critical thinking drawbacks

The Disadvantages of Critical Thinking: Don’t Overthink It

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

Sanju Pradeepa

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of Critical Thinking, When You Have Too Much

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

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

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

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

1. Difficulty in Decision-Making

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

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

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

2. You might be overthinking every situation.

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

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

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

3. Unavoidable biases and prejudices

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

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

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

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

4. Disruption of Imagination and Creativity

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

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

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

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

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

5. Lack of Emotional Engagement

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

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

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

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

6. Potential for stress and anxiety

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

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

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

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

7. Critical thinking can be time-consuming.

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical thinking can lead to uncertainty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

The Advantages & Disadvantages of Critical Thinking

Micah mcdunnigan.

Critical thinking is, at heart, questioning what you are told instead of taking it at face value. It is evaluating information in a rational framework where facts and reason line up to support or fail to support assertions. Critical thinking skills are highly sought, and have a number of benefits in life. However, with the upsides comes certain downsides.

Explore this article

• Academic Success
• Professional Success
• Disadvantages

1 Academic Success

Memorizing what your teacher tells you and regurgitating it verbatim will only get you so far in school. Memorizing exactly what the teacher told you gives you access to a number of discrete facts you can call on for exams. This will serve you well on questions that ask for such verbatim recitation of information, but the best grades and future success will go to students who can ask questions about those facts, draw connections between them, formulate their own thoughts on the matter, and articulate them.

2 Professional Success

Critical thinking skills will make you more effective in whatever field you choose to go into. The ability to look at your professional field and make connections to identify opportunities no one else has seen yet will give you an edge. This is the way new and innovative products come about. If you are always just following the crowd, you'll never stand out. In a competitive business world, you're in professional trouble if you can't stand on your own or make valuable contributions to your employer.

Critical thinking skills can help you get along with a wider range of people. This is because if you can step back and evaluate a situation from a perspective other than your own, you can better understand why different people do what they do. This helps you avoid the social conflict that results from two narrow-minded perspectives butting heads with one another. It can expand your social circle, and lead to more harmonious interactions with everyone around you.

4 Disadvantages

The downside of critical thinking skills is that they can lead you into new and frightening territory. You might find yourself questioning the values, even the religion, by which you were raised. There is a certain existential comfort in someone else telling you how the world works, then blindly clinging to those tenets. The price of this simple comfort is forgoing a deeper understanding of how the world works, and all the opportunities this deeper thinking provides. While you can use your thinking skills to find new tenets that make sense, a modified version of those original tenets, or a new understanding of those original tenets, you might feel lost as you move between points A and B.

• 1 McGraw Hill: Introduction to Critical Thinking

About the Author

Micah McDunnigan has been writing on politics and technology since 2007. He has written technology pieces and political op-eds for a variety of student organizations and blogs. McDunnigan earned a Bachelor of Arts in international relations from the University of California, Davis.

Related Articles

Critical Thinking in the Decision-Making Processes

How Can a College Experience Help With Achieving Future...

How to Improve Adult Reading Comprehension

Seven Key Features of Critical Thinking

Trusting Others After Being Disappointed

What Does It Mean When You Have a High Intuition?

Differences Between Analytical & Critical Thinking

What Are the Differences Between Bias & Fallacy?

How to Move on After a Long Term Relationship Without...

What Are Ethical Ramifications?

The Importance of College After High School Graduation

How to Practice the Serenity Prayer

Signs of Intelligence

Types of Argument Syles

How to Get Over Being Dumped From a Long-Term Relationship

What to Do When a Friend Tells You She's Not Your Friend...

How to Write a Philosophy Thesis

How to Control Anger If Someone Hurls Insults at Me

How to Increase Your Critical Thinking Skills

How to Make People Want to Follow You on Tumblr

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

Cognitive Bias Is the Loose Screw in Critical Thinking

Recognizing your biases enhances understanding and communication..

Posted May 17, 2021 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• People cannot think critically unless they are aware of their cognitive biases, which can alter their perception of reality.
• Cognitive biases are mental shortcuts people take in order to process the mass of information they receive daily.
• Cognitive biases include confirmation bias, anchoring bias, bandwagon effect, and negativity bias.

When I was a kid, I was enamored of cigarette-smoking movie stars. When I was a teenager , some of my friends began to smoke; I wanted to smoke too, but my parents forbid it. I was also intimidated by the ubiquitous anti-smoking commercials I saw on television warning me that smoking causes cancer. As much as I wanted to smoke, I was afraid of it.

When I started college as a pre-med major, I also started working in a hospital emergency room. I was shocked to see that more than 90% of the nurses working there were smokers, but that was not quite enough to convince me that smoking was OK. It was the doctors: 11 of the 12 emergency room physicians I worked with were smokers. That was all the convincing I needed. If actual medical doctors thought smoking was safe, then so did I. I started smoking without concern because I had fallen prey to an authority bias , which is a type of cognitive bias. Fortunately for my health, I wised up and quit smoking 10 years later.

It's Likely You're Unaware of These Habits

Have you ever thought someone was intelligent simply because they were attractive? Have you ever dismissed a news story because it ran in a media source you didn’t like? Have you ever thought or said, “I knew that was going to happen!” in reference to a team winning, a stock going up in value, or some other unpredictable event occurring? If you replied "yes” to any of these, then you may be guilty of relying on a cognitive bias.

In my last post, I wrote about the importance of critical thinking, and how in today’s information age, no one has an excuse for living in ignorance. Since then, I recalled a huge impediment to critical thinking: cognitive bias. We are all culpable of leaning on these mental crutches, even though we don’t do it intentionally.

What Are Cognitive Biases?

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines cognitive bias as the way a particular person understands events, facts, and other people, which is based on their own particular set of beliefs and experiences and may not be reasonable or accurate.

PhilosophyTerms.com calls it a bad mental habit that gets in the way of logical thinking.

PositivePsychology.com describes it this way: “We are often presented with situations in life when we need to make a decision with imperfect information, and we unknowingly rely on prejudices or biases.”

And, according to Alleydog.com, a cognitive bias is an involuntary pattern of thinking that produces distorted perceptions of people, surroundings, and situations around us.

In brief, a cognitive bias is a shortcut to thinking. And, it’s completely understandable; the onslaught of information that we are exposed to every day necessitates some kind of time-saving method. It is simply impossible to process everything, so we make quick decisions. Most people don’t have the time to thoroughly think through everything they are told. Nevertheless, as understandable as depending on biases may be, it is still a severe deterrent to critical thinking.

Here's What to Watch Out For

Wikipedia lists 197 different cognitive biases. I am going to share with you a few of the more common ones so that in the future, you will be aware of the ones you may be using.

