thinkers lack crucial skills that would allow them to parse their thought processes. They also do not apply standards like accuracy, relevance, precision, and logic in a consistent fashion.

How many such people are out there? You probably can guess based on social media comments. As Elder and Paul write , “it is perfectly possible for students to graduate from high school, or even college, and still be largely unreflective thinkers.”

Challenged thinker

This next level up thinker has awareness of the importance of thinking on their existence and knows that deficiencies in thinking can bring about major issues. As the psychologists explain, to solve a problem, you must first admit you have one.

People at this intellectual stage begin to understand that “high quality thinking requires deliberate reflective thinking about thinking”, and can acknowledge that their own mental processes might have many flaws. They might not be able to identify all the flaws, however.

A challenged thinker may have a sense that solid thinking involves navigating assumptions, inferences, and points of view, but only on an initial level. They may also be able to spot some instances of their own self-deception. The true difficulty for thinkers of this category is in not “believing that their thinking is better than it actually is, making it more difficult to recognize the problems inherent in poor thinking,” explain the researchers.

Thinkers at this level can go beyond the nascent intellectual humility and actively look to take control of their thinking across areas of their lives. They know that their own thinking can have blind spots and other problems and take steps to address those, but in a limited capacity.

Beginning thinker

Beginning thinkers place more value in reason, becoming self-aware in their thoughts. They may also be able to start looking at the concepts and biases underlying their ideas. Additionally, such thinkers develop higher internal standards of clarity, accuracy and logic, realizing that their ego plays a key role in their decisions.

Another big aspect that differentiates this stronger thinker – some ability to take criticism of their mental approach, even though they still have work to do and might lack clear enough solutions to the issues they spot.

Practicing thinker

This more experienced kind of thinker not only appreciates their own deficiencies, but has skills to deal with them. A thinker of this level will practice better thinking habits and will analyze their mental processes with regularity.

While they might be able to express their mind’s strengths and weaknesses, as a negative, practicing thinkers might still not have a systematic way of gaining insight into their thoughts and can fall prey to egocentric and self-deceptive reasoning.

How do you get to this stage? An important trait to gain, say the psychologists, is “intellectual perseverance.” This quality can provide “the impetus for developing a realistic plan for systematic practice (with a view to taking greater command of one’s thinking).”

“We must teach in such a way that students come to understand the power in knowing that whenever humans reason, they have no choice but to use certain predictable structures of thought: that thinking is inevitably driven by the questions, that we seek answers to questions for some purpose, that to answer questions, we need information, that to use information we must interpret it (i.e., by making inferences), and that our inferences, in turn, are based on assumptions, and have implications, all of which involves ideas or concepts within some point of view,” explain Elder and Paul.

One doesn’t typically get to this stage until college and beyond, estimate the scientists. This higher-level thinker would have strong habits that would allow them to analyze their thinking with insight about different areas of life. They would be fair-minded and able to spot the prejudicial aspects in the points of view of others and their own understanding.

While they’d have a good handle on the role of their ego in the idea flow, such thinkers might still not be able to grasp all the influences that affect their mentality.

Advanced thinker

The advanced thinker is at ease with self-critique and does so systematically, looking to improve. Among key traits required for this level are “intellectual insight” to develop new thought habits, “ intellectual integrity” to “recognize areas of inconsistency and contradiction in one’s life,” intellectual empathy ” to put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, and the “ intellectual courage” to confront ideas and beliefs they don’t necessarily believe in and have negative emotions towards.

Master thinker

This is the super-thinker, the one who is totally in control of how they process information and make decisions. Such people constantly seek to improve their thought skills, and through experience “regularly raise their thinking to the level of conscious realization.”

A master thinker achieves great insights into deep mental levels, strongly committed to being fair and gaining control over their own egocentrism.

Such a high-level thinker also exhibits superior practical knowledge and insight, always re-examining their assumptions for weaknesses, logic, and biases.

And, of course, a master thinker wouldn’t get upset with being intellectually confronted and spends a considerable amount of time analyzing their own responses.

“Why is this so important? Precisely because the human mind, left to its own, pursues that which is immediately easy, that which is comfortable, and that which serves its selfish interests. At the same time, it naturally resists that which is difficult to understand, that which involves complexity, that which requires entering the thinking and predicaments of others,” write the researchers.

So how do you become a master thinker? The psychologists think most students will never get there. But a lifetime of practicing the best intellectual traits can get you to that point when “people of good sense seek out master thinkers, for they recognize and value the ability of master thinkers to think through complex issues with judgment and insight.”

The significance of critical thinking in our daily lives, especially in these confusing times, so rife with quick and often-misleading information, cannot be overstated. The decisions we make today can truly be life and death.

Career Advice
Job Search & Interview
Productivity
Public Speaking and Presentation
Social & Interpersonal Skills
Professional Development
Remote Work

Eggcellent Work

12 common barriers to critical thinking (and how to overcome them).

As you know, critical thinking is a vital skill necessary for success in life and work. Unfortunately, barriers to critical thinking can hinder a person’s ability. This piece will discuss some of the most common internal and external barriers to critical thinking and what you should do if one of them hinders your ability to think critically.

Critical Thinking Challenges

You already know that critical thinking is the process of analyzing and evaluating a situation or person so that you can make a sound judgment. You normally use the judgment you derive from your critical thinking process to make crucial decisions, and the choices you make affect you in workplaces, relationships, and life’s goals and achievements.

Several barriers to critical thinking can cause you to skew your judgment. This could happen even if you have a large amount of data and information to the contrary. The result might be that you make a poor or ineffective decision instead of a choice that could improve your life quality. These are some of the top obstacles that hinder and distort the ability to think critically:

1. Using Emotions Instead of Logic

Failing to remove one’s emotions from a critical thinking analysis is one of the hugest barriers to the process. People make these mistakes mainly in the relationship realm when choosing partners based on how they “make them feel” instead of the information collected.

The correct way to decide about a relationship is to use all facts, data, opinions, and situations to make a final judgment call. More times than not, individuals use their hearts instead of their minds.

Emotions can hinder critical thinking in the employment realm as well. One example is an employee who reacts negatively to a business decision, change, or process without gathering more information. The relationship between that person and the employer could become severed by her lack of critical thinking instead of being salvaged by further investigations and rational reactions.

2. Personal Biases

Personal biases can come from past negative experiences, skewed teachings, and peer pressure. They create a huge obstacle in critical thinking because they overshadow open-mindedness and fairness.

One example is failing to hire someone because of a specific race, age, religious preference, or perceived attitude. The hiring person circumvents using critical thinking by accepting his or her biases as truth. Thus, the entire processes of information gathering and objective analysis get lost in the mix.

3. Obstinance

Stubbornness almost always ruins the critical thinking procedure. Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in being right that they fail to look at the big picture. Big-picture thinking is a large part of critical thinking; without it, all judgments and choices are rash and incomplete.

4. Unbelief

It’s difficult for a person to do something he or she doesn’t believe in. It’s also challenging to engage in something that seems complex. Many people don’t think critically because they believe they must be scholarly to do so. The truth is that anyone can think critically by practicing the following steps:

1. Gather as much data as possible.
2. Have an opinion, but be open to changing it.
3. Understand that assumptions are not the truth, and opinions are not facts.
4. Think about the scenario, person, or problem from different angles.
5. Evaluate all the information thoroughly.
6. Ask simple, precise, and abundant questions.
7. Take time to observe.
8. Don’t be afraid to spend time on the problem or issue.
9. Ask for input or additional information.
10. Make it make sense.

5. Fear of Failure or Change

Fear of change and failure often hinders a person’s critical thinking process because it doesn’t allow thinking outside the box. Sometimes, the most efficient way to resolve a problem is to be open to changing something.

That change might be a different way of doing something, a relationship termination, or a shift of positions at a workplace. Fear can block out all possible scenarios in the critical thinking cycle. The result is often one-dimensional thinking, tunnel vision, or proverbial head-banging.

6. Egocentric Thinking

Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a “me” lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people’s perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc.

7. Assumptions

Assumptions are one of the negative factors that affect critical thinking . They are detrimental to the process because they cause distortions and misguided judgments. When using assumptions, an individual could unknowingly insert an invalid prejudgment into a stage of the thought process and sway the final decision.

It’s never wise to assume anything about a person, entity, or situation because it could be 100 percent wrong. The correct way to deal with assumptions is to store them in a separate thought category of possibilities and then use the data and other evidence to validate or nullify them.

XYZ might be why ABC happened, but there isn’t enough information or data to conclude it. The same concept is true for the rest of the possibilities, and thus, it’s necessary to research and analyze the facts before accepting them as truths.

8. Group Thinking

Group thinking is another one of the barriers to critical thinking that can block sound decisions and muddy judgments. It’s similar to peer pressure, where the person takes on the viewpoint of the people around him or her to avoid seeming “different.”

This barrier is dangerous because it affects how some people think about right and wrong. It’s most prevalent among teens. One example is the “everybody’s doing it (drugs, bullying), so I should too” mindset.

Unfortunately, this barrier can sometimes spill over into the workplace and darken the environment when workers can’t think for themselves. Workers may end up breaking policies, engaging in negative behavior, or harassing the workers who don’t conform.

Group thinking can also skew someone’s opinion of another person before the individual gets a chance to collect facts and evaluate the person for himself. You’ve probably heard of smear campaigns. They work so well against targets because the parties involved don’t use the critical thinking process at all.

9. Impulsivity

Impulsivity is the tendency to do things without thinking, and it’s a bona fide critical thinking killer. It skips right by every step in the critical thinking process and goes directly to what feels good in the moment.

Alleviating the habit takes practice and dedication. The first step is to set time aside when impulsive urges come to think about all aspects of the situation. It may take an impulsive person a while to develop a good critical thinking strategy, but it can work with time.

10. Not Knowing What’s Fact and Opinion

Critical thinking requires the thinker to know the difference between facts and opinions. Opinions are statements based on other people’s evaluative processes, and those processes may not be critical or analytical. Facts are an unemotional and unbiased piece of data that one can verify. Statistics and governmental texts are examples.

11. Having a Highly Competitive Nature

A “winning” mindset can overshadow the fair and objective evaluation of a problem, task, or person and undermine critical thinking. People who think competitively could lose sight of what’s right and wrong to meet a selfish goal that way.

12. Basing Statements on Popularity

This problem is prevalent in today’s world. Many people will accept anything a celebrity, political figure, or popular person says as gospel, but discredit or discount other people’s input. An adept critical thinker knows how to separate what’s being said from who said it and perform the necessary verification steps.

The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking

Is Critical Thinking A Soft Skill Or Hard Skill?

