How does one become a critical thinker?

To me it seems like to comes from a realization that everything is bull shit.

Whether someone pushes you into seeing it or it comes to you spontaniously(spelling?), you have to see all of the lies you’ve been taught throughout your life.

From what I can see, the three big G’s are where the biggest lies are held: God, Government, and Generalizations.

I feel a little bit under the spotlight answering this, because I am only assuming that I’m a critical thinker. I believe that I am, and I also believe that it comes naturally. However, I look around me, and I see that I come from a family full of people that I would consider to be very critical thinkers. My father in particular, and I feel that he has potentially been the greatest influence on the way that I think and learn. So perhaps I did learn it from him, and it isn’t nearly as natural as it feels.
Sometimes I feel that there are people who aren’t capable of critical thinking, but I have no reason to actually believe that is true. It just feels that way at times. In which case I am lead to believe that critical thinking can be learned, because I feel like if the people that give me the impression that they don’t have the ability to think critically would allow me to, I think I might be able to change that.

I haven’t slept yet. I might just be full of shit. Great question, though, seriously. Thought provoking.

I agree with @crisw’s post that was referenced in the body of the question. I do believe that critical thinking can be taught, which is the whole point of writing assignments in school settings. The base learning that seems to be missing in US schools is set math, which teaches discernment. Also the basics of logic should be taught in middle and high school; most people aren’t exposed to logic until college, if at all.

Well, I believe I am a critical thinker, the heart of which lies in deep questioning and the seeking of answers that might not necessarily be obvious and invariably for me anyway ends up going against the normally accepted grain…. Like most characteristics I think critical thinking is to some degree natural (perhaps genetic and very early environment) but can also be learned later through will. Two philosophy courses honed my thinking skills but this aspect of my character seems to have defined me from a very early age. I believe it’s deeply embedded in my ‘personality’

I think it is possible that some people are incapable of it. I think it involves particular skills that are probably set up in the brain as hard-wired connections but with the advent of neuro-plasticity and the knowledge that we can alter these connections, perhaps it is possible. However, genetically and metaphorically speaking you can only do so much with the materials you’ve been given.

I hope to get back to this question and give an answer that does it justice. For now the best thing I can say in the short time that I have available is:

It helps to have been raised by my father! He was a master at critical thinking. He was as good at tearing down arguments – gently, respectfully, and thoroughly – as he was at building structures of any kind. So from him I learned how to deconstruct and reconstruct, at least with words and ideas.

I also agree (and disagree!) with the quip from crisw that you led off with: it’s not a natural or innate ability to use deep logical thinking, but I think it’s one that can be taught. On the other hand, we’re a very argumentative species, so we can and do think with a sort of “superficial” logic, but it’s a much deeper kind of analysis that has us realizing, for example, that the sun does not “rise” in the morning and “set” in the evening. It took thousands of years and a lot of pain to realize that Earth spins, wobbles, and travels in a huge circle around the Sun. It wasn’t a ‘natural’ thing to realize that. The kind of critical thinking that leads to discoveries like that – against all that is ‘obvious’ to others – is very rare, and very likely not teachable.

I would call myself a critical thinker. I think it involves some natural ability, but I believe the basics can be taught. My own critical thinking skills were honed in school in my Problems of the 20th Century class, via debate club, and philosophy courses.

Here is a list on books on critical thinking.

One becomes a critical thinker by not accepting at face value everything as presented. In order to come to the proper conclusions on any given subject one must have the ability to check one’s premises.Epistemology is the process of doing so.
Yes,people reject reality all the time in order to support false premises.
It is the search for the truth that leads people to become a critical thinker ;)

Not many Americans today are good critical thinkers and I see it daily in my work. Critical thinking skills can be developed and taught by exposure to a wide variety of opinions and learning to evaluate sources for veracity. One of the problems I see in America today is that we tend to huddle in our own likeminded groups and reinforce our own pre-conceived notions rather than challenging them through reading or debate. (I myself am guilty of this.) I think this is a growing trend which needs to be fought against (swimming upstream against the current.)

One thing I can say for certain is that critical thinking does not come naturally. In fact, we naturally arrive at quite the opposite. Logical fallacies are largely innate so things like confirmation bias have to be recognized to be overcome. Critical thinking must be taught and it is a rigorous daily proccess.

@kenmc As much as I love the simplicity of your answer, realizing everything is bullshit is just another face of that same bias. Realizing that everything has the equal probability of being bullshit and then independantly researching those things is critical thinking. Writing all things off is cynicism. (I don’t think that’s what you were getting at at all so don’t take that as a crticism of your answer; more like an amendum).