Confirmation bias is when you prefer to attend media and information sources that are in alignment with your current beliefs. People do this because it helps maintain their confidence and self-esteem when the information they receive supports their knowledge set. Exposing oneself to opposing views and opinions can cause cognitive dissonance and mental stress . On the other hand, exposing yourself to new information and different viewpoints helps open up new neural pathways in your brain, which will enable you to think more creatively (see my post: Surprise: Creativity Is a Skill, Not a Gift! ).

Anchoring bias occurs when you become committed or attached to the first thing you learn about a particular subject. A first impression of something or someone is a good example (see my post: Sometimes You Have to Rip the Cover Off ). Similar to anchoring is the halo effect , which is when you assume that a person’s positive or negative traits in one area will be the same in some other aspect of their personality . For example, you might think that an attractive person will also be intelligent without seeing any proof to support it.

Hindsight bias is the inclination to see some events as more predictable than they are; also known as the “I knew it all along" reaction. Examples of this bias would be believing that you knew who was going to win an election, a football or baseball game, or even a coin toss after it occurred.

Misinformation effect is when your memories of an event can become affected or influenced by information you received after the event occurred. Researchers have proven that memory is inaccurate because it is vulnerable to revision when you receive new information.

Actor-observer bias is when you attribute your actions to external influences and other people's actions to internal ones. You might think you missed a business opportunity because your car broke down, but your colleague failed to get a promotion because of incompetence.

False consensus effect is when you assume more people agree with your opinions and share your values than actually do. This happens because you tend to spend most of your time with others, such as family and friends, who actually do share beliefs similar to yours.

Availability bias occurs when you believe the information you possess is more important than it actually is. This happens when you watch or listen to media news sources that tend to run dramatic stories without sharing any balancing statistics on how rare such events may be. For example, if you see several stories on fiery plane crashes, you might start to fear flying because you assume they occur with greater frequency than they actually do.

Bandwagon effect, also known as herd mentality or groupthink , is the propensity to accept beliefs or values because many other people also hold them as well. This is a conformity bias that occurs because most people desire acceptance, connection, and belonging with others, and fear rejection if they hold opposing beliefs. Most people will not think through an opinion and will assume it is correct because so many others agree with it.

Authority bias is when you accept the opinion of an authority figure because you believe they know more than you. You might assume that they have already thought through an issue and made the right conclusion. And, because they are an authority in their field, you grant more credibility to their viewpoint than you would for anyone else. This is especially true in medicine where experts are frequently seen as infallible. An example would be an advertiser showing a doctor, wearing a lab coat, touting their product.

Negativity bias is when you pay more attention to bad news than good. This is a natural bias that dates back to humanity’s prehistoric days when noticing threats, risks, and other lethal dangers could save your life. In today’s civilized world, this bias is not as necessary (see my post Fear: Lifesaver or Manipulator ).

Illusion of control is the belief that you have more control over a situation than you actually do. An example of this is when a gambler believes he or she can influence a game of chance.

Understand More and Communicate Better

Learning these biases, and being on the alert for them when you make a decision to accept a belief or opinion, will help you become more effective at critical thinking.

Robert Wilson is a writer and humorist based in Atlanta, Georgia.

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

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

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

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

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Pros and Cons of Identifying Critical Thinking with System 2 Processing

• Published: 26 March 2016
• Volume 37 , pages 113–119, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Jean-François Bonnefon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4959-188X 1  

2535 Accesses

17 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The dual-process model of cognition but most especially its reflective component, system 2 processing, shows strong conceptual links with critical thinking. In fact, the salient characteristics of system 2 processing are so strikingly close to that of critical thinking, that it is tempting to claim that critical thinking is system 2 processing, no more and no less. In this article, I consider the two sides of that claim: Does critical thinking always require system 2 processing? And does system 2 processing always result in critical thinking? I argue that it is plausible and helpful to consider that critical thinking requires system 2 processing. In particular, this assumption can provide interesting insights and benchmarks for critical thinking education. On the other hand, I show that system 2 processing can result in a range of outcomes which are either contradictory with critical thinking, or of debatable social desirability—which suggests that there is more to critical thinking than mere system 2 processing, and more to system 2 processing than just critical thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception

“Here Be Dragons!” Mapping the Realm of Higher-Order, Critical, and Critical-Analytic Thinking

A Two-Systems Perspective for Computational Thinking

In the same spirit, the positive effects of group discussions on critical thinking must be benchmarked against the simple exposure to the conclusions of others. People can easily adopt the output of others’ critical thinking, without engaging in critical thinking themselves (Rahwan et al. 2014 ). In other words, the fact that group discussions promote responses that match the output of critical thinking does not mean that they promoted critical thinking in he first place.

There are not hard data that I know of on the relative proportions of system 2 processing that go into sustained inhibition or biased rationalization. In some fields, such as deductive or probabilistic reasoning, psychologists seem to consider that biased rationalization is less frequent than sustained inhibition (Evans and Ball 2010 ), probably because reasoners do not have a personal stake in these problems. In other fields (such as moral reasoning), some authors famously and controversially argued that all that is not intuition is reducible to biased rationalization (e.g., Haidt 2001 ).

That is not to say that people who say it is morally acceptable to kill one person to save several lives are motivated by utilitarian ethics (Kahane et al. 2015 ). But I will continue to use the ‘utilitarian’ label in this article, so that my terminology is consistent with that of the articles I will summarize.

Bartels DM (2008) Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition 108:381–417

Article   Google Scholar  

Bouvet R, Bonnefon JF (2015) Non-reflective thinkers are predisposed to attribute supernatural causation to uncanny experiences. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 41:955–961

Conway P, Gawronski B (2013) Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decisionmaking: a process dissociation approach. J Personal Soc Psychol 104:216–235

Cummins DD, Cummins RC (2012) Emotion and deliberative reasoning in moral judgment. Front Psychol 3:328

Google Scholar  

De Neys W (2012) Bias and conflict: a case for logical intuitions. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:128–138

De Neys W (2014) Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: some clarifications. Think Reason 20:167–187

De Neys W, Bonnefon JF (2013) The whys and whens of individual differences in thinking biases. Trends Cogn Sci 17:172–178

De Neys W, Moyens E, Vansteenwegen D (2010) Feeling we’re biased: autonomic arousal and reasoning conflict. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 10:208–216

De Neys W, Novitskiy N, Geeraerts L, Ramautar J, Wagemans J (2011) Cognitive control and individual differences in economic ultimatum decision-making. PloS One 6:e27107

De Neys W, Vartanian W, Goel V (2008) Smarter than we think: when our brains detect that we are biased. Psychol Sci 19:483–489