How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace

How To Overcome Barriers in Critical Thinking

If you can identify any of the above-mentioned barriers , your critical thinking may be flawed. These are some tips for overcoming such barriers:

1. Know your flaws.

The very first step toward improving anything is to know and admit your flaws. If you can do that, you are halfway to using better critical thinking strategies.

2. Park your emotions.

Use logic, not emotion, when you are evaluating something to form a judgment. It’s not the time to think with your heart.

3. Be mindful of others.

Try to put yourself in other people’s shoes to understand their stance. A little empathy goes a long way.

4. Avoid black-and-white thinking.

Understand that there’s always more than one way to solve a problem or achieve a goal. Additionally, consider that not every person is all bad or all good.

5. Dare to be unpopular.

Avoid making decisions to please other people. Instead, evaluate the full lot of information and make the decision you feel is best.

6. Don’t assign unjustified merit.

Don’t assume someone is telling the truth or giving you more accurate information because of his or her name or status. Evaluate all people’s input equally.

7. Avoid judging others.

Try to keep biases and prejudices out of your decision-making processes. That will make them fair and just.

8. Be patient with yourself.

Take all the days you need to pick apart a situation or problem and resolve it. Don’t rush to make hasty decisions.

9. Accept different points of view.

Not everyone will agree with you or tell you what you want to hear.

10. Embrace change.

Don’t ever be afraid of changing something or trying something new. Thinking outside the box is an integral part of the critical thinking process.

Now you know the answers to the question, “What are the challenges of critical thinking?” Use the information about the barriers to critical thinking to improve your critical thinking process and make healthier and more beneficial decisions for everyone.

Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?

Is Critical Thinking Overrated? Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking

25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
11 Principles Of Critical Thinking

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Top 12 Soft Skills Consulting Firms Look For

No Comments

How To List Skills That I Taught Myself On Resume

12 critical thinking interview questions and scenarios with sample answers .

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking

Identify its purpose, and question at issue, as well as its information, inferences(s), assumptions, implications, main concept(s), and point of view.

Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and fairness.

attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason.
~ Linda Elder, September 2007

Programs & Services
Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

SACS & QEP
Planning and Implementation
Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
Culminating Undergraduate Experience
Community Engagement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is i2a?

LEARNING SKILLS
Study Skills
Critical Thinking

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Learning Skills:

A - Z List of Learning Skills
What is Learning?
Learning Approaches
Learning Styles
8 Types of Learning Styles
Understanding Your Preferences to Aid Learning
Lifelong Learning
Decisions to Make Before Applying to University
Top Tips for Surviving Student Life
Living Online: Education and Learning
8 Ways to Embrace Technology-Based Learning Approaches

Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking and Fake News
Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories
Critical Analysis
Top Tips for Study
Staying Motivated When Studying
Student Budgeting and Economic Skills
Getting Organised for Study
Finding Time to Study
Sources of Information
Assessing Internet Information
Using Apps to Support Study
What is Theory?
Styles of Writing
Effective Reading
Critical Reading
Note-Taking from Reading
Note-Taking for Verbal Exchanges
Planning an Essay
How to Write an Essay
The Do’s and Don’ts of Essay Writing
How to Write a Report
Academic Referencing
Assignment Finishing Touches
Reflecting on Marked Work
6 Skills You Learn in School That You Use in Real Life
Top 10 Tips on How to Study While Working
Exam Skills
Writing a Dissertation or Thesis
Research Methods
Teaching, Coaching, Mentoring and Counselling
Employability Skills for Graduates

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally, understanding the logical connection between ideas. Critical thinking has been the subject of much debate and thought since the time of early Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates and has continued to be a subject of discussion into the modern age, for example the ability to recognise fake news .

Critical thinking might be described as the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.

In essence, critical thinking requires you to use your ability to reason. It is about being an active learner rather than a passive recipient of information.

Critical thinkers rigorously question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them at face value. They will always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments and findings represent the entire picture and are open to finding that they do not.

Critical thinkers will identify, analyse and solve problems systematically rather than by intuition or instinct.

Someone with critical thinking skills can:

Understand the links between ideas.

Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas.

Recognise, build and appraise arguments.

Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning.

Approach problems in a consistent and systematic way.

Reflect on the justification of their own assumptions, beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is thinking about things in certain ways so as to arrive at the best possible solution in the circumstances that the thinker is aware of. In more everyday language, it is a way of thinking about whatever is presently occupying your mind so that you come to the best possible conclusion.

Critical Thinking is:

A way of thinking about particular things at a particular time; it is not the accumulation of facts and knowledge or something that you can learn once and then use in that form forever, such as the nine times table you learn and use in school.

The Skills We Need for Critical Thinking

The skills that we need in order to be able to think critically are varied and include observation, analysis, interpretation, reflection, evaluation, inference, explanation, problem solving, and decision making.

Specifically we need to be able to:

Think about a topic or issue in an objective and critical way.

Identify the different arguments there are in relation to a particular issue.

Evaluate a point of view to determine how strong or valid it is.

Recognise any weaknesses or negative points that there are in the evidence or argument.

Notice what implications there might be behind a statement or argument.

Provide structured reasoning and support for an argument that we wish to make.

The Critical Thinking Process

You should be aware that none of us think critically all the time.

Sometimes we think in almost any way but critically, for example when our self-control is affected by anger, grief or joy or when we are feeling just plain ‘bloody minded’.

On the other hand, the good news is that, since our critical thinking ability varies according to our current mindset, most of the time we can learn to improve our critical thinking ability by developing certain routine activities and applying them to all problems that present themselves.

Once you understand the theory of critical thinking, improving your critical thinking skills takes persistence and practice.

Try this simple exercise to help you to start thinking critically.

Think of something that someone has recently told you. Then ask yourself the following questions:

Who said it?

Someone you know? Someone in a position of authority or power? Does it matter who told you this?

What did they say?

Did they give facts or opinions? Did they provide all the facts? Did they leave anything out?

Where did they say it?

Was it in public or in private? Did other people have a chance to respond an provide an alternative account?

When did they say it?

Was it before, during or after an important event? Is timing important?

Why did they say it?

Did they explain the reasoning behind their opinion? Were they trying to make someone look good or bad?

How did they say it?

Were they happy or sad, angry or indifferent? Did they write it or say it? Could you understand what was said?

What are you Aiming to Achieve?

One of the most important aspects of critical thinking is to decide what you are aiming to achieve and then make a decision based on a range of possibilities.

Once you have clarified that aim for yourself you should use it as the starting point in all future situations requiring thought and, possibly, further decision making. Where needed, make your workmates, family or those around you aware of your intention to pursue this goal. You must then discipline yourself to keep on track until changing circumstances mean you have to revisit the start of the decision making process.

However, there are things that get in the way of simple decision making. We all carry with us a range of likes and dislikes, learnt behaviours and personal preferences developed throughout our lives; they are the hallmarks of being human. A major contribution to ensuring we think critically is to be aware of these personal characteristics, preferences and biases and make allowance for them when considering possible next steps, whether they are at the pre-action consideration stage or as part of a rethink caused by unexpected or unforeseen impediments to continued progress.

The more clearly we are aware of ourselves, our strengths and weaknesses, the more likely our critical thinking will be productive.

The Benefit of Foresight

Perhaps the most important element of thinking critically is foresight.

Almost all decisions we make and implement don’t prove disastrous if we find reasons to abandon them. However, our decision making will be infinitely better and more likely to lead to success if, when we reach a tentative conclusion, we pause and consider the impact on the people and activities around us.

The elements needing consideration are generally numerous and varied. In many cases, consideration of one element from a different perspective will reveal potential dangers in pursuing our decision.

For instance, moving a business activity to a new location may improve potential output considerably but it may also lead to the loss of skilled workers if the distance moved is too great. Which of these is the more important consideration? Is there some way of lessening the conflict?

These are the sort of problems that may arise from incomplete critical thinking, a demonstration perhaps of the critical importance of good critical thinking.

In Summary:

Critical thinking is aimed at achieving the best possible outcomes in any situation. In order to achieve this it must involve gathering and evaluating information from as many different sources possible.

Critical thinking requires a clear, often uncomfortable, assessment of your personal strengths, weaknesses and preferences and their possible impact on decisions you may make.

Critical thinking requires the development and use of foresight as far as this is possible. As Doris Day sang, “the future’s not ours to see”.

Implementing the decisions made arising from critical thinking must take into account an assessment of possible outcomes and ways of avoiding potentially negative outcomes, or at least lessening their impact.

Critical thinking involves reviewing the results of the application of decisions made and implementing change where possible.

It might be thought that we are overextending our demands on critical thinking in expecting that it can help to construct focused meaning rather than examining the information given and the knowledge we have acquired to see if we can, if necessary, construct a meaning that will be acceptable and useful.

After all, almost no information we have available to us, either externally or internally, carries any guarantee of its life or appropriateness. Neat step-by-step instructions may provide some sort of trellis on which our basic understanding of critical thinking can blossom but it doesn’t and cannot provide any assurance of certainty, utility or longevity.

Continue to: Critical Thinking and Fake News Critical Reading

See also: Analytical Skills Understanding and Addressing Conspiracy Theories Introduction to Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Wellness And Personal Development

Critical Thinking is Not Critical, Just Looking for Truth & Reality: The Heart of Asking Questions That Reveal "What Is"

Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D. is a seasoned clinician with experience working with adults, couples, families, adolescents and older children since 1976. His aim ...Read More

Anyone who has begun to think places some portion of the world in jeopardy. —John Dewey

To think for oneself, to find out what is true and stand by it, without being influenced, whatever life may bring of misery or happiness—that is what builds character. —Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think of These Things

There is rarely if ever all the information wanted, and decisions are made only upon what information is available anyway. Samuel Butler knew this in remarking, “Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises.” The difference between information and the premises we derive from information is precisely what critical thinking aims to ferret out and this article addresses.

Further, we are immersed and awash in our ego mind’s perceptions, utterly filled to overflowing with assumptions, prejudices, beliefs and judgments. William James, philosopher and early writer in the field of psychology, recognized how pervasive such assumptions are in noting, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” To accept this reality, that is, our ego’s perceptions and thinking that heavily influence our feelings, is the beginning of thinking for yourself and maturity. My father often said that maturity is acceptance without resignation. Isn’t maturity actually a profound acceptance of exactly what is in this moment, along with an ever-new joy of discovery and growth in revealing truth and inhabiting the sanity of what is real?

