what is critical thinking not

Critical Thinking and Non-Critical Thinking: Key Differences

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

Sanju Pradeepa

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

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

Characteristics of critical thinking include:

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

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

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

What is non-critical thinking?

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

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

Some common characteristics of non-critical thinking include:

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

The Differences Between Critical and Non-Critical Thinking

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

• The level of focus each requires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits of Critical Thinking in Everyday Life

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

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

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

Enhancing your ability for critical thinking

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

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

1. Formulate your own opinion.

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

2. Question assumptions

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

3. Develop creative solutions.

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

4. Do not jump to conclusions.

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

5. Slow down and promote critical thinking.

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

6. Evaluate your assumptions and reasons.

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

Practical Exercises to Develop Critical Thinking Abilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills help you to:

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

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

Academic examples

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

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

Nonacademic examples

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

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

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

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

When encountering information, ask:

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

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

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

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

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

 Plagiarism

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

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

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

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

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

Ask questions such as:

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

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

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

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

Being information literate means that you:

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

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

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

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

critical thinking

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

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

Recent News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

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

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

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

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

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Psychology Spot

All About Psychology

What is critical thinking? It’s not what you think, but how you think

Critical thinking is an essential skill to become a person who thinks autonomously and does not allow himself to be infected in a thoughtless way by the ideas in vogue or by those that some manipulative groups or people want to impose. Despite this, it is also a rare ability in a society designed to tell us what to think, not to teach us to think.

More than 2,400 years ago, Socrates defended the importance of critical thinking through a series of logical and rational tools. At that time the world did not embrace his idea and did not even understand the need to apply it on a wide scale in society. The same happens today. Critical thinking has become something of an oxymoron. It is “valued” but not developed.

In 1997, a group of experts conducted a study for the California Commission on Teacher Accreditation to determine the extent to which colleges and universities were developing critical thinking through the curriculum. The research analyzed institutes and universities of the California educational system, as well as private colleges such as Stanford University.

The researchers found that the majority of teachers (89%) stated that “critical thinking” was of vital importance in their classes, but only 19% were able to offer even a moderately acceptable definition of critical thinking. In addition, most claimed that they were cultivating critical thinking in students, but when asked to give examples of critical thinking in their classes, very few were able to provide real evidence that they were actually fostering this ability in their students.

The good news is that, although the school does not enhance this cognitive ability as much as it should, we can all develop a more critical thinking to assume a more reflective, conscious and independent posture before the world.

Definition of critical thinking: It’s not what you think but how you think

Critical thinking is the ability to properly organize, verify and evaluate the information we generate or receive using explicit and consistent criteria. It is the tendency to show a reflective skepticism that allows us to decide autonomously what to believe or not.

Therefore, it implies being able to interpret the data, facts and expressions, as well as analyze the ideas, intentions, concepts and arguments to reach a personal conclusion. However, the concept of critical thinking does not only turn outward, it also has a metacognitive component. It implies being able to think one’s own thought; that is, being aware of cognitive biases or errors in our thought process to correct them.

The essential skills of critical thinking

Critical thinking demands the development of a series of basic skills that become the pillars of autonomous reasoning. These are skills that allow us to think more freely, outside of established canons.

•Open mentality . Open mindedness does not mean accepting anything just because it is a new and different idea, rejecting old ones, but just being willing to analyze new ideas. It means not closing in on what’s different and new, rejecting it just because it doesn’t fit our mental paradigm.

• Intellectual humility . Intellectual humility is the ability to recognize our mistakes, stereotypes and prejudices, realizing that we are not immune to cognitive biases and emotions. It implies being aware that we do not have the absolute truth, always keeping ourselves open to different ideas that can contribute something or make us grow.

• Healthy doubts . Critical thinking feeds on healthy doubts. It is not about becoming cynical people who do not believe in anyone or anything, even doubting our shadow and rejecting the good intentions and goodness of the others, but to nurture a reflective skepticism according to which, we do not have to believe certain statements straight up just because they come from so-called authority figures.

• Intellectual perseverance . To go beyond what is seen and taken for granted, we need to be persistent. Critical thinking often involves swimming against the current, so we need to be highly motivated to seek personal truth, even when much of the world is going against it. This intellectual perseverance is what will allow us to continue searching and analyzing information until we find an answer that satisfies us.

Examples of critical thinking in everyday life

Critical thinking doesn’t just apply to science or philosophy. Critical thinking plays an essential role even in everyday life in making many of the decisions that will determine our destiny. Is giving shape to our convictions and helps us choose the causes with which we commit ourselves and those that do not make any sense to us.

It allows us to elucidate what each statement really contains. Critical thinking allows us to question the statements we hear or make, from the simplest such as “The sun is shining today” to the more complex such as “All men/women are equal” or “Communists /capitalists are bad.” In this way, critical thinking prevents us from falling into the trap of slogans devoid of meaning or cultural, generational or other stereotypes.

Critical thinking is also essential to grow as people because it allows us to look inward. It’s what allows us to ask ourselves: Did I do my best? Did I behave in a logical way? If it happened again, would I act differently? Have I acted according to my values ​​or have I been carried away by the group? Have I been a victim of my stereotypes and prejudices? Did I rush into making that decision?

This type of thinking, in short, allows us to develop a critical view from a more open and reflective attitude, to ensure that we make our own decisions, as little influenced as possible by the opinions, judgments and pressures of the others.

Duro, E. et. Al. (2013) In Search of Critical Thinking in Psychology: an exploration of student and lecturer understandings in higher education.  Psychology Learning and Teaching ; 12(3): 275-281.

Elder, L. et. Al. (1997) California  Teacher Preparation for Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations . ERIC Clearinghouse: Washington, D.C.

Jennifer Delgado

I am a psychologist and I spent several years writing articles for scientific journals specialized in Health and Psychology. I want to help you create great experiences. Learn more about me .

How to stop punishing yourself for a past mistake?

24/08/2024 By Jennifer Delgado

Anxiety is a scary emotion… until you understand it

23/08/2024 By Jennifer Delgado

The dictatorship of reason

Translate this page from English...

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

Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking

[C01] What is critical thinking?

Module: Critical thinking

• C02. Improve our thinking skills
• C03. Defining critical thinking
• C04. Teaching critical thinking
• C05. Beyond critical thinking
• C06. The Cognitive Reflection Test
• C07. Critical thinking assessment
• C08. Videos and courses on critical thinking
• C09. Famous quotes
• C10. History of critical thinking

Quote of the page

- Aristotle

Popular pages

• What is critical thinking?
• What is logic?
• Hardest logic puzzle ever
• Free miniguide
• What is an argument?
• Knights and knaves puzzles
• Logic puzzles
• What is a good argument?
• Improving critical thinking
• Analogical arguments

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because it requires following the rules of logic and rationality, but creativity might require breaking rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking "out-of-the-box", challenging consensus and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

§1. The importance of critical thinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill . The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyse information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills . Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyse the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity . To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection . In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy . Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

§2. The future of critical thinking

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes developments in previously disjointed fields such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, robotics, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and genetics and biotechnology, will cause widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labour markets over the next five years, with enormous change predicted in the skill sets needed to thrive in the new landscape.