Diamond A (2013) Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 64:135–168

Evans JSBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278

Evans JSBT, Ball LJ (2010) Do people reason on the Wason selection task? A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003). Q J Exp Psychol 63:434–441

Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:223–241

Facione P (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. (Technical Report). American Philosophical Association

Fredericks S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19:25–42

Gervais WM, Norenzayan A (2012) Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science 336:493–496

Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1:107–143

Greene JD (2007) Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends Cogn Sci 17:322–323

Greene JD (2013) Moral tribes: emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin Press, London

Grimm V, Mengel F (2011) Let me sleep on it: delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games. Econ Lett 111:113–115

Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834

Halpern DF (2014) Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking, 5th edn. Psychology Press, NY

Kahan DM (2013) Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm Decis Mak 8:407–424

Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Larrimore Ouellette L, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Change 2:732–735

Kahane G, Everett JAC, Earp BD, Farias M, Savulescu J (2015) utilitarian judgments in sacrificial dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition 134:193–209

Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Karbach J, Kray J (2009) How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Dev Sci 12:978–990

Kenyon T, Beaulac G (2014) Critical thinking education and debiasing. Informal Log 34:341–363

Lotito G, Migheli M, Ortona G (2013) Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. J Bioecon 15:123–133

Lucas EJ, Ball LJ (2005) Think-aloud protocols and the selection task: evidence for relevance effects and rationalisation processes. Think Reasoning 11:35–66

Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol 41:49–100

Moore AB, Clark BA, Kane MJ (2008) Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychgol Sci 19:549–557

Munakata Y, Herd SA, Chatham CH, Depue BE, Banich MT, O’Reilly RC (2011) A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends Cogn Sci 15:453–459

Nielsen UH, Tyran JR, Wengström E (2014) Second thoughts on free riding. Econ Lett 122:136–139

Owen AM, Hampshire A, Grahn JA, Stenton R, Dajani S, Burns AS, Ballard CG (2010) Putting brain training to the test. Nature 465:775–778

Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA (2014) Cognitive style and religiosity: the role of conflict detection. Mem Cogn 42:1–10

Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Seli P, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA (2012) Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition 123:335–346

Pennycook G, Fugelsang JA, Koehler DJ (2015) What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cogn Psychol 80:34–72

Rahwan I, Krasnoshtan D, Shariff A, Bonnefon JF (2014) Analytical reasoning task reveals limits of social learning in networks. J R Soc Interface 11:20131211

Rand DG, Greene JD, Nowak MA (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489:427–430

Rand DG, Peysakhovich A, Kraf.-Todd GT, Newman GE, Wurzbacher O, Nowak MA, Greene JD (2014) Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nat Commun 5:3677

Razmyar S, Reeve CL (2013) Individual differences in religiosity as a function of cognitive ability and cognitive style. Intelligence 41:667–673

Shenhav A, Rand DG, Greene JD (2012) Divine intuition: cognitive style influences belief in god. J Exp Psychol Gen 141:423–428

Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119:3–22

Stanovich KE (2004) The robot’s rebellion: finding meaning in the age of Darwin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Stanovich KE (2009a) Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: is it time for a tri-process theory. In: Evans JSBT, Frankish K (eds) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–88

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Stanovich KE (2009b) What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press, New Haven

Stanovich KE (2012) On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 343–365

Stanovich KE, Stanovich PJ (2010) Aframework for critical thinking, rational thinking, and intelligence. In: Preiss D, Sternberg RJ (eds) Innovations in educational psychology: perspectives on learning, teaching and human development. Springer, New York, pp 195–237

Stanovich KE, West RF (2008) On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:672–695

Suter R, Hertwig R (2011) Time and moral judgment. Cognition 119:454–458

Thaler R, Sunstein CS (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, Yale

Trémolière B, Bonnefon JF (2014) Efficient kill-save ratios ease up the cognitive demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianism. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 40:333–351

Trémolière B, DeNeys W, Bonnefon JF (2012) Mortality salience and morality: thinking about death makes people less utilitarian. Cognition 124:379–384

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support through the ANR-Labex IAST is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Toulouse School of Economics, University of Toulouse Capitole (CNRS, Center for Research in Management), Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, 21 allée de Brienne, 31015, Toulouse Cedex 6, France

Jean-François Bonnefon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-François Bonnefon .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bonnefon, JF. The Pros and Cons of Identifying Critical Thinking with System 2 Processing. Topoi 37 , 113–119 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9375-2

Download citation

Published : 26 March 2016

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9375-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Dual-process
• Rationalization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

5.2.3: Critical Thinking

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 241985

• Daniel Wilson
• Moreno Valley College

Critical Thinking: Databases or Websites?

Sometimes instructors will say: “Don’t use online sources—use library sources only!”

“But library databases are online,” you say to yourself. But you also understand that your instructor is referring to public websites or sources you can easily find using Google.

So, despite your instructor’s requirements, how would you decide when to use a library database versus a public website? What are a few of the advantages and disadvantages of each?

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

1 Barriers to critical thinking

First, let’s briefly examine some barriers to critical thinking.

Take another look at the visual summary below on critical and analytical thinking, which was introduced at the end of Session 3. Note the warning sign next to the ‘black pit’ to the lower right of this figure.

This figure shows a visual summary of critical and analytical thinking. It includes phrases such as ‘objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement’, ‘abilities’, ‘dispositions’ and ‘questioning’.

We have provided you with a larger version of this image in PDF format [ Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. ( Hide tip ) ] .

What are the common pitfalls or barriers to thinking critically and analytically? Some of these were highlighted in the visual summary, and include:

• Misunderstanding . This can arise due to language or cultural differences, a lack of awareness of the ‘processes’ involved, or a misunderstanding that critical thinking means making ‘negative’ comments (as discussed in Sessions 3 and 4).
• Reluctance to critique the ‘norm’ or experts in a field and consider alternative views (feeling out of your ‘comfort zone’ or fearful of being wrong).
• Lack of detailed knowledge . Superficial knowledge (not having read deeply enough around the subject).
• Wanting to know the answers without having to ask questions .

Why do you think being aware of these potential pitfalls is important?

As a critical and reflective thinker, you will need to be aware of the barriers, acknowledge the challenges they may present, and overcome these as best you can. This starts with an understanding of expectations. Some students feel anxious about questioning the work of experts. Critical thinking does not mean that you are challenging someone’s work or telling them that they are wrong, but encourages a deeper understanding, a consideration of alternative views, and engagement in thought, discourse or research that informs your independent judgement. At postgraduate level you will also need to read widely around a subject in order to engage effectively with critical and analytical thinking, and to ask questions: there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, only supported arguments. This is at the heart of postgraduate study.