Therapists are Standing By to Treat Your Depression, Anxiety or Other Mental Health Needs

Explore Your Options Today

To think critically is not to negatively evaluate and critically judge anyone. In fact, critical thinking is actually a misnomer-it is anything but critical, meaning negative or judgmental. Critical thinking is aimed to tease out the credible “way it is” in reality within any given circumstance or situation under inquiry. Sherlock Holmes author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle hit a bulls-eye in stating, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” A great deal of the time people’s thoughts and verbalized arguments are merely aimed to reinforce what they already believe to be true, only reinforcing what they already think they know. Herein, of course, you learn nothing. Actually all critical thinking begins with Socrates’ declaration: “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.” Calmly and forthrightly acknowledging that you don’t know is the door opener to truly know anything. Otherwise, the mind is fixated upon some idea that it then believes to be true by purely having thought of it!

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle recognized the incredible value of ruling out what cannot be to reveal what is, no matter how absurd and unreasonable it may appear. He observed, “When all has been investigated and rejected, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Socrates, the originator and father of the field of Philosophy, the Socratic dialogue and critical thinking, essentially followed this approach in his Dialogues built upon applying the Socratic dialogue. Mystery writers, scientists, philosophers, spiritual-oriented people, inventors and discovers along with gutsy people committed in action to growth, development and evolution appreciate and live Sir Arthurs’s view.

Critical thinking is the height of intelligence since all innovation on this planet grew out of asking different, provocative and oftentimes impertinent questions. These are the very questions that challenge the status quo and threaten the powers that be. Critical thinking is one outcropping of empowerment, that is, being your own authority in living, given you thinking for yourself and refusing to allow any propaganda, advertising, politics, pressure, group or person to define who you are, what you recognize to be true and real, what you are for or against and the views, distinctions and choices you hold.

One key to critical thinking is to explore and discover with an attitude of curiosity precisely what is an accurate understanding of another’s view, that is, their opinion or perspective. This entails seeing our own usually incorrect assumptions that then quickly turn into premature, foregone conclusions that are equally incorrect. To know you know nothing and keep an open mind and awareness allows the seeing of “what is.” To check out another’s intention, carefully watch their actions and actively reveal possible assumptions, all while refusing to make unwarranted assumptions or jump to any premature conclusions, is a hallmark of those who look and see for themselves.

Use of our critical faculties takes time, careful investigation, rational intelligence and intuition along with perseverance, patience, collaboration and practical application. Poet Rainer Marie Rilke in Letters to a Young Poet writes: “…try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.” Clarity of mind in learning to love the questions is a result of a well-tamed, well-trained mind purely used as a tool.

The following six levels of critical thinking questions can be remarkably useful resources: 1

Applied to remembering facts and concepts in gaining knowledge, you ask: who, what, where, when, how and sometimes why. Asking what is particularly constructive given that it is shows up in the present, is usually answerable and the forthcoming answers are key signposts for not re-enacting what didn’t work and for duplicating what did work. Why questions may be used sparingly since they are heard as accusatory and blaming, triggering defeating reactivity in emotions, behavior and relationships.
Applied to demonstrating understanding and gaining comprehension, you ask: what’s the main idea or theme, compare and contrast, what supports that statement, what was your understanding of and how would you classify that, along with can you distinguish between, what differences exist between, provide a definition for and offer an example or illustration of what you mean.
Applied to using acquired knowledge to solve problems in new situations through application, you ask: what examples, what approach, how would you solve, how would you apply, what would result if, what questions would you best ask, what factors would you change if, can you develop a set of instructions about, and would this information be useful if you had.
Applied to breaking down information into its component parts, to identify causes and motives, make inferences and gather evidence to support generalizations and relationships through analysis, you ask: how would you categorize, what are the parts, how are the components related, can you make a distinction, what evidence is there, what is its function and what conclusions can be drawn.
Applied to the creative compiling of information in a new pattern or proposing different solutions through synthesis, you ask: how might you improve, suppose it worked differently than we thought, how would you adapt this to a new situation, what would happen if we combined this with that, what model or theory would accurately reflect these findings and what happens if you did this.
Applied to formulating opinions by making judgments about data, work quality and the validity of ideas based on specific criteria through evaluation, you ask: what’s your opinion, how did you come to that view, how did you determine that choice, how do you explain, what do you base your opinion on, what do you recommend, how do you prioritize, and what would you select.

Let us be crystal clear what critical thinking is not, since what anything indeed is can at least partially be delineated by what it is not. Illustrations abound with all polarities in the empirical world, such as night helps define day, up helps define down and wet helps define dry. Critical thinking is not default thinking; that is, lazily assuming what you believed to be so, must always be true. Stereotypes, like all men or all women are so-and-so, or statements that begin “We all know…”, “It’s obvious…”, “You people…” or “These people are like…” are examples. Default thinking is highly problematic, dogmatic and narrow-minded because the default thinker believes a false proposition to be true when it actually is false, and is unwilling to objectively and critically evaluate it.

Default thinking is very close to what Psychology professor Ellen J. Langer calls “premature cognitive commitments,” that is, taking a piece of information or an impression on its face value without even considering critical thinking – mindsets simply accepted unconditionally. What makes them “premature” is our not knowing ahead of time what mindsets formed early in life will have later in life. 2

Magical thinking qualifies as one example of default thinking. If you think the president is like a fairy tale king and can do whatever he pleases and the tooth fairy will heal all wounds for a quarter placed under your pillow, then magic is afoot. It may be cute with children, yet embarrassing in adults given the complexities of practical life. The best-laid plans fall apart and have unintended consequences.

Another variation on premature cognitive commitments is either/or thinking, sometimes called black-and-white thinking. Such limited thinking restricts and distorts seeing the whole picture, severely curtails options and prematurely squashes all possibilities into two and only two options by not accepting, embracing and questioning the raw evidence itself to perceive innumerable possibilities. Critical thinking couldn’t be further from either/or thinking with its dichotomous way of addressing any subject matter. Only with building a tolerance for ambiguity and not easily and quickly finding “the answer” can the raw material of life reveal itself to be what it indeed already is. It is our perceptions, heavily colored by our mind’s conditioning, that need our clearly and fully seeing, releasing and healing.

Similarly, superstitious thinking is another illustration of default thinking. When you think that not being around animals will prevent alligators from eating you, lighting candles around your bed will protect you from monsters and snapping your fingers will ward off evil spirits, and SEE, none of those dreaded consequences ensue, then you are deep under the spell of superstitious thinking. In all forms of default thinking, like magical and superstitious thinking, the person is not thinking for himself, not open to pertinent new information and unable to see past illusions given the box his mind has put him in.

Spotting all forms of default thinking opens up the authentic possibility of clear-eyed productive thinking that clarifies “what is” and it functions. Couple the continued shaping of Bloom’s Taxonomy with clearing all default thinking, along with knowing and applying the major logical fallacies (22 and counting) that Ken Pope generously offers on his remarkable website 3 , and critical thinking can be a stellar tool to help navigate the multitude of situations and the apparent choices available every moment.

We must dare to think ‘unthinkable’ thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world. We must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about ‘unthinkable things’ because, when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless. —J. William Fulbright

1. Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Harlow, England: Longman Group United Kingdom, 1969; Linda G. Barton, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, “Critical Thinking Questions” adapted from “Quick Flip Questions for Critical Thinking.” View this taxonomy at: http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/dalton.htm, http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/bloom.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blooms_rose.svg

2. Ellen J. Langer, Mindfulness . Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1990, pages 19-22.

3. Ken Pope, “Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 22 Types” http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