The top three skills that supposed to be most relevant are thinking skills related to critical thinking, creativity, and their practical application. These are the cognitive skills that our website focuses on.

§3. For teachers

• The ideas on this page were discussed in a blog post on edutopia. The author uses the critical thinking framework here to apply to K-12 education. Very relevant to school teachers!

homepage • top • contact • sitemap

© 2004-2024 Joe Lau & Jonathan Chan

Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

gawrav/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Critical thinking is the process of independently analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information as a guide to behavior and beliefs.

The American Philosophical Association has defined critical thinking as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. The process gives reasoned consideration to evidence , contexts , conceptualizations, methods, and criteria" (1990). Critical thinking is sometimes broadly defined as "thinking about thinking."

Critical thinking skills include the ability to interpret, verify, and reason, all of which involve applying the principles of logic . The process of using critical thinking to guide writing is called critical writing .

Observations

• " Critical Thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, Critical Thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, Critical Thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit." (American Philosophical Association, "Consensus Statement Regarding Critical Thinking," 1990)
• Thought and Language "In order to understand reasoning [...], it is necessary to pay careful attention to the relationship between thought and language . The relationship seems to be straightforward: thought is expressed in and through language. But this claim, while true, is an oversimplification. People often fail to say what they mean. Everyone has had the experience of having their \ misunderstood by others. And we all use words not merely to express our thoughts but also to shape them. Developing our critical thinking skills, therefore, requires an understanding of the ways in which words can (and often fail to) express our thoughts." (William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills , 4th ed. Broadview, 2004)
• Dispositions That Foster or Impede Critical thinking "Dispositions that foster critical thinking include [a] facility in perceiving irony , ambiguity , and multiplicity of meanings or points of view; the development of open-mindedness, autonomous thought, and reciprocity (Piaget's term for the ability to empathize with other individuals, social groups, nationalities, ideologies, etc.). Dispositions that act as impediments to critical thinking include defense mechanisms (such as absolutism or primary certitude, denial, projection), culturally conditioned assumptions, authoritarianism, egocentrism, and ethnocentrism, rationalization, compartmentalization, stereotyping and prejudice." (Donald Lazere, "Invention, Critical Thinking, and the Analysis of Political Rhetoric." Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention , ed. by Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. University of Tennessee Press, 2002)
• Critical Thinking and Composing - "[T]he most intensive and demanding tool for eliciting sustained critical thought is a well-designed writing assignment on a subject matter problem. The underlying premise is that writing is closely linked with thinking and that in presenting students with significant problems to write about—and in creating an environment that demands their best writing—we can promote their general cognitive and intellectual growth. When we make students struggle with their writing, we are making them struggle with thought itself. Emphasizing writing and critical thinking , therefore, generally increases the academic rigor of a course. Often the struggle of writing, linked as it is to the struggle of thinking and to the growth of a person's intellectual powers, awakens students to the real nature of learning." (John C. Bean,  Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom , 2nd ed. Wiley, 2011) - "Finding a fresh approach to a writing assignment means that you must see the subject without the blinders of preconception. When people expect to see a thing in a certain way, it usually appears that way, whether or not that is its true image. Similarly, thinking based on prefabricated ideas produces writing that says nothing new, that offers nothing important to the reader. As a writer, you have a responsibility to go beyond the expected views and present your subject so that the reader sees it with fresh eyes. . . . [C]ritical thinking is a fairly systematic method of defining a problem and synthesizing knowledge about it, thereby creating the perspective you need to develop new ideas. . . . " Classical rhetoricians used a series of three questions to help focus an argument . Today these questions can still help writers understand the topic about which they are writing. An sit? (Is the problem a fact?); Quid sit (What is the definition of the problem?); and Quale sit? (What kind of problem is it?). By asking these questions, writers see their subject from many new angles before they begin to narrow the focus to one particular aspect." (Kristin R. Woolever, About Writing: A Rhetoric for Advanced Writers . Wadsworth, 1991)

Logical Fallacies

Ad Misericordiam

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Force

Appeal to Humor

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to the People

Begging the Question

Circular Argument

Complex Question

Contradictory Premises

Dicto Simpliciter , Equivocation

False Analogy

False Dilemma

Gambler's Fallacy

Hasty Generalization

Name-Calling

Non Sequitur

Poisoning the Well

Red Herring

Slippery Slope

Stacking the Deck

• Stipulative Definitions in English
• What Is a Synopsis and How Do You Write One?
• What is Disjunction in Grammar?
• Definition and Examples of Explication (Analysis)
• online reading
• What Does It Mean to Make a Claim During an Argument?
• Critical Analysis in Composition
• What is Tu Quoque (Logical Fallacy) in Rhetoric?
• The Meaning of Innuendo
• Learn How to Use Extended Definitions in Essays and Speeches
• Rhetorical Analysis Definition and Examples
• What Is a Hasty Generalization?
• Ware, Wear, and Where: How to Choose the Right Word
• Definition and Examples of Paragraphing in Essays
• Historic vs. Historical: How to Choose the Right Word
• Persuasion and Rhetorical Definition

Module 5: Thinking and Analysis

Critical thinking, learning objectives.

• Define critical thinking

Thinking comes naturally. You don’t have to make it happen—it just does. But you can make it happen in different ways. For example, you can think positively or negatively. You can think with your heart and you can think with rational judgment. You can also think strategically and analytically, and mathematically and scientifically. These are a few of multiple ways in which the mind can process thought.

What are some forms of thinking you use? When do you use them and why?

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important thinking skills is critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It’s a “domain-general” thinking skill—not a thinking skill that’s reserved for a one subject alone or restricted to a particular subject area. Critical thinking is used in every domain, from physics to auto mechanics. It is often employed to problem solve when we are puzzled by something or to reveal that there is an error in common ways of thinking about things. Thus, critical thinking is essential for revealing biases.

For example, Galileo used a common form of reasoning called reductio ad absurdum  (Latin for “reduce to absurdity) to show that the physics of his day was mistaken. People at that time believed that the heavier something was, the faster it would fall. Galileo knew this common conception was mistaken and he proved it both empirically and conceptually. Here is how he proved it conceptually. Suppose you have two objects, one heavier (call it B) than the other (call it A). Suppose the heavier object falls faster. When you put the lighter object under the heavier object (c), the lighter object should slow down the heavier object. On the other hand gluing together both objects results in a heavier object (c), which should fall even faster than (b). See diagram here . The contradiction proves by reductio ad absurdum that the assumption must be false. This is just one example, but the form of reasoning (reductio ad absurdum) is the same across every domain—from science to religion to auto mechanics. The form of reasoning is just this: assume for the sake of the argument that A is true. If we can then show that A leads to a contradiction (literally where two statements are asserted that cannot possibly be true), then we prove that A is false.

Great leaders have highly attuned critical thinking skills, and you can too. In fact, you probably have a lot of these skills already. Of all your thinking skills, critical thinking may have the greatest value.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It means asking probing questions like, “How do we know?” or “Is this true in every case or just in this instance?” It involves being skeptical and challenging assumptions, rather than simply memorizing facts or blindly accepting what you hear or read.