Critical thinking encourages you to be constructive, by considering the strengths and weaknesses of a claim and differing sides to an argument. It helps you to clarify points, encourages deeper thought, and allows you to determine whether information that you come across is accurate and reliable. This helps you to form your own judgement, and drives research forward.

People can find it difficult to think critically, irrespective of their education or intellectual ability. The key to understanding critical thinking is not only knowing and making sure that you understand the process, but also being able to put this into practice by applying your knowledge.

Critical and reflective thinking are complex and lifelong skills that you continue to develop as part of your personal and professional growth. In your everyday life, you may also come across those who do not exercise critical thinking, and this might impact on decisions that affect you. It is important to recognise this, and to use critical and reflective thinking to ensure that your own view is informed by reasoned judgement, supported by evidence.

Take another look at the visual summary. You will see two aspects to critical thinking: one focusing on the disposition of the person engaged in critical and reflective thinking, and the other concerning their abilities. Let’s focus here on dispositions. At a personal level, barriers to critical thinking can arise through:

• an over-reliance on feelings or emotions
• self-centred or societal/cultural-centred thinking (conformism, dogma and peer-pressure)
• unconscious bias, or selective perception
• an inability to be receptive to an idea or point of view that differs from your own (close-mindedness)
• unwarranted assumptions or lack of relevant information
• fear of being wrong (anxious about being taken out of your ‘comfort zone’)
• poor communication skills or apathy
• lack of personal honesty.

Be aware that thinking critically is not simply adhering to a formula. For example, reflect on the following questions:

• How can you communicate with those who do not actively engage with critical thinking and are unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue?
• How would you react or respond when you experience a lack of critical thinking in the media, amongst your own family members, colleagues at work, or on your course?

• Schools & departments

Critical thinking

Advice and resources to help you develop your critical voice.

Developing critical thinking skills is essential to your success at University and beyond.  We all need to be critical thinkers to help us navigate our way through an information-rich world. 

Whatever your discipline, you will engage with a wide variety of sources of information and evidence.  You will develop the skills to make judgements about this evidence to form your own views and to present your views clearly.

One of the most common types of feedback received by students is that their work is ‘too descriptive’.  This usually means that they have just stated what others have said and have not reflected critically on the material.  They have not evaluated the evidence and constructed an argument.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is the art of making clear, reasoned judgements based on interpreting, understanding, applying and synthesising evidence gathered from observation, reading and experimentation. Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2016)  Essential Study Skills: The Complete Guide to Success at University (4th ed.) London: SAGE, p94.

Being critical does not just mean finding fault.  It means assessing evidence from a variety of sources and making reasoned conclusions.  As a result of your analysis you may decide that a particular piece of evidence is not robust, or that you disagree with the conclusion, but you should be able to state why you have come to this view and incorporate this into a bigger picture of the literature.

Being critical goes beyond describing what you have heard in lectures or what you have read.  It involves synthesising, analysing and evaluating what you have learned to develop your own argument or position.

Critical thinking is important in all subjects and disciplines – in science and engineering, as well as the arts and humanities.  The types of evidence used to develop arguments may be very different but the processes and techniques are similar.  Critical thinking is required for both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study.

What, where, when, who, why, how?

Purposeful reading can help with critical thinking because it encourages you to read actively rather than passively.  When you read, ask yourself questions about what you are reading and make notes to record your views.  Ask questions like:

• What is the main point of this paper/ article/ paragraph/ report/ blog?
• Who wrote it?
• Why was it written?
• When was it written?
• Has the context changed since it was written?
• Is the evidence presented robust?
• How did the authors come to their conclusions?
• Do you agree with the conclusions?
• What does this add to our knowledge?
• Why is it useful?

Our web page covering Reading at university includes a handout to help you develop your own critical reading form and a suggested reading notes record sheet.  These resources will help you record your thoughts after you read, which will help you to construct your argument. 

Reading at university

Developing an argument

Being a university student is about learning how to think, not what to think.  Critical thinking shapes your own values and attitudes through a process of deliberating, debating and persuasion.   Through developing your critical thinking you can move on from simply disagreeing to constructively assessing alternatives by building on doubts.

There are several key stages involved in developing your ideas and constructing an argument.  You might like to use a form to help you think about the features of critical thinking and to break down the stages of developing your argument.

Features of critical thinking (pdf)

Features of critical thinking (Word rtf)

Our webpage on Academic writing includes a useful handout ‘Building an argument as you go’.

Academic writing

You should also consider the language you will use to introduce a range of viewpoints and to evaluate the various sources of evidence.  This will help your reader to follow your argument.  To get you started, the University of Manchester's Academic Phrasebank has a useful section on Being Critical. 

Academic Phrasebank

Developing your critical thinking

Set yourself some tasks to help develop your critical thinking skills.  Discuss material presented in lectures or from resource lists with your peers.  Set up a critical reading group or use an online discussion forum.  Think about a point you would like to make during discussions in tutorials and be prepared to back up your argument with evidence.

For more suggestions:

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (pdf)

Developing your critical thinking - ideas (Word rtf)

Published guides

For further advice and more detailed resources please see the Critical Thinking section of our list of published Study skills guides.

Study skills guides  

This article was published on 2024-02-26

Advantages and Disadvantages of Critical Thinking In Education

Looking for advantages and disadvantages of Critical Thinking In Education?

We have collected some solid points that will help you understand the pros and cons of Critical Thinking In Education in detail.

But first, let’s understand the topic:

What is Critical Thinking In Education?

Critical thinking in education is when students learn to think clearly and make smart choices by asking questions, looking at all sides of a problem, and using logic before deciding what they believe or what action to take.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Critical Thinking In Education

The following are the advantages and disadvantages of Critical Thinking In Education:

Advantages of Critical Thinking In Education

• Enhances problem-solving skills – Critical thinking helps students tackle complex issues by breaking them down into smaller, more manageable parts. This approach leads to better solutions.
• Promotes independent thinking – It allows students to rely on their own reasoning and analysis, making them self-sufficient learners who can explore ideas on their own.
• Encourages open-mindedness – Being open to different viewpoints, critical thinking teaches students to consider various perspectives before forming an opinion, which broadens their understanding.
• Improves decision-making ability – It sharpens the ability to weigh options and assess the consequences, leading to smarter choices in academic and everyday situations.
• Fosters effective communication – Critical thinking equips students with the ability to articulate their thoughts clearly and listen to others, which is key in collaborating and sharing ideas effectively.