Introduction
Wellness Tips For Adults
Yoga For Mental Health
Building Strong Internal Resources
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Can You Succeed?
Energize Yourself & Your Family
It's Just Not Fair!
Maintaining Food Portions
Getting Active
How Do I Love Myself?
Why We Lie To Ourselves
Chakra Affirmations To Restore Balance To Your Energy Centers
The Importance Of Feeling Safe
Dealing With Liars
10 Secrets Of Successful People
How Negative Energy Effects Adults, Teenagers And Children: What We Can Do To Change It
The Pros And The Cons Of Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery From A Psychologist's Viewpoint
Are Mental Health Apps The New Generation Of Self-Help Books?
The Science Of Affirmations: The Brain's Response To Positive Thinking
The Science Of Manifestation: The Power Of Positive Thinking
120+ Daily Positive Mental Health Affirmations
140 Daily Positive Affirmations For Men To Boost Self Esteem & Confidence
140 Daily Positive Affirmations For Kids & Children
200 Daily Positive Affirmations For Women To Boost Self Esteem
150 Powerful Daily Affirmations & Words Of Affirmation Quotes To Guide You
The Science Of Making Bad Decisions
Dig Deeper: How Does Gardening Boost Mental Health?
7 Habits Of Supremely Happy People
4 Ways To Improve Your Relationships This Year
How Technology Is Changing How We Relate
Mindfulness For Busy People
Effective Listening In Small Groups
3 Ways To Know If You're Saying Yes Too Much
Words Of Wisdom
Warm Up This Winter By Embracing Mistakes
Helping Yourself Speak Your Truth
What's YOUR Biggest Challenge For The New Year?
Navigating Life's Challenges
Improving The Quality Of Life As We Age
The Third Noble Truth - The Noble Truth Of The End Of Suffering
The Second Noble Truth - The Noble Truth Of The Cause Of Suffering
Why Are We So Busy?
The First Noble Truth - The Noble Truth Of Suffering
Discovering Your Best Personal-Professional Energy: Reconnecting With Your Spiritual Homeland - Part II
Discovering Your Best Personal-Professional Energy: In The Context Of Health, Aging & Time - Part I
Give Yourself A Break!
Changing The Machinery Of Upset
Too Much Pretending
A Mistake Is But An Error: An Ironic-Poetic Odyssey For Human Authenticity And Audacity
9 Clever Ways To Gain Confidence
Understanding Human Behavior
Emotional Needs - More Subtle And Sensible Than You Think
The Myth Of Emotional Security
How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?
Being At Peace With The Pain Of Others
Celebrating Transitions In This Season Of Change
Thinking And Beliefs
What Will You Do With The Rest Of Your Life?
The Key To Overcoming Procrastination
Eight Ways To Take Care Of Yourself During A Health Crisis
It's Not Only Okay To Reach Out During A Health Crisis - It's Recommended
The Machinery Of Upset
How To Be Mentally Strong
Antidote To Busy: 5 Simple Ways To Find Time For You
Is The Intention A Goal Or Already Realized?
Being Proactive About Problem-Solving
Natural SPEED: Stress Resiliency Shrink Rap(TM): Safe Stress Survival Strategies
12 Things You Should Never Give Up For A Relationship
Emotion In The Brain
Be Mind Full Of Good
Steps To Self Reliance
Expressing Your Intentions
Kindness To You Is Kindness To Me; Kindness To Me Is Kindness To You
Using Your "Free" Time To Enrich Your Life
Integration Of Mind And Brain
The Meaning Of Life
Can You Truly Be Yourself At Work?
Grow A Key Inner Strength
Five Tips To Make You More Successful
Evolutionary Neurobiology Of Shame
Is Laughter Really The Best Medicine?
Whose Decision Is It Anyway?
What Is The Mind?
Getting The Respect You Deserve
Volunteering In Later Life: Rewarding Or Stressful?
What Is Mindful Presence?
How To Say No To People You Care About
Are Your Needs Getting Met?
Key Points Of Letting Go
Discovering Love In The Face Of Imminent Death
Empathy: Your Most Potent Skill For Building Closer Relationships
Would You Let A Crowd Diagnose You?
Intention Of Harmlessness
Weak And Strong
Games And Manipulation: The Games People Play
U.S. Army's Wounded Warrior Program Aims For Multifaceted Wellness
Right Intention
What Do Running And Knitting Have In Common? Both Can Make Us Feel Better
Developing A "Buddha Brain" Through Gratitude
Tickets To Paradise: A Good-Hearted Tale
Orthorexia Nervosa On The Rise In The Quest To Eat Healthy
Wholesome Intentions - The Neurology Of Intention
Developing An Inner Protector
"Hope Dealers" Inspire Youth To Achieve True Wellbeing
Learned Optimism
Key Points Of Awareness
It's Far Too Simple: An Adapted Zen Parable
The Secrets Of Persuasion
Relax Needless Fear Around Others
Everyman's Dance Troupe Teaches Lessons About How To Live Well
Incessant Drip, Drip, Drip -- A Universal Story
How The Three Pillars Of Exercise Benefit Mental Health
Core Beliefs And Happiness
Do Life Challenges Make Us More Creative?
A Meditation On Gratitude
A Caring, Joyful Heart
The Secrets Of People That "Get It"
How Socrates' Students Chose Themselves
Helping Adult Children Affects Well-Being Of Older Parents
Binge TV Watching On The Rise
Mind Changing Brain Changing Mind
Being Sedentary Changes The Brain (And Not For The Better)
Are Workplace Wellness Programs Worth It?
The Fun House Of Mirrors -- Seeing Light In Everyone
Why Do We Fail To See Beauty? Thoughts On The Joshua Bell Experiment
The Power Of Intention
Conquering Inertia
Water Your Fruit Tree
Anxiety Free New Year's Resolutions
Learning From The Fatal Flaw
Freeing The Sculpture From The Stone
What Does The Latest Dream Research Tell Us? Not Much
Essential Fatty Acids And Mental Health
Instant Gratification
Cowardice Or Choice: From Vice To Voice
A Beautiful Mind -- Saying Goodbye To What Cannot Be True
Five Ways To Escape The Cycle Of Rumination
Creating Lasting Happiness In The New Year
When Self-Focus Becomes A Hazard
My Cup Overflows: A Zen Tale Adapted
Three Favorite Ego Games
Enjoy Sobriety
How Will You Use Your Gifts?
Seeing Through The Ego's Fantasy-Reality Gap
Accept Difficulty
Worrying Too Much?
The Beauty Of Saying "No"
Can Neurofeedback Help Musical Performance?
Handling Blocks To Any Inner Practice--Meditation, Yoga, Gratitude, Mindfulness
The Ego's Way Of Handling The Now
Are You Mentally Strong?
IV Drip Bars: Is This The New Path To Wellness?
The Psychological Importance Of Gratitude And Gratefulness
Late Sociologist Warned About Multitasking's Effect On Wellness
The Importance Of Gratitude And Gladness For A Happy Life
Celebrate The Ordinary!
Turning A Negative Nelly Into A Positive Polly
The Benefits Of Suffering And The Costs Of Well Being: Secondary Gains And Losses
Optimism Bias, Ignoring Warning Signs
The Evolution Of Our Species
Reframing: Finding Solutions Through A New Lens
How To Be More Hopeful
A Walking, Talking, Breathing Miracle--Y-O-U! A One-In-Several-Billion Shot
Let Things Change
Questions To Live By
Five Ways To See A Problem In A New Light
Accept Them As They Are
Three Components Of A Commitment: A Universal Tool
The Long Term Consequences Of Being Bullied
History Shows That Exercise Boosts Mood
Grow Inner Strengths
Meaning Depends Upon Context, Egos Make Up All The Meanings & The Context Of All That's Real Is Being Aware Of Awareness Itself
Possible Direct Control - Staying On The Playing Field
Must You Win An Argument And Lose A Friend?
Enjoy Four Kinds Of Peace
Live Longer By Believing You Will
What Do You "Have To" Do In Life?
Posture And How It Changes Your Feelings
The Five Businesses And An Inner Meter On Manipulation
What You Look For Is What You Get: Learn 5 Ways To Change Your Looking
Offending Rules, Bending Rules And Upending Rulers While Defending The Rule Of Life
Free Yourself From Self Sabotage
Introversion Gaining The Respect It Deserves
Embrace Your Introverted Self
To Escape The Box, Embrace Paradox
Taming Our Inner Dialogue
Seeing Three Domains - Illusory, Empirical World, And Absolute
How To Cultivate Gratitude
Motivation: What To Do When You Don't Feel It
When Nostalgia Is A Good Thing
Being Presence Itself - Enliven The Quality Of Your Life
Relationships And The Meaning Of Courage
The Power Of Witnessing: How Would A Fish Know It Is In Water?
The Visionary Emperor Encounter
Seeing Through The Unreal, Reveals Purely What Is Real
10 Ways To Stick To An Exercise Program
Want To Change Careers? You're Not Alone
Who Is Unhappy? What Is Natural Happiness?
Drop The Load
Sleeping, Eating & Gaming, Oh My: The Blood Sugar-Blood Pressure-Out For Blood Triangle
How To Create Great Personal Goals
Choice - Level III: The "Will" Without A Willful Doer Chooses
What Makes People Happy?
Choice - Level II: Developing A Workable Structure For Choice
How Exercise Can Change The World: Discovering Your Hidden Self
The Mozart Effect: Fact Or Fiction?
Choice - Level I: Seeing Through Obstacles To Living By Choice
What Defines A Successful Life?
Feelings Are Authentic And Valid -- Perceptions And Beliefs Are Suspect
24/7 SPEED/Resiliency Shrink Rap(TM):Safe Stress Survival Strategies
Are Good Surprises Ever Harmful?
Accept Dependence
Your Diet Affects Brain Function, New Study Shows
Can Stress Make You Fat?
Critical Thinking Is Not Critical, Just Looking For Truth & Reality: The Heart Of Asking Questions That Reveal "What Is"
On Becoming More Perceptually Objective, Empathic And Accurate: Or Getting Your Head Out Of The Clouds Of Negative Assumptions And Premature Judgments
Change How You Think And Change Your Life
Being An Outstanding Steward Of Life Itself -- What We Can Learn From Animals
The Art Of Happiness
Healthy Feeling Processing
Are Emotions A Choice?
Personal Identity: Meanings Over Memories
How Social Norms Affect Our Decisions
Have Your Ethics Slipped?
Recognize Suffering In Others
The Sixteen Laws Of Emotions: Recognizing Moods And Emotions To Return To Healthy Feeling Processing
To Stabilize Weight And Improve Your Self-Esteem, Research Shows The HAES Approach Is A Winner!
"Let's Just Wait And Watch It" -- Let's NOT! The Mentality Of "If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It" Can Kill You
Transform Ill Will
Hospitals Take Notice Of Bedside Manner - Finally
Social Isolation May Affect Mortality More Than Simply Feeling Lonely
Ego Can Be A Superb Servant And A Tyrannical Master: Recognize Four Functions Of Ego
Cultivate Good Will
Come To Center
Sister Jean Is A Picture Of Wellness At 93 Years
"Good Enough" Isn't Even Close
Make Good Bargains
The Lure Of Facebook
Mediterranean Diet May Benefit Your Noggin As Well As Your Heart
How Does Exercise Improve Mental Health? It's Complicated
Will's Five Dynamic Laws Of The Universe
The Final Five "N & N" Tools And Techniques For Saying "No" (and Meaning It) - Part III
Do You Believe In Miracles?
Be Kind To Yourself: You Just Might Age Better
Taking It Easy Can Actually Boost Your Productivity
Social Traps And Beyond: The Situation Is Hopeless But Not Serious
"N & N" - No & Negotiate - Tools And Techniques For Saying "No": Establishing Priorities, Setting Limits, And Solving Problems - Part II
The Greater The Effort, The Sweeter The Reward (and The Harder The Loss)
Speak Truly
Have You Lost Your Sense Of Wonder?
Integrative Health Care: The Prince Of Wales Is Right On The Money
The Greatest Barrier And Passageway To Effective Communication At Work: "You"!
Does Emotion Help Or Hurt Your Performance?
Why Is It Hard To "Just Say 'No'"?: Ten Barriers To Asserting Your Individuality, Intentionality, And Integrity - Part I
Mindfulness Research Makes Us Take A Deep Breath
Benefits Of Meditation And How To Get Started
How Does Your Income Determine Your Well-Being?
Own Being Responsible? -- Absolutely, Make Others Responsible? -- You Must Be Kidding!
Facebook And Emotional Well-Being: Three Ways To Keep Things Positive
Lived By Love
Do We Need Anxiety? Thoughts For Entering The New Year
Dump The Resolution And Adopt An Acronym
What I Learned About Engagement, Motivation, And Leadership From A 13-Month Old - Part I
Telehealth: A Modern Path To Wellness
Don't Quarrel
Is Lack Of Sleep Hurting Your Health?
Why Can't I Stick To My New Year's Resolutions?
In These Heart Breaking Times, Remember: We Are The Other.
Wellness Resolutions For The New Year
Trust In Love
Do You Seek Happiness?
Twenty Ways To Promote Peace In Our World
Bruce Springsteen In Concert: What Life Lessons Does He Teach Us?
One Breath At A Time
A Caring Request To Keep Your Feet (and ALL Of Your Toes) On The Ground
The Intricate Ties Between Depression And Insecurity
Lean Into Good On First Waking
Empathy: It's About Happiness, Too
Believe It Or Not: Skeptics Brains Are Different
See Deep Wants
Life Cannot Be Reduced To Numbers
The Anatomy Of A Poker Face
Embarrassment: Powerful And Puzzling
Don't Rain On The Parade
How To Make An Anti-Bullying Program A Bad Thing (Do Not Try This At Home)
Want To Get Tougher In Life? Be Vulnerable.
See Good Intentions
Should Doctors Prescribe Lifestyle Changes?
Now And Then, Stress Is A Good Thing
Don't Let Waiting Become Regret
See Progress
Three Errors In Judgment We Are All Too Inclined To Make
To Caffeinate Or Not To Caffeinate? Making Personal Health Decisions Must Remain Personal
Speak Wisely
Feeling Bad About Being Sad
Cultivating Patience In Everyday Life
Unexpected Causes Of Tiredness
New And Old Friendships Alike Help Us Age Successfully
6 Ways Mindfulness Can Improve Your Daily Life
Drop The "Shoulds"
If You're Happy And You Know It...Wag Your Tail?
How To Be Wise About Fear
Let It R.A.I.N.
Why I Love Rock 'n' Roll: Healing Music For The Soul
The Art Of Routine
Ways We Think That Can Make Or Break Us - Part 2
Insisting On Fairness & Justice Is A Recipe For Conflict, Misery & Suffering
Ways We Think That Can Make Or Break Us - Part 1
Find Your Own Way
The Brain In Your Gut
How Our Brains Adapt To Trust And Betrayal
Are Compassion And Pride Mutually Exclusive?
Garbage Detection And Brilliance Spotting
Can You Predict Your Emotional Future?
Wake Up To Good News
Behold The SuperAgers!
Change The Channel
Mental Health First Aid: A New Concept Helping Communities
Bottom-Up Or Top-Down? How We Generate Emotions
Find Stillness
The Thoughts That Hold Us Back - And What To Do About Them
"Off With Their Heads!"--Danger! Danger! Guillotiners Ahead! - Identifying And Protecting Yourself From Expediency-Driven Guillotiners
Cultivating Everyday Spiritual Experiences
Minimize Painful Experiences
Conscientiousness And A Happier, Longer Life
Friends And Marriage
Relax, You've Arrived
How To Be Emotionally Aware - No Cat Ears Required
Peeling The Onion--Uncovering Our Wounds In Therapy
Hold Wants Lightly