Imagine, for example, that you’re reading a history textbook. You wonder who wrote it and why because you detect certain biases in the writing. You find that the author has a limited scope of research focused only on a particular group within a population. In this case, your critical thinking reveals that there are other sides to the story.

Who are critical thinkers, and what characteristics do they have in common? Critical thinkers are usually curious and reflective people. They like to explore and probe new areas and seek knowledge, clarification, and new solutions. They ask pertinent questions, evaluate statements and arguments, and they distinguish between facts and opinion. They are also willing to examine their own beliefs, possessing a manner of humility that allows them to admit lack of knowledge or understanding when needed. They are open to changing their mind. Perhaps most of all, they actively enjoy learning and seeking new knowledge is a lifelong pursuit.

This description may well be you!

No matter where you are on the road to being a critical thinker, you can always more fully develop and finely tune your skills. Doing so will help you develop more balanced arguments, express yourself clearly, read critically, and glean important information efficiently. Critical thinking skills will help you in any profession or any circumstance of life, from science to art to business to teaching. With critical thinking, you become a clearer thinker and problem solver.

The following video from Lawrence Bland presents the major concepts and benefits of critical thinking.

You can view the transcript for “Critical Thinking.wmv” here (opens in new window) .

Supporting Claims with Evidence

Thinking and constructing analyses based on your thinking will bring you in contact with a great deal of information. Some of that information will be factual, and some will not be. You need to be able to distinguish between facts and opinions so you know how to support your arguments. Begin with the following basic definitions:

• Fact: a statement that can be supported by objective evidence such as observation, argument, or research.
• Opinion: a statement whose truth depends on someone’s desire(s) rather than objective evidence. Opinions that cannot be supported by objective evidence are at most subjectively true.

Of course, the tricky part is that most people do not label statements as fact and opinion, so you need to be aware and recognize the difference as you go about honing your critical thinking skills.

You probably have heard the old saying “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,” which may be true, but conversely not everyone is entitled to their own facts. Facts are true for everyone, not just those who want to believe in them. For example, “mice are mammals”  is a fact since it has been established by scientific research. In contrast, “mice make the best pets” is an opinion (since best means whatever one likes the best—and that is a matter of one’s subjective desires).

Facts vs. opinion

Determine if the following statements are facts or opinions based on just the information provided here, referring to the basic definitions above. Some people consider scientific findings to be opinions even when they are convincingly backed by reputable evidence and experimentation. However, remember the definition of fact—verifiable by research or observation. Think about what other research you may have to conduct to make an informed decision.

• Oregon is a state in the United States. (How would this be proven?)
• Beef is made from cattle. (See current legislation concerning vegetarian “burgers.”)
• Increased street lighting decreases criminal behavior. (What information would you need to validate this claim?)
• In 1952, Elizabeth became Queen of England. (What documents could validate this statement?)
• Oatmeal tastes plain. (What factors might play into this claim?)
• Acne is an embarrassing skin condition. (Who might verify this claim?)
• Kindergarten decreases student dropout rates. (Think of different interest groups that may take sides on this issue.)
• Carbohydrates promote weight gain. (Can you determine if this is a valid statement?)
• Cell phones cause brain tumors. (What research considers this claim?)
• Immigration is good for the US economy. (What research would help you make an informed decision on this topic?)

Defending against Bias

Once you have all your information gathered and you have checked your sources for currency and validity, you need to direct your attention to how you’re going to present your now well-informed analysis. Be careful on this step to recognize your own possible biases (metacognition). Facts are verifiable statements; opinions are statements without supporting evidence. Stating an opinion is just that. You could say, “Blue is the best color,” and that would be your opinion. In contrast, suppose you were to conduct research and find the use of blue paint in mental hospitals reduces patients’ heart rates by twenty-five percent and contributes to fewer angry outbursts from patients. In that case, the statement “blue paint in mental hospitals reduces patients’ heart rate by twenty-five percent” would be a fact supported by objective evidence.

Not everyone will accept your analysis, which can be frustrating. Most people resist change and have firm beliefs on both important issues and less significant preferences. With all the competing information surfacing online, on the news, and in general conversation, you can understand how confusing it can be to make any decisions. Look at all the reliable, valid sources that claim different approaches to be the best diet for healthy living: ketogenic, low-carb, vegan, vegetarian, low fat, raw foods, paleo, Mediterranean, etc. All you can do in this sort of situation is conduct your own serious research, check your sources, and write clearly and concisely to provide your analysis of the information for consideration. You cannot force others to accept your stance, but you can show your evidence in support of your thinking, being as persuasive as possible without lapsing into your own personal biases.

critical thinking:  clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do, often as a result of challenging assumptions

opinions:  statements offered without supporting evidence

• College Success. Authored by : Matthew Van Cleave. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Critical Thinking. Provided by : Critical and Creative Thinking Program. Located at : http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/Critical+Thinking . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Thinking Critically. Authored by : UBC Learning Commons. Provided by : The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus. Located at : https://learningcommons.ubc.ca/student-toolkits/thinking-critically/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• College Success. Authored by : Amy Baldwin; Modified by Lumen Learning. Provided by : OpenStax. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/college-success/pages/7-4-critical-thinking . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Thought-experiment-free-falling-bodies. Provided by : Wikimedia Commons. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thought-experiment-free-falling-bodies.svg . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Critical Thinking.wmv. Authored by : Lawrence Bland. Located at : https://youtu.be/WiSklIGUblo . License : All Rights Reserved

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Win a $1,000 gift certificate of your choice! ✨

What Is Critical Thinking and Why Do We Need To Teach It?

Question the world and sort out fact from opinion.

The world is full of information (and misinformation) from books, TV, magazines, newspapers, online articles, social media, and more. Everyone has their own opinions, and these opinions are frequently presented as facts. Making informed choices is more important than ever, and that takes strong critical thinking skills. But what exactly is critical thinking? Why should we teach it to our students? Read on to find out.

What is critical thinking?

Source: Indeed

Critical thinking is the ability to examine a subject and develop an informed opinion about it. It’s about asking questions, then looking closely at the answers to form conclusions that are backed by provable facts, not just “gut feelings” and opinion. These skills allow us to confidently navigate a world full of persuasive advertisements, opinions presented as facts, and confusing and contradictory information.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking says, “Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief-generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior.”

In other words, good critical thinkers know how to analyze and evaluate information, breaking it down to separate fact from opinion. After a thorough analysis, they feel confident forming their own opinions on a subject. And what’s more, critical thinkers use these skills regularly in their daily lives. Rather than jumping to conclusions or being guided by initial reactions, they’ve formed the habit of applying their critical thinking skills to all new information and topics.

Why is critical thinking so important?

Imagine you’re shopping for a new car. It’s a big purchase, so you want to do your research thoroughly. There’s a lot of information out there, and it’s up to you to sort through it all.