@augustlan I am a huge fan of Brian Dunning’s website and podcast Skeptoid, which bills itself as “Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena”. Dunning does an excellent job reinforcing the principles of critical thinking and keeps his bits witty, entertaining and educational.

Some critical thinking skills can be taught, such as critical reading or listening with a focus on gathering facts and learning to distinguish between opinion and evidence.

But I think in order to become a critical thinker, people have to learn to reduce the influence of their own emotions because one of the biggest barriers to critical thinking is the feeling that you already know the answer.

Experiences in life can help a person to realize that there are more answers out there than they may have in their own minds, but some people may go through their whole life thinking that they know best in any situation and not allowing themselves to think critically.

The open mind that can examine and research all possibility is to me what critical thinking is. When one thinks that our science is the only answer and that without proof things do not exist is not a critical thinker. It would be those who can take science and their own research information and see there is NO conflict at all I would term the critical thinker. There is something called an awakening and when one experiences this one’s mind comes open to all possibility. The Critical Thinker is one who sees that the more he learns he realizes the less he knows.

I’m with @nebule

I have always had a ‘seeking’ mind, and often see myriad possibility contained within what others might accept at face value.

I believe great minds are born not created.

This is not to say that some skill cannot be nurtured but, just like natural talent, one either has it or they do not.

You might be able to teach the basics of painting to someone but, the instinctual ability to create and the flow of great art is not something that can be contrived.

A natural artist creates spontaniously, a natural critical thinking mind runs on it’s own program.

@Summum I would think you described the polar opposite of a critical thinker. “Balancing” science and your “own research information” is another way of saying convoluting objective research with anecdote and opinion.

I am not sure that we are all capable of being really critical thinkers. But I think we are capable of being good investigators. By that I mean that when a question arises we look at all sides of an argument before finding one explanation which suits us and adopting it.

I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s far too easy to criticize. It’s far more important to be supportive of others and to build on their ideas. You accomplish much more with a positive attitude.

If you’ve seen me tear apart some of the poems people post here, you’ll know I’m very good at being critical. That’s why everyone loves me so much. ROFL!

@wundayatta Critical thinking does not imply being critical; it means the ability to assess information, evaluate its veracity and make judgments accordingly.

@janbb So you mean like going to a court and having a justice make a judgment? Wow. I never knew that.

oooh, I inspired a question! And on one of my favorite topics!

Is the ability to be a critical thinker something that has to be taught (or sought)?

As I mentioned, I don’t think it comes naturally. Our brains are wired to make conclusions from data, but hundreds and hundreds of psychological studies have shown just how flawed the conclusions that we draw naturally can be.

I think that very few people actually use critical thought as their main mode of analyzing the world. Few people can explain what critical thinking is, or what tools they use to analyze an argument. For example, this study found that, in a survey of university education teachers, only 19% could give an acceptable definition of critical thinking, and only 9% could give an adequate description of how they would analyze a colleague’s argument for critical thinking.

Does it come about naturally? Maybe with life experience?

No, as I mentioned above, In fact, I think it’s likely that people become even more entrenched in familiar thought patterns as they get older.

How did you become a critical thinker?

It started with curiosity- an attribute most children have- and was developed in three primary ways. One was lots and lots of reading which, as I grew older, encompassed more books that discussed critical thinking. The second was my love of debate. A good debater must know how to think logically- as well as how to spot logical fallacies. Thirdly, my best friend in college was a person who questioned everything- and did it logically- and he was not at all afraid to point out when someone’s thinking was not logical! There were hours of long discussions on many topics and pages of letters.

Is it different for different people?

The process may be a bit different, but the basic premises are the same- logic is logic. What is very different is compartmentalization. Some people are only able to critically analyze beliefs they disagree with, or those that have no real bearing on their lives, but cannot do so for beliefs that are important to them.

Are some people incapable of critical thinking?

Yes, Some cannot, and some will not. Any time anyone says anything along the lines of “I have faith in X and that is all I need,” or “Nothing could change my belief in X,” critical thinking has gone out the window.

If everyone is capable of it, do some reject it purposefully? If so, why?

Of course people reject it, although they may not do it consciously. They do it when holding on to a belief system is more important to them than seeking to know what is real and true. They do it when reality is likely a lot less comfortable than the beliefs they have constructed. And they do it because they are lazy thinkers.

I had a college class on persuasive speaking. First we went through logical fallacies and then had to present arguments to the class; very interesting.

@crisw

I disagree, based on my own natural inclinations and also because intelligence is strongly influenced by heredity.

The old ‘nature vs. nurture’ dichotomy.

It stands to reason more intelligent brains might be better suited to critical thinking skills, as is true for more abstract and non-linear thinking processes as well.

Ideally we should all utilize the multiple facets in every available category.