Self-Advocacy Vs. Hypochondria: Where Do We Draw The Line?
Why Support Is Important For Dealing With Food, Weight + Body Image Issues
Rule-Bound Adjustment Is Deadening - Rule-Flexible Adaptiveness Is Enlivening
Rest Your Weary Head
The Importance Of Family Pets, Grieving The Loss Of My Best Friend, Bonnie
Our Obsession With "More"
When Does Vicarious Trauma (VT) Become A Sign Of Codependency? - Part II
Generativity As A Path To Wellness
Gift Yourself
When Does Vicarious Trauma (VT) Become A Sign Of Codependency? - Part I
The Essence Of Healing, Governing, Service, Judgment And Contribution
The Protective Effect Of Having A Purpose In Life
Is Hating Someone Because They Are Different A Mental Illness?
Find What's Sacred
Complacency, Apathy And Resignation Be Banished And Transformed
Successfully Negotiating The Crisis-Trauma, Grief-Transition Passage: Six Emo-Existential Questions
The Benefits Of Self-Questioning Part One
Avoid The Rush
More Evidence That Staying Active Is Good For The Brain
Lessons Learned From Almost Dying: A Personal Journey
Steps Back Are Not Setbacks: Finding Solid Ground Can Be Essential
Bridging The International Corporate Geo-Cultural Divide Or Presenter Beware And Buyer Be Aware
Defining Your Own Spiritual Path
Find Your North Star
Change Your Body, Change Your Mind
Being Positional, Non-Positional And Taking A Stand
Multidimensional Wellness: Powerful Concept And Practical Tool
Cling Less, Love More
Follow Your Dreams
Start Feeling Joy Now!
What Can I Do? The Seven Options Available For You In Any Situation
In Challenging Times, No More "Inner Child": Boldly Bring Your Inner Chutzpah
Pay Attention
When Calmness Is A Trigger For Fear And How To Change It
The Grammar Of Committed Action: Speaking That Brings Forth Being
The Strength And Stamina Of Your Willpower
Be Benevolent
Inspiring Power And Partnership: An Interactive And Interdependent Perspective
Catch A "Wild Pitch?" You Must Be Kidding!
Don't Beat Yourself Up
Are Reasons Complete Nonsense? A Three-Minute Course
Admit Fault And Move On
Positivity In Relationships Is Contagious
It's Shocking How Little People Settle For, How Much They Put Up With And How Much Better They Deserve
Be The Body
Single And Alone For The Holidays? 6 Strategies For Surviving And Even Thriving The Holidays Alone
Withdraw Attention, Interest And Feeding Unhappy Thoughts,and Natural Happiness Arises And Blossoms
Back To Basics
The Impact Of Exercise On Your Mental Health
See The Good In Others
This Holiday Give Yourself And Your Partner The Gift Of Your Presence
Be Friendly
Pattern Recognition: A Key To Success In Doing Anything Well
Know You're A Good Person
Step Into The Clouds: Relieving Stress
Do You Ever Recover From Emotional Pain? The Answer Is Yes
The Architecture Of All Change Processes
See Beings, Not Bodies
Drop Tart Tone
The Top Seven Sources Of Stress And Their Remedies
Lower The Pressure
Receive Generosity
Basics Of Living: Breathing, Standing, Walking And Sitting: Safeguards Of Well Being And Listening Within
Balancing Joining And Separation
Keeping It Real -- Do You Get It?
You Can Feel Safer: Is There Really A Tiger In Those Bushes?
An Interview With Lama Tsering Everest
21 Ways To Turn Ill Will To Good Will
GROKKED: Being Seen, Heard And Known For Who You Are
How Did Humans Become Empathetic?
Am I Normal?
The Wolf Of Hate
Self-Responsibility/Self-Accountability Qualifies You As An Adult
Taking In The Good
Acknowledgment Transcends Pride And Humility
Healthy Friendship
Can You Improve Life Satisfaction By Changing Your Focus?
Video Blog: Confidence
The Brain In A Bucket
Developing An Inner Meter On Manipulation -- A Critical Life Skill
Why Do Smart And Successful People Do Dumb And Self-Sabotaging Things?
My Beef With The "Secret"
Beliefs, Roles And Stories Can Be Useful At Times Or Create Suffering: Recognition, Disillusionment, Disidentification & Surrender Is Freedom Itself
Beliefs Are Not To Be Believed
Straight Feeling Talk: "I Anger Myself", "I Delight Myself"--It's All An Inside Job
Becoming Happier: A Will And A Way
Is Lady Gaga Destroying America Or Is She Holding Up A Mirror For Us To Reflect?
Safety To Express Feelings: The IPA Spring Retreat
Monitor Your Thoughts And Improve Your Mood
Ten Tips To Improve Happiness
Awash In Harm, Do No More Harm: The First Law Of All Health, Healing, Wellness And Well Being
Treating Depression With Medication: A Philosophical Approach
What An Apparent Poor Sense Of Direction Revealed About The Mind
Withdraw Attention, Interest And Feeding Unhappy Thoughts, And Natural Happiness Arises And Blossoms
What The Future Holds (From The Perspective Of Two 30-Year-Olds)
Three Components Of A Commitment: What Qualifies As A Commitment And A Committed Person
Twisted Upside-Down Communication
Survival Tips For Singles During The Valentine's Season
Another View Of Forgiveness
Obstacles And Obscurations
Needless: You Can Have Almost Anything You Want(So Long As You Don't Need It!)
Mindfulness In Daily Life
The Junction Of Political Awareness And Mental Health
Excellent Self-Programming With The Unconscious
The Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind: Part Four: Precious Human Birth
Recharging Yourself Through Relationships And Giving To Others
A Fresh New Year Upon Which To Embrace Change
Recognizing And Working Well With The Unconscious
The Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind: Part Three: Karma
The Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind: Part Two: Suffering
The Four Thoughts That Turn The Mind: Part One - Impermanence
A Vacation Is Good For The Soul...and For The Relationship
The Art Of Pacing - Live Long And Prosper
Did You Know? Some Surprising Data About Stress
An Expert Interview With Darrin Zeer On Managing Work Stress
Can How You Eat Change What You Eat And What You Weigh?
How Lucky Are You?
The "Fallen" Realities Of Human Nature
Our Fast Paced Lives
How To Better Motivate Weight Loss
Exercise Promotes Happiness And Can Have An Antidepressant Effect
Could Loneliness Shorten a Life?
Health Tip: Balance Work and Home Life
Always Sleepy After the Change to Daylight Saving Time?
When One Spouse Exercises, the Other May Start, Too
A Sense of Purpose May Help Your Heart
Healthy Living in Middle Age Keeps Heart Failure at Bay Decades Later
Just a Half Hour of Lost Sleep Linked Weight Gain
Health Tip: Conquering Exercise Saboteurs
Health Tip: Count Your Calories
Tips for Safe Snow Fun
Could a Bad Night's Sleep Make You Eat More Fatty Food?
Health Tip: Eat Right to Get Through Winter
Health Tip: Maintaining Healthy Habits
Health Tip: Take Seven Steps for Heart-Healthy Kids
U.S. Dietary Guidelines Take Aim at Sugar
Healthy Eating Up Worldwide, But Unhealthy Eating Up Even More: Study
Sun's Damage Lingers Long After Dark
Health Tip: Stranded During a Snowstorm
Study Questions Benefits of Treadmill Desks
Sleep Group Updates Shuteye Guidelines
How to Survive Valentine's Day Without Romance
Health Tip: Vary Your Exercise Regimen
Beware the Bitter Cold
Health Benefits of Moderate Drinking Overblown: Report
Naps May Improve Your Health
Binge-Watching TV May Be Sign of Depression, Loneliness
Early Birds May Catch the Worm, but Night Owls May Snatch the Win
'Long Life' Gene Might Make Some Smarter, Too: Study
Good Sleep in Middle Age May Pay Benefits Later
How to Stay Safe When Riding Out a Blizzard
Walking Group a Step Toward Better Health, Researchers Say
Test Your Home for Radon: EPA
Health Tip: Get Fit Without the Gym
Want to Get Healthy? Get Your Partner Involved
Too Much Sitting Can Be Deadly -- Even if You Exercise, Review Finds
Homebound Neighbors May Need Your Help in Winter
Take Steps to Avoid Winter Falls
Scientists Spot Gene Linked to Tanning 'Addiction'
Music Resonates Across Cultures, Study Suggests
Health Tip: Turning Off the TV
Lack of Exercise More Deadly Than Obesity, Study Suggests
An Optimistic Outlook May Be Good for Your Heart
Happy Childhood May Be Good for Your Heart
Keeping Safe in a Big Freeze
Health Tip: Don't Give up on Healthy Habits
Despite Resolutions, Food Bills Go Up After New Year's
Diet Rich in Whole Grains Might Extend Your Life, Study Says
Health Tip: Why Am I Gaining Weight?
Health Tip: Move Around on a Plane
Smartphones May Charge Up Your Thumbs
Bone Drugs May Protect Against Endometrial Cancer
Health Tip: Finding Time for Fitness
Tablets and E-readers May Disrupt Your Sleep
Health Tip: 12 Ways to a Healthier Holiday
Being Fit Keeps Blood Pressure in Check
Exercise, Diet May Be Key to Beating a Common Irregular Heartbeat
Health Tip: Get Active This Winter!
Health Tip: Does Your Bike Helmet Fit?
Public Restrooms No Germier Than Your Home, Study Finds
Could a 'Mediterranean' Diet Extend Your Life?
Health Tip: Avoid Overindulging at Holiday Office Party
How Well You Sleep May Depend on Your Genes, Study Suggests
Better Diet, Exercise Can Prevent Diabetes in Both Sexes, Study Finds
Health Tip: Prevent a Christmas Tree Fire
Rx for Better Health Care: Kindness and Compassion
Health Tip: Change Your Skin Routine During Winter
Feeling 'Worn Out'? Your Heart May Pay the Price
Health Tip: Think You're Getting Enough Calcium?
Protect Yourself in Icy Temperatures, Heavy Snow
'Purpose in Life' a Boon to Your Health
Make the Most of This Weekend's Time Change
Stroke Prevention Guidelines Emphasize Healthy Lifestyle
Even Depression May Not Dim Thoughts of Bright Future
Healthy Lifestyle May Boost Breast Cancer Survival
Even Decaf Coffee May Help the Liver
U.S. Life Expectancy Hits Record High of Nearly 79 Years: CDC
Using Social Media to Manage Your Moods?
Health Tip: Are You at a Healthy Weight?
The Obese Are Frequent Targets for Cyberbullies
Pets Really Are Like People's Children, Brain Scans Suggest
Study: Healthy Lifestyle Behaviors May Prevent 80 Percent of Heart Attacks
Get a Flu Shot During Checkup, Doctor Says
Walking, Biking to Work Seems to Have Mental Health Benefits
A Good Night's Sleep May Mean a Good Day's Work
Health Tip: Keep Your Family Moving
Short Walks Can Offset Long Stretches of Sitting
Health Tip: Starting a Walking Program
Sit Less, Protect Your DNA and Live Longer?
Health Tip: Aging Well
Overconfident Folks May Blind Others to Their Real Abilities
Diet, Exercise Counseling Urged for Overweight Americans With Heart Risks
With Kids in School, Parents Can Work Out
Health Tip: Strengthening Your Brain
Want to Stay Slim? Leave the Car at Home
Good Neighbors Are Good for Your Heart, Study Says
Eating Out Equals Eating More
Health Tip: Take Care in the Heat
Fruits, Veggies May Have Their Limits in Boosting Lifespan
Healthy Habits May Slow Cellular Signs of Aging, Study Finds
Running Could Add 3 Years to Your Lifespan
Most Adults Are Members of 'Clean Plate Club'
Food Safety Tips for the Summer
Exercise May Help Counter Health Risks of Sedentary Lifestyle
Your Genes May Help Pick Your Friends
A Little Alcohol May Not Be Good for Your Heart After All
Health Tip: Be Safe at the Beach
Severe Obesity Cuts Up to 14 Years Off Life: Study
'Practice Makes Perfect' Genes May Be Key to Great Musicians
Change Bad Habits Early, Save Your Heart Later
Eye Doctors Offer Fireworks Safety Tips
Many Don't Want to Be Alone With Their Thoughts
Stay Safe On The Roads This July Fourth
Have a Fun -- But Safe -- Fourth of July
Health Tip: Drink Lots of Fluids This Summer
Is All That TV Killing You?
Health Tip: Safer Use of Fireworks
Vitamin D: A Key to a Longer Life?
Good Heart Health May Keep Your Mind Sharp, Too
Health Tip: Eat Well, But Start Simple
Indoor Tanning Ups Melanoma Risk, Even Without Burning: Study
Tips for Staying Safe in the Sun
New Campaign Seeks to Help Sleep-Deprived Americans
Guard Your Good Vision, Experts Say
Consistent Protein Intake Key to Muscle Strength, Study Says
Purposeful Life Might Be a Longer Life
As Summer Arrives, CDC Offers Pool Chemical Safety Tips
Health Tip: Which SPF Do I Need?
Adult Health Better for Bullies Than Their Victims: Study
Most People Have Unwanted Thoughts, International Study Finds
Health Tip: How Many Zzzz's Do You Need?
Health Tip: Being Healthy Doesn't Have to Be Expensive
Even Routine Housework May Help Stave Off Disability
Spouse's Sunny Outlook May Be Good for Your Health
Adjusting Your Thermostat Might Improve Your Thinking
Health Tip: Confused About Healthy Eating?
Jury Still Out on Benefits of Vitamin D
For Greater Happiness, Spend Your Money on 'Life Experiences': Study
Hands-Free Cellphones Don't Make Driving Safer, Review Shows
Health Tip: Help Prevent Anemia
World Cup Matches Might Boost Your Mental Health
Stress Reduction And Management
Anger Management
Weight Loss
Emotional Resilience
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Mens Health
What Is Addiction?
Signs, Symptoms, & Effects Of Addiction
What Causes Addiction?
Mental Health, Dual-Diagnosis, & Behavioral Addictions
Addiction Treatment
Addiction Recovery
Information On Specific Drugs
Homosexuality And Bisexuality
Internet Addiction
Childhood Mental Disorders
ADHD: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Anxiety Disorders
Bipolar Disorder
Depression: Major Depression & Unipolar Varieties
Eating Disorders
Childhood Mental Disorders And Illnesses
Dissociative Disorders
Impulse Control Disorders
Internet Addiction And Media Issues
Intellectual Disabilities
Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Schizophrenia
Somatic Symptom And Related Disorders
Tourettes And Other Tic Disorders
Physical Mental Illness Flipbook
Suicide Rates Vector Map
Alzheimers Disease And Other Cognitive Disorders
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Colds And Flu
Crohns Disease / Irritable Bowel
Heart Disease
High Blood Pressure
Memory Problems
Men's Health
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Sleep Disorders
Women's Health
Mindfulness
Disabilities
Domestic Violence And Rape
Family & Relationship Issues
Grief & Bereavement Issues
Pain Management
Relationship Problems
Self Esteem
Terrorism & War
Health Insurance
Health Policy & Advocacy
Health Sciences
Mental Health Professions
Alternative Mental Health Medicine
Medications
Psychological Testing
Psychotherapy
Virtual Outpatient Eating Disorder Treatment
Child Development And Parenting: Infants
Child Development And Parenting: Early Childhood
Sexuality & Sexual Problems
Homosexuality & Bisexuality
Aging & Geriatrics
Death & Dying
Physical Development: Motor Development
Vygotsky's Social Developmental Emphasis
Bullying & Peer Abuse
Family And Relationship Issues
Grief And Bereavement