• You’ve seen TV commercials for a couple of car models that look really cool and have features you like, such as good gas mileage. Plus, your favorite celebrity drives that car!
• The manufacturer’s website has a lot of information, like cost, MPG, and other details. It also mentions that this car has been ranked “best in its class.”
• Your neighbor down the street used to have this kind of car, but he tells you that he eventually got rid of it because he didn’t think it was comfortable to drive. Plus, he heard that brand of car isn’t as good as it used to be.
• Three independent organizations have done test-drives and published their findings online. They all agree that the car has good gas mileage and a sleek design. But they each have their own concerns or complaints about the car, including one that found it might not be safe in high winds.

So much information! It’s tempting to just go with your gut and buy the car that looks the coolest (or is the cheapest, or says it has the best gas mileage). Ultimately, though, you know you need to slow down and take your time, or you could wind up making a mistake that costs you thousands of dollars. You need to think critically to make an informed choice.

What does critical thinking look like?

Source: TeachThought

Let’s continue with the car analogy, and apply some critical thinking to the situation.

• Critical thinkers know they can’t trust TV commercials to help them make smart choices, since every single one wants you to think their car is the best option.
• The manufacturer’s website will have some details that are proven facts, but other statements that are hard to prove or clearly just opinions. Which information is factual, and even more important, relevant to your choice?
• A neighbor’s stories are anecdotal, so they may or may not be useful. They’re the opinions and experiences of just one person and might not be representative of a whole. Can you find other people with similar experiences that point to a pattern?
• The independent studies could be trustworthy, although it depends on who conducted them and why. Closer analysis might show that the most positive study was conducted by a company hired by the car manufacturer itself. Who conducted each study, and why?

Did you notice all the questions that started to pop up? That’s what critical thinking is about: asking the right questions, and knowing how to find and evaluate the answers to those questions.

Good critical thinkers do this sort of analysis every day, on all sorts of subjects. They seek out proven facts and trusted sources, weigh the options, and then make a choice and form their own opinions. It’s a process that becomes automatic over time; experienced critical thinkers question everything thoughtfully, with purpose. This helps them feel confident that their informed opinions and choices are the right ones for them.

Key Critical Thinking Skills

There’s no official list, but many people use Bloom’s Taxonomy to help lay out the skills kids should develop as they grow up.

Source: Vanderbilt University

Bloom’s Taxonomy is laid out as a pyramid, with foundational skills at the bottom providing a base for more advanced skills higher up. The lowest phase, “Remember,” doesn’t require much critical thinking. These are skills like memorizing math facts, defining vocabulary words, or knowing the main characters and basic plot points of a story.

Higher skills on Bloom’s list incorporate more critical thinking.

True understanding is more than memorization or reciting facts. It’s the difference between a child reciting by rote “one times four is four, two times four is eight, three times four is twelve,” versus recognizing that multiplication is the same as adding a number to itself a certain number of times. When you understand a concept, you can explain how it works to someone else.

When you apply your knowledge, you take a concept you’ve already mastered and apply it to new situations. For instance, a student learning to read doesn’t need to memorize every word. Instead, they use their skills in sounding out letters to tackle each new word as they come across it.

When we analyze something, we don’t take it at face value. Analysis requires us to find facts that stand up to inquiry. We put aside personal feelings or beliefs, and instead identify and scrutinize primary sources for information. This is a complex skill, one we hone throughout our entire lives.

Evaluating means reflecting on analyzed information, selecting the most relevant and reliable facts to help us make choices or form opinions. True evaluation requires us to put aside our own biases and accept that there may be other valid points of view, even if we don’t necessarily agree with them.

Finally, critical thinkers are ready to create their own result. They can make a choice, form an opinion, cast a vote, write a thesis, debate a topic, and more. And they can do it with the confidence that comes from approaching the topic critically.

How do you teach critical thinking skills?

The best way to create a future generation of critical thinkers is to encourage them to ask lots of questions. Then, show them how to find the answers by choosing reliable primary sources. Require them to justify their opinions with provable facts, and help them identify bias in themselves and others. Try some of these resources to get started.

5 Critical Thinking Skills Every Kid Needs To Learn (And How To Teach Them)

• 100+ Critical Thinking Questions for Students To Ask About Anything
• 10 Tips for Teaching Kids To Be Awesome Critical Thinkers
• Free Critical Thinking Poster, Rubric, and Assessment Ideas

More Critical Thinking Resources

The answer to “What is critical thinking?” is a complex one. These resources can help you dig more deeply into the concept and hone your own skills.

• The Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Cultivating a Critical Thinking Mindset (PDF)
• Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Browne/Keeley, 2014)

Have more questions about what critical thinking is or how to teach it in your classroom? Join the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook to ask for advice and share ideas!

Plus, 12 skills students can work on now to help them in careers later ..

You Might Also Like

Teach them to thoughtfully question the world around them. Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

What is critical thinking and how can it be improved?

Helen lee bouygues.

updated Feb. 6, 2023

The term “critical thinking” is used a lot: by educators, politicians, journalists, and the general public. But what is critical thinking? When it comes to defining what critical thinking is – and is not – vagueness and confusion ensue. 

What is critical thinking?

Although it’s complicated and multi-faceted, critical thinking can be defined.  As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes, critical thinking can be divided into three areas: reasoning, making judgments, and problem-solving. Critical thinking means becoming skilled in all three areas. In layman’s terms, it means thinking well.  

So how can we think better? What does improved critical thinking look like? Because good thinking is so entwined in our daily lives, acquiring critical thinking skills is not as straightforward as becoming better at math or tennis. The exact skills depend on the stage of development as well as the domain in which the thinking skills are applied.

Moreover, critical thinking involves certain dispositions – curiosity, humility, independence – and values – openness, fairness, diversity – that make it more complicated than a more straightforward area of study.

All that said, there are some general components of critical thinking that will help clarify what exactly it means to become a critical thinker.

How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills

Below we expand on the definition of critical thinking by outlining three areas where we can all improve our critical thinking:

• Reflective thinking or what’s sometimes called “ metacognition; ”
• Objective thinking, which requires an ability to manage emotions and recognize biases;
• Analytical thinking, which involves skills in logic and argumentation.

You can also check out our SHARP Thinking method .

What Is Reflective Thinking and How Does It Relate To Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking starts with reflection. Indeed, the American philosopher John Dewey often referred to critical thinking as “reflective thinking .” He contrasted reflective thinking, in which thoughts are consciously ordered and follow each other in a sequence, from idle thinking where our thoughts meander from point to point without any structure.

Put differently, reflective thinking involves thinking about our own thoughts in such a way that we can intentionally improve, order, and regulate them. This practice is often referred to as “metacognition.”

Metacognition involves seeing our thinking from the outside. The approach includes observing our own thought processes and thinking habits. It requires us to evaluate and employ different thinking strategies reflectively, and to notice when we are thinking irrationally or unproductively.

Reflective thinking involves thinking about our own thoughts in such a way that we can intentionally improve, order, and regulate them. Tweet

Metacognition is also crucial for learning. Some research suggests that metacognitive or reflective skills can be as important as raw intelligence in predicting student success. Children become capable of reflecting on their thinking in this way at around four, and metacognitive awareness increases with age up until early early adulthood. 

Metacognition also depends on education and practice. There’s a lot of evidence that much like riding a bike, metacognition can be learned. One way metacognitive skills can be nurtured is by writing. For example, journaling about thinking can be extraordinarily useful.