Disadvantages of Critical Thinking In Education

• Can hinder quick decision-making – Critical thinking sometimes makes it hard to make fast choices because it asks for careful thought and weighing of options.
• May lead to overthinking – Thinking too much about all the possible outcomes and angles can make simple decisions feel more complicated than they need to be.
• Requires extensive time and resources – Teaching people to always think critically can take a lot of effort and tools, which might not always be easy to find or afford.
• Can cause analysis paralysis – When you try to think about every detail, you can get stuck and find it hard to decide on anything at all.
• Might discourage creative spontaneity – Focusing too much on critical thinking could take away from the ability to come up with new ideas quickly and act on them without second-guessing.
• Advantages and disadvantages of Cardiac Rehabilitation
• Advantages and disadvantages of Cardiovascular Endurance
• Advantages and disadvantages of Cloves

You can view other “advantages and disadvantages of…” posts by clicking here .

If you have a related query, feel free to let us know in the comments below.

Also, kindly share the information with your friends who you think might be interested in reading it.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

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

Eggcellent Work

Is critical thinking overrated  disadvantages of critical thinking.

An argument for the notion that critical thinking is overrated

Fans of Sheldon Cooper on the syndicated comedy series “The Big Bang Theory” might be inclined to agree with the argument that critical thinking is overrated. Sheldon is the quintessential critical thinker, but is completely lacking in social skills, empathy, and tact.

When it comes to matters of heart and his romance with Amy, he is totally hopeless and hapless at saying or doing anything that requires using normal emotional responses. Sheldon has the ability to painstakingly analyze, develop, and provide evidence for his ideas and theories, but he is completely lacking in social skills, and–in what we will cover in detail below–emotional intelligence.

Table of Contents

What are some disadvantages of critical thinking?

Fact gathering, analysis, and the belief that emotion has no place in critical thinking can lead to “analysis paralysis,” when intuition and experience can work faster and better. Rigid critical thinkers frequently:

• consider both the positive and negative sides of everything
• are more prone to think negatively than positively—hence, the term “critical”
• often suffer from depression, OCD, or anxiety when their critical thinking habits don’t produce desired results
• tend towards perfectionism, when excellence will suffice
• are hypercritical of themselves and others
• avoid any decision that has an emotional element whatsoever

Critical thinkers need to develop emotional intelligence

There is a middle ground and a hybrid form of critical thinking where emotions can be factored into critical thinking. Emotional intelligence according to  Psychology Today   is “the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others.”

Emotional intelligence includes the “ability to identify and name one’s own emotions” and apply those emotions to clear thinking and problem solving. Emotional intelligence also includes the ability to manage and regulate emotions and  apply them to tasks that include critical thinking  and problem solving.

For people in leadership positions, emotional intelligence is an essential element of problem solving. Having emotional intelligence is likewise an essential ingredient to successfully managing people.

• 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
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Elements of emotional intelligence

Daniel Goldman, Ph.D., the author of the New York Times bestseller  Emotional Intelligence and Social intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships,   describes the five key elements to emotional intelligence:

1 . Practicing self-awareness : Knowing how you feel and how your emotions and actions can affect those around you. This means having a clear understanding of your weaknesses and strengths.

Self-aware leaders and team members spend a few minutes each day keeping a journal. They are slow to display anger and rarely give in to strong emotions. They know that, no matter what the situation, they can always choose how to react.

2.  Staying in control through self-regulation : This is the ability to avoid stereotyping others, engaging in personal attacks, or making rushed emotional decisions.

Emotionally intelligent people have a solid foundation of values and a code of ethics. They hold themselves accountable and admit and learn from their mistakes. Their stress-relieving practices involve deep-breathing to restore personal calm and often writing down their negative feelings on a sheet of paper, ripping it up, and throwing it away.

3.  Being self-motivated : Emotionally intelligent people are relentlessly dedicated to reaching their goals. They have high personal standards of their own and their group’s quality of work.

Self-motivated people constantly re-examine what they really love about their career. They can always see something positive in any bad situation—if only a lesson learned for future reference.

4.  Walking a mile in the other person’s shoes : Having empathy is another key element of emotional intelligence. This involves a dedication to developing the people on their team, giving constructive feedback, challenging those who are acting unfairly, and always listening to those who ask for help.

Empathetic people take time to look at situations from the perspective of others—even if their opinions and attitudes don’t seem to make good sense. That involves active listening and being sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others.

5.  Having social skills : Social skills—successfully dealing with people with a variety of backgrounds, etc.—are what make a leader and team member great communicators. Their excitement and enthusiasm are infectious, and they set the ideal example for hard work and dedication.

Good social skills include conflict resolution, improving communication skills, and getting into the habit of praising others when the praise is earned.

Employers, however, do not think that critical thinking is overrated

The bottom line is that critical thinking is a necessary skill for almost every job. Employees who can analyze evidence, question and test assumptions and hypotheses and draw conclusions from a variety of data inputs are widely sought after.

According to the  National Association of Colleges and Employers , employers who responded to their survey “rated critical thinking/problem solving as  the most essential competency  among new hires.”

Critical thinking/problem solving was rated 4.62 on a scale of 5. Teamwork/collaboration and professionalism/work ethic ranked just below with scores of 4.56 and 4.46, respectively.

The hybrid combination of critical thinking and emotional intelligence

So, while critical thinking is mainly a rational process, humans can never be 100% rational. To be completely rational would require abandoning our humanity, empathy and ethics.

Part of the process in communicating with others is recognizing that sometimes critical thinking is overrated and can be emotionally challenging. Expressions of emotion must be listened to. They can be evidence of deeper problems and require flexibility and openness to authentic expressions of others.

Your takeaways

• Dr. Sheldon Cooper, the brilliant, but socially challenged character in  The Big Bang Theory,  is a classic example of how critical thinking can be overrated.
• There are some disadvantages to critical thinking. They include overthinking, emphasizing the negative, and perfectionism.
• Critical thinking often includes a rigid avoidance of emotion. However, emotional intelligence can be combined with critical thinking for better communication and problem solving.
• Elements of emotional intelligence are self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills.
• Nevertheless, employers place a premium on critical thinking skills. Combining critical thinking skills with emotional intelligence is a hybrid solution to problem solving and communication requiring a human touch.
• 10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving
• 12 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking (And How To Overcome Them)
• How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace
• Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?
• 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.

Further Reading...

15 Best Books on Assertiveness in the Workplace

What Is The Role Of Communication In Critical Thinking?  

From Good To Great: 20 Examples Of Exceeding Expectations

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

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

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

25 in-demand jobs that require critical thinking and problem-solving skills  .

Sign up for the Health News Florida newsletter

How do you counter misinformation critical thinking is step one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Real-Life Experiment To Fight Misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What They Found

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

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

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

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

Critical Thinking In The Age Of AI

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

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

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

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

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

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Politics Articles & More

The benefits and drawbacks of intuitive thinking, relying on our intuitions can help us be creative, but it might also contribute to conspiracy theories..