Most Popular
Discussion & Debate
Saved Stories
Arts & Culture
Business & Economics
Environment
Health & Medicine
Politics & Society
Sciences & Technology

Simple Book Production

College Success

This course provides resources for first-year college students on the path to academic and life success. Time management, effective methods …

Critical Thinking AI in Cybersecurity: A Stretch or a Possibility? Critical Thinking AI in Cybersecurity: A Stretch or a Possibility?

It might still sound far-fetched to say AI can develop critical thinking skills and help us make decisions in the cybersecurity industry. But we're not far off.

August 21, 2024

Will artificial intelligence ever think for us? In 2024, when AI is still in somewhat of an early stage, this might be a loaded question. In cybersecurity, the technology doesn't go beyond automating repetitive tasks, leaving security teams to do the decision-making bit. However, AI's impressive growth in the past two years inevitably makes us wonder if, soon enough, it will be used for critical thinking activities in the sector.

This question becomes even more pressing as hackers increasingly use AI to build better, more sophisticated attacks. And, as KPMG posits, the industry must use AI to fight AI . If the industry wishes to be a step ahead of malicious actors, it must also elevate the technology to fight fire with fire. So, security teams must train their AI models to be smarter than their hacker counterparts, nearing critical thinking levels to outsmart attacks.

While AI's possibilities seem limitless and AI cyberattacks are a pressing matter, we can't get ahead of ourselves. There are many improvements yet to be made, and it's up to the cybersecurity industry to channel its development in the correct path. Where should the industry concentrate its efforts so AI can eventually aid in critical thinking tasks?

Let's explore the current state of AI technology in cybersecurity, the obstacles facing its development, and what leaders can do to get it closer to a critical thinking stage.

What's the Current State of AI In Cybersecurity?

In the larger scope, we are still attempting to build trustworthy AI that can generate accurate answers without hallucinations (which have proven to be extremely harmful to cybersecurity). In the cybersecurity industry, it's helping chief information security officers (CISOs) streamline workflows and forensics examine cyberattack incidents. It also provides valuable insights into new attack vectors.

Needless to say, when we talk about critical thinking technology, its purpose will be to aid humans in making decisions that require more than a yes or no answer and to go beyond the current logic we give it — analyzing angles, forecasting outcomes, and suggesting favorable choices.

For example, let's say a company receives a convincing phishing email that appears to be from their CEO requesting an urgent wire transfer of a large sum of money. Traditional AI would simply analyze keywords in the email and sender address. If they match the CEO's information, the transfer could be flagged as legitimate but not necessarily verified.

On the other hand, critical thinking AI would analyze the email content, verify the request, identify anomalies, and cross reference data. This could mean the AI directly contacts the CEO to confirm he made the request, alert security teams about suspicious activities, and check on the CEO's calendar to see if he was even available at the time the email was sent.

AI never makes any vital choices in this scenario because the complexities of our lives, work, and decisions involve numerous little factors that it may not fully comprehend, at least for now. However, it does assess more data points than traditional AI, and becomes more resourceful on its own accord. Ultimately, humans should monitor and confirm its decisions before anything else is done.

This constant vigilance is crucial, especially considering the ongoing arms race with cybercriminals: 93% of leaders already expect daily AI-powered cyberattacks. While the technology is being used to strengthen and secure systems, malicious actors have also found ways to refine their attacks and outsmart cybersecurity protocols — meaning leaders must keep pushing the boundaries of AI to keep platforms safe.

What Are the Most Pressing Obstacles to Building Smarter AI?

It's clear there is a long road ahead to achieving an AI tool we can trust with decision-making in the cybersecurity world. We must start by addressing some major pain points in how we implement the technology right now, like lack of context, data sharing, and unforeseen incidents.