Asking a lot of “why” questions can also promote metacognition: Why am I doing this? Why am I thinking this? These sorts of practices pull us outside of ourselves and give us the perspective from which we can reflect on and improve our thinking.

What is Objective Thinking?

When people think of “objectivity,” they usually imagine cold-blooded and perfectly rational thinking, almost like a computer processing data. But the truth is that being objective requires a great deal of emotional intelligence, and honesty about our own biases.

First of all, a balanced emotional foundation is necessary for sound reasoning. Critical thinking requires both confidence and humility— the confidence to think independently of group pressures and the humility to acknowledge that we might be wrong or biased. If we’re either too susceptible to a need for peer approval or too arrogant to consider others’ opinions, we are bound to fail at being objective.

It is therefore crucial that emotional management skills be developed at a young age, and renewed continually throughout our lives. Trying new activities and taking on new challenges — like learning a new language, for example — may seem far removed from critical thinking. But they are crucial to developing feelings of competence, openness to challenges, and the ability to cope with failure which is crucial to high-level reasoning across all domains.

Another substantial barrier to objectivity is bias. We are all inherently limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. But these subjective biases do not need to determine how we think. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation.

Biases include not just those derived from our personal experience, but general cognitive biases we all suffer from. For example, it is easy to think that past events were easily predictable all along (hindsight bias) or that if a coin turns heads five times in a row, it’s more likely to be tails next time (Gambler’s fallacy). The only way to overcome cognitive biases is to be educated about them , and strive for objectivity.

Objective thinking builds on reflective thinking. We have to be able to see our thinking from the outside, if we are to learn to control biases or emotions that can distort our reasoning. With practice, we can learn to adjust our thought processes and see the world more as it is. We are all inherently limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. But these subjective biases do not need to determine how we think. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation.

We are all limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation. Tweet

What Is Analytical Thinking?

The ability to plan and regulate one’s thinking and to manage emotions and biases are necessary preconditions for higher-level logical analysis. These skills allow critical thinkers to build and evaluate information and arguments step-by-step so they can persuade others of their positions and criticize mistaken arguments. This is known as analytical thinking. 

Young children, of course, usually aren’t ready to tackle formal logic, but there are plenty of ways that parents and other adults can help stimulate their analytical thinking. They can ask them to give reasons for their opinions or how they might criticize someone else’s argument.

Later on – in high school, college, and beyond – training in formal logic can help adults think more about how arguments are structured, whether conclusions follow from premises, and how to use logic to evaluate others’ arguments. 

Learning the logic of conditional (if-then) statements, for instance, can help students think more precisely. To take one example, the logical rule known as modus tollens states that if a conditional statement (“if p then q”) is true, and we know that the consequent (q) is false, then we can infer that the antecedent is false, too.

So if it’s true that “If there is smoke, there is fire” and there is no fire, we can conclude that there is no smoke either. By contrast, we cannot conclude from the statement that just because there is fire, there must also be smoke.

This close attention to the logical connections between statements is necessary for students to be able to reason well about complex issues like climate change or the size of government.

Logic and Critical Thinking

However, it’s important to keep in mind that, while logic is a crucial part of critical thinking, there is more to critical thinking than mere logic. Critical thinking also requires argumentative skills that go beyond logic.

In a political debate, for example, two opponents may both have perfectly logical arguments but differing relative values as starting points – leading to vastly different conclusions. Similarly, if an airtight logical argument is not advanced with any rhetorical skill, it is unlikely to be persuasive.

In other words, just as objectivity requires skills in both reasoning and emotional management, analytical or argumentative thinking requires both logical skill and an ability to understand and empathize with one’s audience. 

Keep in mind that, while logic is a crucial part of critical thinking, there is more to critical thinking than mere logic. Tweet

Parting Thoughts 

Critical thinking is, therefore, never a mere intellectual exercise, but requires an all-around ability to put reasoning into practice. It goes well beyond raw intelligence or logical skill, and involves the virtues of practical reasoning like self-awareness, humility, independence, and empathy that are cultivated and deepened throughout a lifetime. It is not a stretch, then, to say that learning to think critically can make you a better person. 

To sum up, critical thinkers can reflect on and correct their thought processes, remain objective even in overheated or deceptive circumstances, and cogently analyze the information as well as the structure and logic of arguments. These skills require commitment and dedication, but the rewards — sounder judgments, better decisions, more productive work, and even healthier relationships — are well worth it.

Helen Lee Bouygues is the president of the Reboot Foundation

Privacy Overview

• Wellness And Personal Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explore Your Options Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Thinking Is About Asking Better Questions

• John Coleman

Six practices to sharpen your inquiry.

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

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

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

Partner Center

More From Forbes

Critical thinking: what is it and how can you develop this skill.

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

Founder and Head of the international IT recruitment company Lucky Hunter .

I have already raised the issue of the importance of developing emotional intelligence in previous pieces, and today I would like to talk about why critical thinking also matters for employees—especially top managers of companies.

First of all, let's define what critical thinking is. In general, it is the ability to objectively analyze events, incoming information and arguments; approach an issue from different sides; and form conclusions based on the analysis. Developing critical thinking is relevant not only for work but also for life—today we're inundated with huge amounts of information every day, and in order to be able to analyze this information and determine our position based on balanced facts, it is important to look at situations critically.

Critical thinking allows you to always soberly assess the situations taking place in your work, give an objective assessment, including your own actions and the actions of others, effectively negotiate and find the best way out of ambiguous situations. That is why large companies, when hiring employees, pay close attention to the soft skills of a candidate, especially if they are applying for top positions.

So, how can you develop critical thinking?

Practice analyzing.

Turn the events happening around you into facts. Learn to separate them from emotions. Emotions often prevent us from thinking critically, because they reduce everything to the emotional component, which cannot be relied on. Study different points of view on a specific topic. Read more, broaden your horizons and work with information—the more you “dissect” any information material, the more chances you have to get to the bottom of it.

Pay attention to self-criticism.

There should always be a certain amount of healthy self-criticism in your actions and behavior. The keyword here is healthy because it is important to maintain balance and not slip into self-flagellation. Learn to adequately evaluate yourself and your actions, and determine your strengths and growth areas. I work in recruiting, so I will give an example from my practice: In the work of a recruiter, self-criticism is vital for an objective assessment of a candidate, because, in order to evaluate others, you must first be able to objectively evaluate yourself.

Build productive communication.

If you conduct a dialogue calmly and kindly, without insults and rudeness, truly listening and hearing the interlocutor, you thereby increase the chances of getting some useful insight into the process of interaction. It can give you the opportunity to look at the situation from a new angle and come to a conclusion that you would not have come to otherwise. Therefore, the ability to conduct effective, productive communication also affects the development of critical thinking.

Develop your forecasting skills.

This point is quite closely related to the first one. Analyze information and build forecasts based on the analysis, think over the likely development of events and try to answer for yourself why it will be exactly like this. Such forecasting, again, allows you to study a specific situation from different sides, get certain insights into the process and come to an objective conclusion.