I have been researching the psychology of conspiracy beliefs for seven years now and people often ask me why people believe in them. This is not a simple question.

There are many reasons people might endorse conspiracy theories. Something that stands out to me, though, is how our thinking styles can influence the way we process information and therefore how prone we can be to conspiracy beliefs.

A preference for intuitive thinking over analytical thinking styles seems to be linked to endorsement of conspiracy theories.

Intuitive thinking is a thinking style reliant on immediate and unconscious judgments. It often follows gut feelings, whereas analytical thinking is about slower, more deliberate and detailed processing of information.

I’ve written before about how we can develop a more effortful, analytical thinking style to reduce our predisposition to conspiracy beliefs.

Research has shown critical thinking skills have many life benefits. For example, a study from 2017 found that people who scored higher in critical thinking skills reported fewer negative life events (for instance, getting a parking ticket or missing a flight). Critical thinking was a stronger predictor than intelligence for avoiding these types of events. It’s not clear why this is.

On the other hand, intuitive thinking has been linked to thinking errors. For example, intuitive thinking styles can lead to over-reliance on mental shortcuts, which can also increase susceptibility to conspiracy theories . 

This can lead to dangerous consequences. For example, greater intuitive thinking has been linked to anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccine hesitancy.

However, extremely successful people , such as Albert Einstein and Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, argued the importance of using their intuition and attributed their achievements to intuitive thinking.

The value of intuitive thinking

One benefit of intuitive thinking is that it takes little or no processing time, which allows us to make decisions and judgments quickly. And, in some circumstances, this is vital.

People working in crisis environments (such as the fire service) report the need to use intuitive thinking styles. During crises, it can be unrealistic to consistently use analytical thinking.

Experienced crisis managers often rely on intuitive thinking in the first instance, as their default strategy but, as the task allows, draw on more analytical thinking later on. Critical and intuitive thinking styles can be used in tandem.

What is important also is that this type of intuition develops through years of experience, which can produce expert intuition .

Intuition can be crucial in other areas, too. Creativity is often seen as a benefit of intuitive thinking styles. A review conducted in 2016 of research into idea generation found that creativity is positively linked to intuitive thinking.

Although creativity is difficult to define, it can be thought of as similar to problem solving, where information is used to reach a goal, in a new or unexpected way.

However, it is also important to note that the 2016 review found that combining intuitive and analytical thinking styles was best for idea evaluation.

What is the solution?

Now, research often focuses on developing ways to improve analytical thinking in order to reduce endorsement of dangerous conspiracy theories or reduce thinking errors and misconceptions .

However, we often consider analytic and intuitive thinking styles as an either-or, and when making decisions or judgments we must choose one over the other. However, a 2015 meta-analysis (where data from multiple studies are combined and analyzed) of 50 years of cognitive-style research found evidence that these thinking styles could happen at the same time.

Rather than two opposing ends of a spectrum, they are separate constructs, meaning that these thinking styles can happen together. Research in decision making also suggests that thinking style is flexible and the best decisions are made when the thinking style a person uses aligns with the situation at hand.

Some situations are more suited to analytical thinking styles (such as number tasks), while some are more suited to using intuition (such as understanding facial expressions). An adaptive decision maker is skilled in using both thinking styles.

So perhaps one way to reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories is improving adaptive decision making. My 2021 study found that when people were confronted with the misconceptions they had previously made, overestimating the extent to which others endorse anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, they re-evaluated their decisions. This could suggest that thinking styles can depend on the situation and information at hand.

Although in many situations analytical thinking is better , we shouldn’t dismiss the intuitive thinking style conspiracy theorists seem to favor as unworkable or inflexible. The answer could lie in understanding both thinking styles and being able to adjust our thinking styles when needed.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

About the Author

Darel cookson.

Darel Cookson, Ph.D. , is a senior lecturer in psychology at Nottingham Trent University.

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

More From Forbes

Improve your critical thinking by avoiding assumptions.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

In a post earlier this month, I shared three questions we can ask ourselves in the moment to avoid allowing our snap decision about someone’s idea hardening into a firm conviction without more critical thinking. Let’s deepen that skill set by reframing our approach to individuals, contexts, and perspectives.

All effective changes to behavior happen on an immediate, tangible level, not on a broad philosophical plane. Saying to yourself, I’m going to be a nicer person doesn’t impact your actions. Saying, I’m going to hold the door for someone, hold someone’s hand when they need me, or hold my tongue when I want to criticize – those specific actions make us a nicer person.

Likewise, when we are trying to think more critically about an issue, it’s helpful to have specific questions or approaches that allow us to actually put critical thinking techniques in place. It doesn’t help to say, “I’m going to be a deeper thinker,” since I’m not even sure what that would mean. Instead, adopt approaches that combat the habits that keep us from thinking more openly about an issue and factoring in better information. Here are three specific statements we can say to ourselves that will help us remain more open.

1. There’s an old adage that “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” (This assumes an analog clock, not an unplugged digital clock.) Likewise, even the person in our life with questionable judgment whose opinion we immediately discount or ignore might occasionally have a nugget of wisdom to share. Remain open. Who is the stopped clock in your life? When Uncle Bud or Lulu from Marketing approaches with that eager look of, “Have I got an idea for you!” instead of ducking for cover, say to yourself, “It’s half-past-two…again.” This may be their one good idea for the year, and you don’t want to miss it. Be patient. Hear them out. You can still decide to discount their conclusion, but you will have remained open to their analysis, and there may be a learning moment in there for you. To discount an entire human being is a great loss and deprives us of possible wisdom, however cluttered with our previous experience with someone.

2. It’s human nature to develop patterns of behavior and apply them to specific settings. For instance, some people act one way at home and a different way at work. When we attend certain meetings or engage with particular teams at the office, we get into patterns of behavior and thinking that can limit us and our impact and rob the company or firm of our insights. We might be the most open, thoughtful, creative contributor in some meetings and then withdraw and shut down in other contexts. Sometimes these shifts in behavior are justified by our knowledge base on a topic, the presence of certain colleague at the table, or other factors. But sometimes, our shift in behavior is arbitrary or a matter of habit.

My wife and I have four kids. When they were still home, the six of us each had our particular seat at the table for dinner – same seat every night – like many families. It would have felt weird if, when we went to sit down for dinner, Sam plopped down in Teresa’s chair. And yet, for other meals, we all sat anywhere. Why such formality at one time and such reckless abandon at others? What’s the metaphorical seat you take at certain meetings at work? You’re open and enthusiastic at the Marketing Meeting, asking great questions and comfortable challenging assumptions - your own and others’. As you’re walking into the Sales Meeting where you tend to be more withdrawn, tell yourself, “This is lunch, not dinner. I can sit anywhere. I can contribute like I do in the Marketing Meeting.”