AI is built on large language models (LLM) that can process vast amounts of data, but we might fail to give it a crucial piece of information: context. AI systems often lack the detailed understanding of personal and organizational specifics needed to make accurate choices that reflect a company and its members, leading to potential misjudgments. By giving it company, industry, and more task-specific context, it can begin to arrive at more well-rounded conclusions.

Explaining the "why" will empower AI to discern the best choices in given situations.

Lastly, the technology requires an extreme level of accuracy in terms of its algorithms, data quality, and prompt specificity to achieve the desired outcome. This means training data and algorithms must be optimized continuously, and prompt engineering must be taught to all users.

What Steps Can Cybersecurity Leaders Take to Refine AI?

To fully harness AI's potential while maintaining security, there must be a way to safely provide AI with the necessary context and information. One approach is to create secure and controlled methods for feeding relevant data to AI systems, ensuring they understand the specific goals, context, and security priorities of an organization. For example, automating security scans across attack surfaces can align data with security objectives. Implementing explainable AI and context and scenario-building training data can also help improve AI's critical thinking.

And, as with anything, AI needs limits if we want to get the most optimal results. These limitations will help reign in the tech, preventing it from going out of scope and performing actions that developers didn't anticipate. This is particularly important when considering AI agents capable of executing specific tasks within the context of LLMs. For example, imagine using AI to transfer money for a mortgage payment but instructing it with a twist: "Don't use my money, use John Doe's." It must be developed to avoid unintended manipulation.

It might still sound wild to say AI can develop critical thinking skills and help us make decisions in the cybersecurity industry. However, we're not too far off, and developing the technology through the right path can help businesses build a smarter and more intuitive tool — going above and beyond automation and monitoring.

About the Author

Nenad Zaric

CEO & Co-founder, Trickest

Nenad Zaric is an offensive security professional with more than 10 years of experience in penetration testing, bug bounty hunting, and security automation. He is the co-founder and CEO of Trickest, a company focused on automated offensive cybersecurity. Before founding Trickest, he found critical vulnerabilities in Fortune 500 companies such as Uber, Snapchat, Spotify, Twitter, and Airbnb.

Editor's Choice

Threat Hunting's Evolution:From On-Premises to the Cloud

State of Enterprise Cloud Security

Managing Third-Party Risk Through Situational Awareness

2024 InformationWeek US IT Salary Report

The 2021 Security Outcomes Study

Evolve Your Ransomware Defense

The ROI of RevealX Against Ransomware

RevealX Catches Ransomware Within Days of Deployment at WCH

The Future of Passwords and the Passwordless Evolution

Ten Elements of Insider Risk in Highly Regulated Industries

CRITICAL THINKING ELEMENTS worksheet

Social Barriers to Critical Thinking

Thinking about the application of critical thinking in public settings..

Posted August 13, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

We must acknowledge our biases when evaluating research presented via media and strive to find the source.
In situations that have important consequences, how we deal with the bias-based conflict is what matters.
Those living in places where free speech is protected are lucky; this right should not be taken for granted.

I recently wrote a research paper on cognitive barriers to critical thinking (CT), discussing flaws in thinking associated with intuitive judgment, emotion , bias , and epistemological misunderstanding, as well as inadequate CT skills and dispositions (Dwyer, 2023). A colleague progressed this thinking by asking me about social barriers to CT, through a number of specific questions. After thinking about these questions for a bit, I thought it useful to answer some of them here as consideration for CT in social situations.

What happens when people believe they’re thinking critically, but they are just repeating some party line?

The simple answer is that because the individual isn’t thinking critically and they’re just telling you what they believe, it’s up to you to decide whether or not it’s worth the effort to tell them. This depends on who the person is and how open they are to changing their mind —which people are quite hesitant to do; so, this might well be a futile endeavour. I probably would avoid engaging unless it’s someone I care about, who’s about to make an important decision based on erroneous information. Context is important here.

Of course, the folly is an example of in-group bias. The individual likely believes that their "group" has thought critically about the topic in question because they believe said party is credible with respect to the information they present. Thus, the individual might fail to evaluate the claim themselves because they are using their party’s thinking as some form of "expert opinion," even when there might be no relevant expertise to cite.

But, let’s say some research has been cited. Though the individual is right to talk about the research in the sense that research represents the most credible source of evidence , it does not ensure that this particular piece of research is credible. For example, consider how most people hear about new research. Academics know to read the relevant peer-reviewed journals, but not everyone is an academic. Most people hear about research from the news. It’s easy for a TV program or news radio show to talk about new research, but how sure can we be that such sources know how to properly interpret said research? Moreover, how do we know that the research was adequately conducted? We are hearing about research from a secondary source as opposed to the people who conducted it. This is problematic because a lot can be lost in the translation from the initial source, through the "middleman," and onto the public. As consumers of information, we must acknowledge our own potential biases when evaluating research presented to us through media outlets and strive to find the source of the research to ensure that we’re getting the full story.

Does one’s ideology and self-interest play a role in CT?

Ideology and self-interest are essentially bias-based cognitive structures; so, yes, they can affect one’s CT. However, if your decision is made in light of ideology and/or self-interest, then what you’re doing is not CT. If the information a person is presented with aligns with their pre-existing worldviews, they are likely to treat it as new information or as additional knowledge. Simply, if the information supports what we already believe, we are more likely to trust it (i.e., consider confirmation bias ). However, if the information contradicts such worldviews, we’re more likely to declare " fake news " without looking into it much further or, instead, pick flaws in it. This happens to the best of us from time to time, especially if the stakes aren’t particularly high (i.e., the decision you make doesn’t bear any important consequences ).

But, in situations that have important consequences, how we deal with the bias-based conflict is what matters. Our intuitive judgment will always tell us our gut feeling on a matter, but whether or not we engage in reflective judgment and dig deeper into the matter will determine whether or not we think critically . A critical thinker will look further into an important idea that they initially considered silly and might find that it’s actually well-supported by evidence (or it may not be, but at least they made the effort to further evaluate). Such evidence might lead them to further question the perspective and, ultimately, change their mind.

Is it worth sharing one’s CT in environments that punish CT?

This is a tough question because there are two equally acceptable answers—an idealistic one (yes) and a practical one (no)—the application of which, again, comes down to context. Some environments might discourage or even punish CT if the conclusions drawn contradict what is deemed "acceptable" (be it socially, politically, or even legally). In such cases, staying "quiet" seems like a practical and prudent move (even though it contradicts what many might view as intellectual integrity). That is, what’s more important, being right or avoiding punishment ? Another way of looking at this is thinking about whether speaking up is just a matter of being right, or the other party’s mistake is going to impact you in an important way. Is that "important way" worth potential punishment? Context is a key consideration here. Of course, environments where free speech is encouraged change things a bit; but if your CT contradicts the status quo, though you may not be "punished" for your conclusions, you might risk other negative knock-on effects. Sure, the ideal might seem more palatable in this context (i.e., sharing your CT), but there are many who might well stay quiet for reasons of practicality. Again, it depends on their own personal contexts (e.g., are you only risking offending someone or could you potentially put your employment in danger by stating your conclusions?).

All in all, each situation requires evaluation and appraisal of whether or not it is worth sharing one’s CT. From an idealistic perspective, this is a shame . Ideally , one should always feel free to share their thinking if CT has been applied. However, this is not always the practical strategy. Ultimately, what one can actually gain from sharing their conclusions (relative to what is likely to be lost), is what should determine whether or not such thinking is shared (e.g., Are you in a meaningful position to genuinely elicit positive change? ). The only real conclusion I can draw in this context is that those living in places where free speech is protected are truly very lucky, and this right should not be taken for granted. It should be practiced and maintained, but it is also imperative that it is well-informed. If it’s not, someone else with the right to speak freely, who has conducted CT, will hopefully call out that erroneous information. Of course, I recognise how that might seem a bit idealistic, because, unfortunately, as discussed above, many people often believe they have thought critically, even when they have not.

Dwyer, C.P. (2023). An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence: Critical Thinking in Everyday Life (Special Issue) , 11:105, doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

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
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Mitigating Misrepresentation: Is There A Proper Approach To ID Bridging?

By Ian Trider, Basis Technologies

Ian Trider, VP of RTB platform operations at Basis Technologies.

It has become clear recently that some sellers in the RTB ecosystem are engaging in abnormal practices regarding how IDs are populated in bid requests.

These sellers are causing a cookie ID to be presented in the bid request, in the customary field (“buyeruid”), but this cookie is not present in the browser. MediaMath listed this manipulation of IDs as unacceptable in its 2018 open letter to suppliers – yet it’s still occurring in 2024 at a concerning rate.

Typically, this misrepresentation is due to the practice of “ID bridging.” Sellers sometimes present a cookie ID through probabilistic bridging they claim is from another device that someone in a household owns. They do so to increase the monetization of their cookieless inventory, because without an ID, the inventory will attract fewer bids at lower prices.

Cookie syncing vs. ID bridging

The “buyeruid” field in bid requests is where an exchange is expected to put a DSP’s cookie-based user ID resulting from a customary cookie sync. This has been well-established behavior for as long as OpenRTB has existed. Deviating from this – such as presenting a “related” bridged ID – is surprising and unexpected from a buy-side perspective.

Though some sellers and tech vendors claim ID bridging is only being done with express permission from the DSPs, it often occurs without DSPs’ knowledge.

The integrity of IDs in bid requests is paramount. The accuracy of IDs is critical to ensuring audience targeted campaigns are bidding on the correct people, frequency capping occurs as expected and conversion attribution and other measurement can occur successfully. When a user does not have a cookie or the browser does not allow third-party cookies, the correct ID to present in “buyeruid” is none at all.

Buy-side concerns

The negative side effects of this practice include serving ads to a different person than intended, inhibiting frequency capping and lowering conversion rates (because conversion attribution cannot successfully occur for the impressions purchased).

ID manipulation also interferes with the accuracy of reach and frequency metrics and of DSP-provided cross-device targeting.

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Daily Roundup

Google Paid Advertisers To Buy Certain Media Types; Brand Safety Is Ruining The News

Even if the negative side effects were mitigated, ID bridging has significant potential to be abused for fraudulent purposes by sellers presenting IDs that are more likely to be bid on, rather than attempting to perform the practice accurately.

There is no reasonable way for the buy side to assess the accuracy of bridged IDs listed in bid requests. History has indicated that bad actors will blatantly lie about signals for financial gain.

Blocking bridging

Regardless of Google’s cookie course correction , far fewer users will have cookies enabled in the future, presenting challenges for every company in our ecosystem. However, unilaterally deployed, deceptive practices should not be acceptable. DSPs can compare the cookie IDs they see in bid requests to those they directly observe when serving the impression, to identify and block supply where discrepancies are occurring.