Today, it's crucial for employees and managers to develop the skill of thinking critically—all you need to do is start. The result could have a positive impact on all fields of your life, both personal and professional, because a high level of critical thinking has a good effect on communication (including business). It allows you to form objective conclusions and cut off the excess of information garbage, focusing on facts and analyzing them.

Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Social Barriers to Critical Thinking

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

Posted August 13, 2024 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

What teachers told me about a.i. in school.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Leila Wheless, a North Carolina teacher who has been an educator since 1991, tried to keep “an open heart” about using artificial intelligence in her middle school English and language arts classroom. She reviewed the guidance of her state’s generative A.I. “ recommendations and considerations ” for public schools. But the results of her students’ A.I. use were dispiriting.

“For one particular assignment related to the novel ‘Persepolis,’ I had students research prophets,” Wheless explained, because the main character fantasizes about being a prophet. But, she told me via email, internet searches that incorporated A.I.:

Gave students jewels such as “the Christian prophet Moses got chocolate stains out of T-shirts” — I guess rather than Moses got water out of a rock(?). And let me tell you, eighth graders wrote that down as their response. They did not come up to me and ask, “Is that correct? Moses is known for getting chocolate stains out of T-shirts?” They simply do not have the background knowledge or indeed the intellectual stamina to question unlikely responses.

After I wrote a series in the spring about tech use in K-12 classrooms , I asked teachers about their experiences with A.I. because its ubiquity is fairly new and educators are just starting to figure out how to grapple with it. I spoke with middle school, high school and college instructors, and my overall takeaway is that while there are a few real benefits to using A.I. in schools — it can be useful in speeding up rote tasks like adding citations to essays and doing basic coding — the drawbacks are significant.

The biggest issue isn’t just that students might use it to cheat — students have been trying to cheat forever — or that they might wind up with absurdly wrong answers, like confusing Moses with Mr. Clean. The thornier problem is that when students rely on a generative A.I. tool like ChatGPT to outsource brainstorming and writing, they may be losing the ability to think critically and to overcome frustration with tasks that don’t come easily to them.

Sarah Martin, who teaches high school English in California, wrote to me saying, “Cheating by copying from A.I. is rampant, particularly among my disaffected seniors who are just waiting until graduation.”

When I followed up with her over the phone, she said that it’s getting more and more difficult to catch A.I. use because a savvier user will recognize absurdities and hallucinations and go back over what a chatbot spits out to make it read more as if the user wrote it herself. But what troubles Martin more than some students’ shrewd academic dishonesty is “that there’s just no grit that’s instilled in them. There’s no sense of ‘Yes, you’re going to struggle, but you’re going to feel good at the end of it.’”

She said that the amount of time her students are inclined to work on something that challenges them has become much shorter over the seven years she’s been teaching. There was a time, she said, when a typical student would wrestle with a concept for days before getting it. But now, if that student doesn’t understand something within minutes, he’s more likely to give up on his own brain power and look for an alternative, whether it’s a chatbot or asking a friend for help.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Related Topics

• Application Security
• Cybersecurity Careers
• Cloud Security
• Cyberattacks & Data Breaches
• Cybersecurity Analytics
• Cybersecurity Operations
• Data Privacy
• Endpoint Security
• ICS/OT Security
• Identity & Access Mgmt Security
• Insider Threats
• Mobile Security
• Physical Security
• Remote Workforce
• Threat Intelligence
• Vulnerabilities & Threats
• Middle East & Africa
• Upcoming Events
• Newsletters
• Whitepapers
• Partner Perspectives:
• > Microsoft

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

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

August 21, 2024

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

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

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

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

What's the Current State of AI In Cybersecurity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are the Most Pressing Obstacles to Building Smarter AI?

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

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

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

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

What Steps Can Cybersecurity Leaders Take to Refine AI?

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

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

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

About the Author

Nenad Zaric

CEO & Co-founder, Trickest

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

You May Also Like

Securing Your Cloud Assets

Determining Exposure and Risk In The Event of a Breach

Developing a Cyber Risk Assessment for the C-Suite

Catch the Threat Before it Catches you: Proactive Ransomware Defense

How to Evaluate Hybrid-Cloud Network Policies and Enhance Security

[Virtual Event] The Essential Guide to Cloud Management

Black Hat Europe - December 9-12 - Learn More

SecTor - Canada's IT Security Conference Oct 22-24 - Learn More

Editor's Choice

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

State of Enterprise Cloud Security

Managing Third-Party Risk Through Situational Awareness

2024 InformationWeek US IT Salary Report

Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World

SANS 2024 Security Awareness Report

The Future of Passwords and the Passwordless Evolution

Boston Beer Company Transforms OT Security & Reduces Costs

Decode the New SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure Ruling

IT Risk & Compliance Platforms: A Buyer's Guide

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

How to Stop Catastrophizing

What causes catastrophic thinking.

Catastrophizing is the tendency to assume the worst-case scenario is the most likely scenario or thinking a situation is worse than it really is. Also called catastrophic thinking, it is a type of distorted thinking or cognitive distortion.

Some examples of catastrophic thinking include:

• If I fail this exam, I'll never get into college and get the job I want.
• If my work isn't flawless, I'll get fired.
• I made a horrible first impression; now I'll never have any friends.

Catastrophizing can be overwhelming, and it can be difficult for a person to realize they’re doing it unless they’re made aware of the problem. 

Read on to learn more about what catastrophizing is, its causes, and how to deal with it.

Catastrophic thinking can happen in response to traumatic events in the past that reframed your worldview or led to or reinforced beliefs such as the world is bad, people shouldn’t be trusted, and taking chances leads to getting hurt.

It can also be associated with mental health and chronic pain conditions, including the following:

• Anxiety disorders : A 2015 study found that people who engaged in catastrophic thinking were more likely to have anxiety disorders.
• Depression : One 2012 study found that catastrophic thinking can lead to feelings of hopelessness, which can contribute to depression.
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) : Catastrophic thinking can also be a precursor to PTSD symptoms.
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder: It is common for people with OCD to fixate on the possibility of major harmful events such as job loss or illness. This can lead to catastrophic thinking. 
• Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Catastrophic thinking can also be a feature of ADHD.
• Chronic pain : Catastrophizing about chronic pain and associated symptoms like depression, sleep disturbances, and anxiety have been shown to negatively affect coping outcomes in a wide variety of pain conditions, including fibromyalgia (chronic disorder causing widespread pain and fatigue), endometriosis (tissue lining the uterus forms outside that organ), and Parkinson’s disease (progressive neurological illness affecting movement).

If you have signs or symptoms of any of these conditions, mention them to your healthcare provider. Treating them may help catastrophic thinking as well as the other issues they can cause.

Pain Catastrophizing

Pain catastrophizing doesn’t mean someone’s pain isn’t real. It means they’re fixated on the pain, may feel helpless about finding relief, and may feel it’s only destined to get worse.

This kind of thinking can play a role in how someone experiences pain, as measured by the pain catastrophizing scale. This scale is considered one of the most important tools for examining the relationship between psychology and chronic pain and disability.

The questionnaire asks to what degree the person experiences certain negative or irrational thoughts while in pain. Examples include:

• I feel I can’t stand it anymore.
• I anxiously want the pain to go away.
• I keep thinking about how badly I want the pain to stop.
• I feel I can’t go on.
• I wonder whether something serious may happen.