Microsoft Warns Windows Users Of Ongoing Russian Hack Attack

New apple id password reset issue hitting iphone ipad and macbook users, new ios 18 ai security move changes the game for all iphone users.

I’m not suggesting you bring your worst behaviors into every setting. If you’re overbearing at one meeting and quiet at another, please don’t bulldoze through every meeting. It’s about bringing out your better qualities more frequently – about listening and remaining open more consistently.

3. We’re all self-centered. It’s part of human nature. It’s not bad, or Machiavellian; it’s just a basic survival instinct. To contribute most meaningfully at work, and to avoid the kinds of assumptions that keep us from being more successful, we need to challenge that most basic thinking. When we offer an opinion at work, we often fall prey to two forces that keep us from making better decisions - our ego and our self-interest.

When we’re weighing options in a meeting, and one of the options on the table is our suggestion, we’re likely to want to see that option succeed because it’s our idea, regardless of whether, objectively, it’s the best solution. Completely separately, one of the options might actually hold more value for us, and sometimes that value may be outside the knowledge of the group at large. In that case, we’ll often side with the option where the benefit inures to us over others. When these situations arise, we’re best served to ask ourselves a very tough question. “To what extent am I part of the problem?” Is the way we’re contributing truly in the best interest of the group, or is my ego, self-interest, or stubbornness getting in the way?

Asking this question of ourselves is tough enough. If we conclude we are, in fact, part of the problem, acting to rectify the situation is even harder. Hopefully, we can get there. But if not, just asking the question of ourselves will naturally temper our reactions and encourage us to be more open.

In sum, to remain more open and to think more critically, we should challenge ourselves to:

1. remain open to ideas from others, even those with whom we don’t usually agree,

2. rethink why we behave differently in certain settings and assess whether it’s time to contribute more meaningfully (sometimes this might mean talking less, not more),

3. challenge the motive behind the ideas we support and decide if we need to get out of the way.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

MIT faculty, instructors, students experiment with generative AI in teaching and learning

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

How can MIT’s community leverage generative AI to support learning and work on campus and beyond?

At MIT’s Festival of Learning 2024, faculty and instructors, students, staff, and alumni exchanged perspectives about the digital tools and innovations they’re experimenting with in the classroom. Panelists agreed that generative AI should be used to scaffold — not replace — learning experiences.

This annual event, co-sponsored by MIT Open Learning and the Office of the Vice Chancellor, celebrates teaching and learning innovations. When introducing new teaching and learning technologies, panelists stressed the importance of iteration and teaching students how to develop critical thinking skills while leveraging technologies like generative AI.

“The Festival of Learning brings the MIT community together to explore and celebrate what we do every day in the classroom,” said Christopher Capozzola, senior associate dean for open learning. “This year's deep dive into generative AI was reflective and practical — yet another remarkable instance of ‘mind and hand’ here at the Institute.”   

Incorporating generative AI into learning experiences 

MIT faculty and instructors aren’t just willing to experiment with generative AI — some believe it’s a necessary tool to prepare students to be competitive in the workforce. “In a future state, we will know how to teach skills with generative AI, but we need to be making iterative steps to get there instead of waiting around,” said Melissa Webster, lecturer in managerial communication at MIT Sloan School of Management. 

Some educators are revisiting their courses’ learning goals and redesigning assignments so students can achieve the desired outcomes in a world with AI. Webster, for example, previously paired written and oral assignments so students would develop ways of thinking. But, she saw an opportunity for teaching experimentation with generative AI. If students are using tools such as ChatGPT to help produce writing, Webster asked, “how do we still get the thinking part in there?”

One of the new assignments Webster developed asked students to generate cover letters through ChatGPT and critique the results from the perspective of future hiring managers. Beyond learning how to refine generative AI prompts to produce better outputs, Webster shared that “students are thinking more about their thinking.” Reviewing their ChatGPT-generated cover letter helped students determine what to say and how to say it, supporting their development of higher-level strategic skills like persuasion and understanding audiences.

Takako Aikawa, senior lecturer at the MIT Global Studies and Languages Section, redesigned a vocabulary exercise to ensure students developed a deeper understanding of the Japanese language, rather than just right or wrong answers. Students compared short sentences written by themselves and by ChatGPT and developed broader vocabulary and grammar patterns beyond the textbook. “This type of activity enhances not only their linguistic skills but stimulates their metacognitive or analytical thinking,” said Aikawa. “They have to think in Japanese for these exercises.”

While these panelists and other Institute faculty and instructors are redesigning their assignments, many MIT undergraduate and graduate students across different academic departments are leveraging generative AI for efficiency: creating presentations, summarizing notes, and quickly retrieving specific ideas from long documents. But this technology can also creatively personalize learning experiences. Its ability to communicate information in different ways allows students with different backgrounds and abilities to adapt course material in a way that’s specific to their particular context. 

Generative AI, for example, can help with student-centered learning at the K-12 level. Joe Diaz, program manager and STEAM educator for MIT pK-12 at Open Learning, encouraged educators to foster learning experiences where the student can take ownership. “Take something that kids care about and they’re passionate about, and they can discern where [generative AI] might not be correct or trustworthy,” said Diaz.

Panelists encouraged educators to think about generative AI in ways that move beyond a course policy statement. When incorporating generative AI into assignments, the key is to be clear about learning goals and open to sharing examples of how generative AI could be used in ways that align with those goals. 

The importance of critical thinking

Although generative AI can have positive impacts on educational experiences, users need to understand why large language models might produce incorrect or biased results. Faculty, instructors, and student panelists emphasized that it’s critical to contextualize how generative AI works. “[Instructors] try to explain what goes on in the back end and that really does help my understanding when reading the answers that I’m getting from ChatGPT or Copilot,” said Joyce Yuan, a senior in computer science. 

Jesse Thaler, professor of physics and director of the National Science Foundation Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions, warned about trusting a probabilistic tool to give definitive answers without uncertainty bands. “The interface and the output needs to be of a form that there are these pieces that you can verify or things that you can cross-check,” Thaler said.

When introducing tools like calculators or generative AI, the faculty and instructors on the panel said it’s essential for students to develop critical thinking skills in those particular academic and professional contexts. Computer science courses, for example, could permit students to use ChatGPT for help with their homework if the problem sets are broad enough that generative AI tools wouldn’t capture the full answer. However, introductory students who haven’t developed the understanding of programming concepts need to be able to discern whether the information ChatGPT generated was accurate or not.