But cookie bridging isn’t the only area where these mismatches are happening. The same concerns apply for the “ifa” field used for declaring mobile or CTV advertising IDs. Unlike “buyeruid,” there isn’t a viable buy-side method for validating accuracy or determining how frequently bridging or other substitutions are occurring. However, it’s fair to assume that those who are manipulating “buyeruid” are doing similar for “ifa” as well.

The industry stance should be simple: In the absence of express negotiation between parties to the contrary, customary behavior should be expected for labeling IDs in the “buyeruid” and “ifa” fields.

The “buyeruid” field must only be used to provide a cookie ID resulting from a conventional cookie sync. The “ifa” field must only be used to provide a mobile or CTV advertising ID as retrieved directly from the device.

If a seller wishes to provide a bridged ID, they must do it in a clear, transparent manner, separate from these traditional fields. The IAB Tech Lab specs under development will provide a method for doing so. Buyers should have no objection to the presence of bridged IDs in bid requests if they are clearly disclosed and put in the appropriate place.

Clearer disclosures, as provided for in the proposed specs, would ensure that whether such an ID is used and for what purposes is under buy-side control. This way, outright fraud and the negative side effects that result from ID discrepancies can be avoided.

“ Data-Driven Thinking ” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Follow Basis Technologies and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.

For more articles featuring Ian Trider, click here .

Has Idealism Killed Google's Pursuit Of Privacy?

Thirteen Years Of Ad Tech Progress In One AdExchanger Comic

The Google Chrome Cookie Pivot Has The Industry Wary Of Another ATT-Esque Upheaval

2023: The Year SPO Went Mainstream

Andrew Baron, Senior Vice President, Marketplace & Addressability, at PubMatic

Forget Chrome’s Cookie Concerns: Solutions To Signal Loss Are Already Here

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Thanks To The DOJ, We Now Know What Google Really Thought About Header Bidding

Starting last week and into this week, hundreds of court-filed documents have been unsealed in the lead-up to the Google ad tech antitrust trial – and it’s a bonanza.

Will Alternative TV Currencies Ever Be More Than A Nielsen Add-On?

Ever since Nielsen was dinged for undercounting TV viewers during the pandemic, its competitors have been fighting to convince buyers and sellers alike to adopt them as alternatives. And yet, some industry insiders argue that alt currencies weren’t ever meant to supplant Nielsen.

A comic depicting people in suits setting money on fire as a reference to incrementality: as in, don't set your money on fire!

How Incrementality Tests Helped Newton Baby Ditch Branded Search

In the past year, Baby product and mattress brand Newton Baby has put all its media channels through a new testing regime for incrementality. It was a revelatory experience.

Colgate-Palmolive’s First-Party Data Strategy Is A Study In Quality Over Quantity

Colgate-Palmolive redesigned all of its consumer-facing sites and apps to make it easier to collect opted-in first-party user data.

Can E.L.F. Cosmetics Become A Consumer Destination, Not Just A Brand?

History can be a burden for a brand, if it means that company is too set in its ways to pivot and try new things. Just consider e.l.f. Cosmetics, the digitial-first, social-native brand that made good.

DTC Brands Are Learning The Hard Way That Winning In Retail Can Be A Losing Bet

Digital-native brands need to figure out how to win in retail shelves. They’re finding it difficult, to say the least.

Sierra Nevada Is Brewing A CTV Strategy – But Without Video

Sierra Nevada is tapping Kargo’s latest ad offering for its recent CTV campaign aimed to raise awareness for a brand refresh. But there’s a catch: The new ad units aren’t traditional video assets.

A comic showing lab techs as stand-ins for legislators experimenting with provisions for US state privacy laws, including restrictions on collecting sensitive data.

Don’t Sleep On Maryland’s Strict New Data Privacy Law

There’s a decent amount of overlap between many US state privacy laws – but there are also many significant differences. Take the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act.

Aki’s New SVP Of Media On What Makes Retail Media Tick

Ranjana Choudhry has spent decades on the buy and sell side. Now, she’s getting into ad tech. AdExchanger spoke with Choudhry about her new role and about her side hustle training the next generation of marketers.

Comscore Audience Data Will Now Be Available In FreeWheel’s Platform

On Monday, FreeWheel announced the integration of Proximic by Comscore’s contextual audience data directly into its ad management platform.

ID bridging isn’t the problem. Buyers are objecting to unexpected, undisclosed manipulation of critical data in bid requests by sellers.

IMAGES

What is not a Critical Thinking
PPT
Critical Thinking Is Not Important
6 Critical Thinking Skills You Need To Master Now Bui
Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking
Why Do Some People Avoid Critical Thinking?

COMMENTS

Critical Thinking and Non-Critical Thinking: Key Differences
Critical thinking is a must-have skill in the modern world. It's not just about passing exams; it's about taking a well-thought-out approach that gets you to the root cause of an issue.On the other hand, non-critical thinking is more surface level, a kind of "snap judgment" that doesn't take into account the big picture.. The level of focus each requires.
What Are Critical Thinking Skills and Why Are They Important?
According to the University of the People in California, having critical thinking skills is important because they are [ 1 ]: Universal. Crucial for the economy. Essential for improving language and presentation skills. Very helpful in promoting creativity. Important for self-reflection.
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking is the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations. The goal of this process is to help us have good beliefs, where "good" means that our beliefs meet certain goals of thought, such as truth, usefulness, or rationality. Critical thinking is widely ...
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms ...
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
15 Things We Have Learned About Critical Thinking
To recap, critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when applied through purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment ...
Critical thinking
Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. [1] In modern times, the use of the phrase critical thinking can be traced to John Dewey, who used the phrase reflective thinking. [2]
3 Core Critical Thinking Skills Every Thinker Should Have
To understand critical thinking skills and how they factor into critical thinking, one first needs a definition of the latter. Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a ...
Critical thinking
Critical thinking is characterized by a broad set of related skills usually including the abilities to. break down a problem into its constituent parts to reveal its underlying logic and assumptions. recognize and account for one's own biases in judgment and experience.
What is critical thinking?
Critical thinking is a kind of thinking in which you question, analyse, interpret , evaluate and make a judgement about what you read, hear, say, or write. The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning "able to judge or discern". Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgements based on reliable information.
How to think effectively: Six stages of critical thinking
Key Takeaways. Researchers propose six levels of critical thinkers: Unreflective thinkers, Challenged thinkers, Beginning thinkers, Practicing thinkers, Advanced thinkers, and Master thinkers. The ...
Critical Thinking: Definition, Examples, & Skills
Critical thinking & autonomy Critical thinking is a central feature of autonomy. When we make decisions that are not well-informed and carefully reasoned, it is easier for us to be manipulated, for others to influence us in such a way that we are unwittingly acting as the means for someone else's ends. To put it perhaps a little dramatically, we risk becoming the puppets of some egoistic ...
Defining Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
12 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking (And How To Overcome Them)
6. Egocentric Thinking. Egocentric thinking is also one of the main barriers to critical thinking. It occurs when a person examines everything through a "me" lens. Evaluating something properly requires an individual to understand and consider other people's perspectives, plights, goals, input, etc. 7. Assumptions.
Critical Thinking: Where to Begin
A Brief Definition: Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. A well-cultivated critical thinker: communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.
A Crash Course in Critical Thinking
Here is a series of questions you can ask yourself to try to ensure that you are thinking critically. Conspiracy theories. Inability to distinguish facts from falsehoods. Widespread confusion ...
Our Conception of Critical Thinking
A Definition. Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking.
What is Critical Thinking?
The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations.
The 7 Most Common Traits of Highly Effective Critical Thinkers
Critical thinking has long been considered a valuable asset for young people to master, and its necessity is likely to increase as our world becomes more augmented by transformational concepts such as emerging technologies (Willingham, 2019). The question is about what universal traits the effective critical thinkers in each circumstance, and ...
Critical Thinking & Why It's So Important
Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that allows individuals to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information objectively and rationally. It goes beyond merely accepting information at face value; instead, critical thinkers are equipped to delve deeper, question assumptions, and explore various perspectives before arriving at well-informed ...
Non-critical thinking: What if not thinking?
Abstract. Empirical evidence shows that not all critical thinkers demonstrate critical thinking behaviors in all situations. Some reasons why non-critical thinking appears to be more beneficial to the individual in the contemporary education context of Hungary are explored in the paper. First, a cultural anthropological approach is applied to ...
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking requires a clear, often uncomfortable, assessment of your personal strengths, weaknesses and preferences and their possible impact on decisions you may make. Critical thinking requires the development and use of foresight as far as this is possible. As Doris Day sang, "the future's not ours to see".
Critical Thinking Is Not Critical, Just Looking For Truth & Reality
Critical thinking is not default thinking; that is, lazily assuming what you believed to be so, must always be true. Stereotypes, like all men or all women are so-and-so, or statements that begin "We all know…", "It's obvious…", "You people…" or "These people are like…" are examples. ...
Our kids are missing out on critical thinking
Critical thinking is not well understood by those who are supposed to be teaching it and the broader context in which it is situated is not fully grasped by its advocates. We need further research into critical thinking, not just in students but in the wider public. Picture: Getty Images
Problem-Solving with Critical Thinking
The final step when employing critical thinking to problem-solving is to evaluate the progress of the solution. Since critical thinking demands open-mindedness, analysis, and a willingness to change one's mind, it is important to monitor how well the solution has actually solved the problem in order to determine if any course correction is ...
Critical Thinking AI in Cybersecurity: A Stretch or a Possibility?
Needless to say, when we talk about critical thinking technology, its purpose will be to aid humans in making decisions that require more than a yes or no answer and to go beyond the current logic ...
CRITICAL THINKING ELEMENTS worksheet (docx)
Not all youth make the right choice and not all can be saved. Repeat offenders of the same crime or run-ins with the law. The crime is not always black and white. Just because it is a youth does not mean they should be given a free pass every time. Florida is tough on juveniles.
Social Barriers to Critical Thinking
A critical thinker will look further into an important idea that they initially considered silly and might find that it's actually well-supported by evidence (or it may not be, but at least they ...
Can AI Help Students Develop Critical Thinking in Math?
Critical thinking gives students the ability to analyze problems, identify patterns, and develop creative solutions. It's a skill that benefits students in math and other aspects of life. The ...
Mitigating Misrepresentation: Is There A Proper Approach To ID Bridging?
The problem is not ID bridging, which is conceptually similar to cross-device targeting as provided by most DSPs. Buyers are objecting to unexpected, undisclosed manipulation of critical data in bid requests by sellers, without regard to negative side effects for the buy side.