You have the power to change your way of thinking by working on cognitive reframing (looking at your thoughts in a different way). The following steps may help ease your catastrophic thinking:

Verywell / Danie Drankwalter

Self-Guided Exercises

• Breathing exercises : Try taking a few deep breaths to calm yourself before addressing your negative thoughts. You can use a breathing exercise app or online video, or simply focus on taking in deep breaths for several moments.
• Meditation apps : Meditation apps exist for children and adults to help teach ways of practicing mindfulness. These apps typically have options geared toward specific meditation goals like reducing worry or persistent negative thinking.
• Mindfulness exercises : Mindfulness exercises are based on bringing you back to the moment so you can put some space between what’s happening now and the things you’re assuming will happen.

Psychotherapy

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy, or talk therapy, that includes cognitive reframing or cognitive restructuring. CBT can be used to:

• Recognize when you're catastrophizing
• Determine the accuracy of your thoughts
• Provide ways of coping with and challenging negative thoughts
• Share techniques for shifting thought patterns in the future to create lasting changes

A small 2017 study found that CBT was effective at addressing catastrophizing in fibromyalgia patients, allowing them to better manage their pain.

Medications

While there’s no medication prescribed specifically to help stop catastrophic thinking, you and your doctor can discuss treating underlying conditions that may be contributing to or causing your negative thinking behaviors.

For example, anxiety disorders can be treated with a variety of medications, including benzodiazepines and antidepressants .

Catastrophizing is when you think something, someone, or a situation is way worse than what the reality actually is. It's associated with some mental illnesses like anxiety disorders, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

You can try to stop catastrophic thinking by bringing yourself to the present and relieving anxiety. If catastrophizing is tied to an underlying mental disorder, it may help for you to work with a mental health professional in getting treatment.

Chan SM, Chan SK, Kwok WW. Ruminative and catastrophizing cognitive styles mediate the association between daily hassles and high anxiety in hong kong adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev . 2015;46(1):57-66. doi:10.1007/s10578-014-0451-9

Noël VA, Francis SE, Williams-Outerbridge K, Fung SL. Catastrophizing as a predictor of depressive and anxious symptoms in children . Cogn Ther Res . 2012;36(4):311-320. doi: 10.1007/s10608-011-9370-2

Pimentel SD, Adams H, Ellis T, et al. The sequential relation between changes in catastrophizing and changes in posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity . J Trauma Stress . 2020;33(5):731-740. doi:10.1002/jts.22519

Zortea M, Antunes L da C, Segabinazzi JD, et al. Distinct aspects of pain catastrophizing according to chronic pain syndromes . Clin Biomed Res . 2018;38(1)42-49. doi:10.4322/2357-9730.77809

Petrini L, Arendt-Nielsen L. Understanding pain catastrophizing: putting pieces together . Front Psychol . 2020;11:603420. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420/full

Kaczkurkin AN, Foa EB. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: an update on the empirical evidence . Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2015;17(3):337-346. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.3/akaczkurkin

Hofmann SG. Cognitive factors that maintain social anxiety disorder: a comprehensive model and its treatment implications . Cogn Behav Ther . 2007;36(4):193-209. doi:10.1080/16506070701421313

Lazaridou A, Kim J, Cahalan CM, et al. Effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on brain connectivity supporting catastrophizing in fibromyalgia . Clin J Pain . 2017;33(3):215-221. doi:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000422

By Michelle Pugle Michelle Pugle, MA is a freelance writer and reporter focusing on mental health and chronic conditions. As seen in Verywell, Healthline, Psych Central, Everyday Health, and Health.com, among others.

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• 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. Political and business leaders endorse its importance.

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. Morevoer, 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 line 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), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on the subsequent emotive response (Siegel 1988).

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 frequency 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 frequency 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 2016) 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.

Critical thinking dispositions can usefully be divided 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) (Facione 1990a: 25). 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.
• 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), and Black (2012).

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.

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? Abrami et al. (2015) found that in the experimental and quasi-experimental studies that they analyzed 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), and Bailin et al. (1999b).

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 ]
• –––, 2016, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• 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
• 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.
• Casserly, Megan, 2012, “The 10 Skills That Will Get You Hired in 2013”, Forbes , Dec. 10, 2012. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in-2013/#79e7ff4e633d ; accessed 2017 11 06.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 09 26.
• 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 ; accessed 2018 04 09.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; accessed 2018 04 14.
• Dumke, Glenn S., 1980, Chancellor’s Executive Order 338 , Long Beach, CA: California State University, Chancellor’s Office. Available at https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-338.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 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 ; accessed 2017 12 02.
• –––, 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.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• 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://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzUoP_pmwy1gdEpCR05PeW9qUzA/view ; accessed 2017 12 01.
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• 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.
• 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.
• Obama, Barack, 2014, State of the Union Address , January 28, 2014. [ Obama 2014 available online ]
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Information available at http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as-a-level-gce-critical-thinking-h052-h452/ ; accessed 2017 10 12.
• OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2018, Fostering and Assessing Students’ Creative and Critical Thinking Skills in Higher Education , Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Fostering-and-assessing-students-creative-and-critical-thinking-skills-in-higher-education.pdf ; accessed 2018 04 22.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 11 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 ]
• –––, 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 ]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 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 ; accessed 2017 11 29.
• 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
• 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, 2011, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre , Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB. Available at http://malmo.se/download/18.29c3b78a132728ecb52800034181/pdf2687.pdf ; accessed 2017 11 16.
• 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/ >
• 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.
• 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 this entry topic 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)
• Center for Teaching Thinking (CTT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach (criticalTHINKING.net)
• 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 © 2018 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Main navigation

• Our Articles
• Dr. Joe's Books
• Media and Press
• Our History
• Public Lectures
• Past Newsletters
• Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense

Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!

Register for the trottier 2024 symposium, is genghis khan hiding inside your dna.

• Add to calendar
• Tweet Widget

Genghis Khan is more legend than man. We’re not even sure when he was born: historians agree it’s somewhere in the decade that spans 1155 and 1167. That birth has itself been mythologized. Stories tell of a ray of light impregnating his mother; the baby, named Temüjin, was apparently born holding on to a piece of clotted blood, an omen of his later conquests. His death in 1227 is shrouded in rumours both kind and denigrating. Genghis Khan was struck by lightning. He died of an arrow wound that led to a systemic infection. He was castrated by a princess. Or maybe the bubonic plague got him in the end.

There is yet another legend about Genghis: that we are all related to him. Or that most of us are related to him. Or that a significant percentage of the planet can be traced back to him. Rumours have a way of warping in the telling.

We can trace this allegation to a scientific paper published in the early 2000s. But it all begs the question: how do we know? Do we even have DNA on a person who began life as a man but ended it as a legend?

A common Y chromosome? Whose Khan it be?