Ana Bell, senior lecturer of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and MITx digital learning scientist, dedicated one class toward the end of the semester of Course 6.100L (Introduction to Computer Science and Programming Using Python) to teach students how to use ChatGPT for programming questions. She wanted students to understand why setting up generative AI tools with the context for programming problems, inputting as many details as possible, will help achieve the best possible results. “Even after it gives you a response back, you have to be critical about that response,” said Bell. By waiting to introduce ChatGPT until this stage, students were able to look at generative AI’s answers critically because they had spent the semester developing the skills to be able to identify whether problem sets were incorrect or might not work for every case. 

A scaffold for learning experiences

The bottom line from the panelists during the Festival of Learning was that generative AI should provide scaffolding for engaging learning experiences where students can still achieve desired learning goals. The MIT undergraduate and graduate student panelists found it invaluable when educators set expectations for the course about when and how it’s appropriate to use AI tools. Informing students of the learning goals allows them to understand whether generative AI will help or hinder their learning. Student panelists asked for trust that they would use generative AI as a starting point, or treat it like a brainstorming session with a friend for a group project. Faculty and instructor panelists said they will continue iterating their lesson plans to best support student learning and critical thinking. 

Panelists from both sides of the classroom discussed the importance of generative AI users being responsible for the content they produce and avoiding automation bias — trusting the technology’s response implicitly without thinking critically about why it produced that answer and whether it’s accurate. But since generative AI is built by people making design decisions, Thaler told students, “You have power to change the behavior of those tools.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• MIT Open Learning Residential Education team
• Video: "2024 Festival of Learning: Opening Remarks and Panel Discussion with MIT Faculty and Instructors"
• Video: "Generative AI in School and Work: A Panel Discussion with MIT Students and Alumni and Closing Remarks"
• MIT Open Learning
• Office of the Vice Chancellor

Related Topics

• Special events and guest speakers
• Artificial intelligence
• Education, teaching, academics
• K-12 education
• Office of Open Learning
• Vice Chancellor
• Human-computer interaction
• Online learning
• Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E)
• Labor and jobs
• Technology and society
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)
• MIT Sloan School of Management
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

A revolutionary, bold educational endeavor for Belize

How free online courses from MIT can “transform the future of the world”

“A whole world of potential learners and potential knowledge to gain”

Festival of Learning 2023 underscores importance of well-designed learning environments

Innovation in the classroom

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Studies in empathy and analytics

Read full story →

Science communication competition brings research into the real world

To understand cognition — and its dysfunction — neuroscientists must learn its rhythms

MITdesignX and MISTI in Dubai

Alison Badgett named director of the Priscilla King Gray Public Service Center

Offering clean energy around the clock

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Wages, employment, inflation are up, causing headaches for the Fed

Scott Horsley

Restaurant prices rose 4.2% over the last year. But Americans continue to dine out regularly. Michael Mathes/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Restaurant prices rose 4.2% over the last year. But Americans continue to dine out regularly.

The Federal Reserve has promised to be "data driven" in deciding when to cut interest rates. But some of the recent economic data has the central bank driving in circles.

Economic growth is slowing. But hiring appears to be picking up. Cars are getting cheaper but auto insurance is more expensive. Inflation is lower than it was a year ago but higher than it was last month.

As they try to sift through sometimes contradictory economic signals, Fed policymakers are likely to stick with their go-slow approach, leaving interest rates unchanged this week — and possibly for months to come.

"If you want to join the kennel of data dogs, what's the first rule of the kennel?" Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee said recently . "If you are unclear, stop walking and start sniffing. And with these numbers, we need to do more sniffing."

23-year-high interest rates through summer

Inflation fell sharply in the second half of last year, leading some to believe the Fed would soon be ready to take its foot off the brake and start cutting interest rates. But that progress on prices has since slowed, and Fed watchers now expect the Fed to keep its benchmark interest rate at a 23-year high, at least through the summer.

Columbia University students take over building, as college antiwar protests grow

"I think we have to recalibrate," Goolsbee said. "It doesn't look like it's going to be as rapid as it looked for the previous six or seven months."

'The mystery is economic strength, not economic weakness'

Inflation numbers released by the Commerce Department last week showed prices climbing 2.7% during the 12 months ending in March — the biggest annual increase in four months. Former White House economist Ernie Tedeschi says he's not worried that inflation is picking up steam, but he agrees with Goolsbee that it's no longer cooling.

"I think it's clear at this point that the progress that we've made lowering inflation towards [the Fed's 2%] target has stalled," says Tedeschi, who's now director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab. "This is a good challenge for the Fed, although certainly a challenge. What's underpinning the Fed's concern and mystery is economic strength, not economic weakness."

The job market remains strong, with unemployment under 4%. And while the economy grew more slowly in the first three months of the year than forecasters expected, consumer spending is still robust.

U.S. bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobs

Spending continues to increase.

Higher interest rates have cut into spending on big-ticket items. But spending on services continues to increase.

"You typically take out a loan for when you make a big goods purchase, like a car, certainly a house," Tedeschi says. "Services spending is generally less interest rate-sensitive."

So while the Fed can influence demand for cars and houses by adjusting interest rates, its ability to tamp down demand for restaurant meals or concert tickets is more limited.

"We have one tool, basically," Goolsbee said, referring to interest rates. "If you ask the question, 'How interest rate-sensitive are elective plastic surgeries?' I have no idea. So we're trying to match our tools to the moment and that's not totally straightforward."

Planet Money

How do you counter misinformation critical thinking is step one.

What's more, many Americans are largely insulated from the Fed's high interest rates, if they don't carry a balance on their credit card and they locked in a low, fixed interest rate on their mortgage.

"That's one of the reasons why the consumer remains fairly willing to go out to restaurants and go to the mall," says Oren Klachkin, financial market economist at Nationwide. "They're not feeling that pain of the high-rate environment. Of course, that means that inflation is not going to come down as fast. But that's kind of the tradeoff that we're in right now."

Job market still strong, wages increasing

Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell has said the central bank can afford to be patient in battling inflation, since high interest rates have so far not hurt the job market. U.S. employers added an average of 276,000 jobs a month in January, February and March — up from 212,000 jobs on average in the three previous months. (April jobs numbers will be released on Friday.)

Employers' cost for labor rose 4.2% in the 12 months ending in March, according to figures released Monday by the Labor Department . While rising wages could put more upward pressure on prices, they're also a big reason that people keep spending money.

"They have jobs. Their wages are increasing," Klachkin says. "It's not to say that there's not risks. We're seeing credit card delinquencies increase. The savings rate is quite low. This leaves them fairly exposed if and when the labor market does soften. But until that happens, the consumer is going to remain in a spending mood."

• Federal Reserve
• consumer spending
• U.S. economy