Central Asia is a land of diversity. Its geography is vast and varied, and its peoples’ DNA contain bits and pieces from the entire globe. An in-depth study published in 2020 revealed that central Eurasia—which can be defined as spanning the Caspian Sea all the way to Western China, including many of the former Soviet republics—has the most genetic admixture out of any population on Earth. The people who live there have in their genomes equal contributions from Europe, China, the Middle East, and India, as well as notable traces from Africa and what is referred to as the Arctic (meaning Indigenous people from the north of Europe, Asia, and North America, not polar bears).

Despite this richness, researchers in the late 1990s were deploring the fact that, genetically speaking, Central Asia was one of the least-studied major regions of the world. Enter a paper entitled “The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols.”

Its corresponding author was Chris Tyler-Smith of the University of Oxford, but it’s another name, listed fourth, that caught my attention: Spencer Wells. Soon after the publication of this paper in 2003, he would lead the Genographic Project, which aimed to map human migrations from our African cradle to current day by collecting saliva samples from people all over the world. Mine was one of many, many samples they processed.

The early 2000s saw an explosion in genetic research. This specific paper—which I will call the Zerjal paper after its first author, Tatiana Zerjal—focuses on the Y chromosome. This chromosome, which men typically have, is tiny and has a measly 63 genes; chromosome 1, by comparison, is our longest and has nearly 2,000 genes. (If you’re wondering why I wrote “typically,” you should read Ada McVean’s excellent article on sex and gender . It’s complicated.)

The Y chromosome is particularly interesting in genetics because, if you have one, you received it from your father. We can thus use the Y chromosome to explore the patrilineage: the line of men that goes from you to your father and his father and his grandfather, and on and on. That Y chromosome is not completely static, though. It will mutate, but enough of it is conserved that we can see where someone’s Y chromosome ultimately came from. That’s the information I received after I sent in my saliva sample to the Genographic Project. They extracted my DNA, amplified a number of stretches along the length of my Y chromosome, and compared it to the Y chromosome of populations all over the world. The verdict: my patrilineage traces back to Western Europe. No surprise there on my end.

Zerjal and her colleagues did exactly this using the DNA of over 2,000 Asian men, and they found something strange. Those stretches of DNA I mentioned, they’re not random. Scientists look at them because they are repeats. For example, one of them could be “CAACAACAA.” I might have three of these CAAs in a row, while my neighbour could have seven. When you analyze enough of these stretches of repeats—Zerjal looked at 32 of them in her sample—you end up with a sort of fingerprint. A person can have 3 repeats at the first position you looked at; 11 at the next one; 6 at the third. That fingerprint is known as a haplotype. My Y-chromosome haplotype was common in Western Europe. But there was one haplotype Zerjal and her colleagues found in their sample of Asian men that was way too common to make sense.

This haplotype, which they called the “star cluster,” was found in 16 populations that lived in a very large section of Asia. Eight percent of the men they tested had this Y chromosome. If their sample was representative— if it was!—it meant that 0.5% of the entire world had this Y chromosome. There had to have been selective pressure to make this happen, as random chance alone was much, much too improbable. But because of how small the chromosome is, it was unlikely that one of its genes provided a clear survival advantage. The reason this version of chromosome Y was so common must have been because one guy had been, well, very, very reproductively fit.

The scientists estimated that the most recent common ancestor of all these men, the granddaddy of this Y chromosome, lived in Central Asia about 1,000 years ago.

Thinking about it, they zeroed in on one strong possibility: Temüjin, better known as Genghis Khan, the barbarian warlord whose conquests are now the stuff of legends. He had five daughters and four sons from his senior wife, and many more with the junior wives he acquired through conquest. Let’s just say that his genes strutted about Central Asia a lot.

It could be this haplotype… or this haplotype… or this haplotype

At its height, the Mongol Empire, born of the unification of nomadic tribes under Genghis Khan, was so large, it is only rivaled historically by the British Empire in terms of land area. Despite its importance, there is so much we don’t know about Genghis Khan himself. That famous painting of him? It has been referred to as an “arbitrary interpretation” made by historians generations removed from the man himself. We have no description or illustration from the people who lived with him. And his body? It is still hidden.

The corpses of kings were believed to retain their godly power, so they were buried in secret in inaccessible places, often mountain sites, that were thought to be close to heaven. Genghis Khan’s final resting place has never been found, and not for want of searching. A decade ago, over 10,000 online volunteers spent a combined total of three-and-a-half human years combing through satellite images looking for anything that might give away Khan’s burial. A National Geographic expedition was launched to explore 55 sites of interest following this virtual search. Temüjin remains elusive.

In 2004, five graves were discovered in Tavan Tolgoi in Eastern Mongolia and the artefacts they contained, as well as the wood used for the coffin, strongly pointed toward a Mongolian imperial family, specifically Genghis Khan’s. Scientists tested the skeletons for DNA but the Y chromosome they found in the men was not the one with the star cluster. Were these men members of Temüjin’s family or were they unrelated generals of his? The scientists did not know.

Another group of researchers investigated a clan in China that claims to be the descendants of Toghan, Genghis Khan’s sixth son. Their Y chromosome is different from the one described in the Zerjal paper and the Tavan Tolgoi excavation.

To confuse the situation even more, a Chinese team revisited the Zerjal paper a few years ago. The problem with a study in which you test the DNA of a population is that you can’t test everyone. You have to pick a sample and hope that this sample is representative. The Chinese team broadened their sample. Whereas Zerjal had looked at 2,123 men, this new team looked at over 18,000 individuals from a broader region of Central Asia to see what was really going on. In gaining a more refined picture, they saw that this haplotype wasn’t 1,000 years old; it was about 2,600 years old, older than Genghis Khan himself. It probably belonged to the ancestor of all Mongolic-speaking people. They conclude their paper by writing that none of the people who carried this Y chromosome can trace their genealogy to Genghis Khan, and none of his self-claimed direct descendants carry it either.

So this common Y chromosome, at the origin of the claim that half of a percent of all men on Earth are descendant from Genghis Khan, predates the warlord himself. Being older than 2,000 years, it had plenty of time to spread among the many tribes of Central Asia, and to further scatter when the region became the heart of the Silk Road, bridging Europe and Asia and facilitating a lot of genetic commingling.

We may not be direct descendants of Genghis Khan, but we all bear within our cells the migratory path our ancestors took out of Africa. As for Temüjin, his face, bones, and DNA itself remain hidden from us.

Maybe one day a new discovery will enable us to trade in part of his legend for some cold, hard facts.

Take-home message: - A 2003 study found that a large number of men carried a Y chromosome that seemed to have come from Central Asia 1,000 years ago, leading to the speculation that it was Genghis Khan’s - A more recent study using a much larger sample of men from a wider geographic area shows that this Y chromosome actually predates Genghis Khan by a millennium - Genghis Khan’s burial site has yet to be found, so we do not have DNA on him. A number of Y chromosomes have been speculated as belonging to him

@CrackedScience   

What to read next

Claims about ozone therapy don't pass the smell test 23 aug 2024.

The Weaving History of Persian Carpets 23 Aug 2024

Waxing Lyrical About Fruit Wax 21 Aug 2024

Water Cures Have Flowed Through History 16 Aug 2024

The Book Natural Healers Really Hate 16 Aug 2024

Whipping Up Some Science 14 Aug 2024

Department and University Information

Office for science and society.