This would denote optimum functioning on multiple levels.

I think, as with everything, that one can modify/manipulate areas that may be perceived as under functioning, but, essentially most of what we are, we simply are.
And no I don’t want to debate determinism. lol ;-)

@Coloma This answer was not based upon a critical evaluation of evidence. Intelligence and critical thinking, while linked, are not cause and effect (in either direction). Developing critical thinking skills is not something that we modify/manipulate. It’s something that we either employ or do not employ.

Doesn’t come naturally ( not innate) but is easier for some than others, taught by parents or other influences. For me, it was science courses.

I learned a lot about critical thinking, as I said earlier, from my father. He taught me how to analyze things in ways that I hadn’t done before. If you “just listen and believe”, then you’re at the mercy of whoever spoke to you last. So he taught me how to break down a statement and look for syllogisms and conclusions, and to compare to things that I already knew to determine truth or falsehood, and then to build up my knowledge in that way. And from my mother I learned about a lot of the wonder of language itself: vocabulary, syntax and grammar, how a word could often mean or at least seem to mean its own opposite, and how to parse sentences for meaning.

A lot of this was reinforced for me by reading essays on critical thinking. One of my favorites of all time is Richard Feynman’s ‘Cargo Cult Science’ Commencement Address to the 1974 graduating class at CalTech. It’s a fairly well known speech of its type, and can be found a lot of places on the Web. Here’s one. It’s always worth a read. I think I’m going to read it again now, for about the 10th time.

@CW You are one smart dorg.

Education, I think. The more, the better. Once exposed to it, you see how it works. The more you are exposed, the better your comprehension.

@Coloma

“I disagree, based on my own natural inclinations and also because intelligence is strongly influenced by heredity.”

I must admit that I read your post but I don’t quite understand what you are disagreeing with, exactly.

Who am I to disagree with such wisdom, @janbb?

I am not the right person to ask.

If any of you ever see me critical thinking, call a cab and make sure I get home ok because I am fucking wasted.

For me, critical thinking began with learning how to compare and contrast. In 9th grade English I wrote a paper on two different types of flowers, comparing and contrasting the qualities of each. By writing the paper I had to convey concrete and abstract information to an audience who would have no understanding of the subject. This process taught me how to gather and explain information beyond my own perceptions.

Skills I learned from writing this one paper laid the foundation for how I process most information. Whenever I encounter new data, I compare and contrast it to knowledge I’ve already attained. Building upon the foundation were opportunities to teach children and adults. Refining my critical thinking skills have been undergrad studies in theology and Biblical interpretation, and graduate studies in education.

This is a multi-stage thing to me, at least going by my own personal experience. I like to think of my self as a critical thinker, It’s something I see as a virtue, I also like to think of my self as fairly smart. But, if I really am a smart critical thinker, then I have to admit there is a possibility that I am not, and that I am just deluded.

Stage #1 – Be Born a Skeptic.

The first stage to me, would be that you need to be born a skeptic. I by no means intend to start a religious debate, but as an example: I was 6 years old when I learned the word “atheist” and decided that I was one. As a small child I was very manipulative, and I knew how to lie, this helped me spot lies, and even more so, helped me spot when I was being manipulated. I suspect my deceptive nature is what helped me be a skeptic so young.

Obviously this alone does not make you a critical thinker, and it may not even be a requirement at all, but it must help I think. To be someone who is more likely to question things.

Stage #2 – Live In The Free World.

As I have already mentioned, I was very skeptical at a young age, but I suspect I would not have been so skeptical, if I had been raised in a country that did not have free speech. If I had faced things like beatings and beheadings for speaking my mind, I would no doubt only think the things that I thought, and if I lived there long enough, maybe after a while, I would not even think such things.

If you have any hope of being a critical thinker, you need to be allowed to also be a free thinker, to me the two go hand in hand.

Stage #3 – Question Morality and Substitute your Own

As I said, for there to be critical thought, there needs to first be free thought. For example: If we simply accept that genocide is wrong, we can only ever give one answer, when asked, if genocide can ever be justified.

You need to make up your own mind, and decide for your self if genocide is good or bad. You need to do the same for everything, from murder to stealing candy. Even if you decide that genocide is bad, and can only ever answer that it is bad, at least you have the ground work and thought process to back up why it is bad. You can’t take anything at face value.

Stage #4 – Be a Victim of Some Bullshit.

At least once or twice in your life, you need to buy penis enlargement pills, or invest in time shares, or believe some conspiracy theories, or be worried by a dooms day prediction, or work in a pyramid scheme.

Being able to spot bullshit is not enough, once or twice you need to realize that you are not immune to the stuff. This also gives you a chance to get a good sniff of that bullshit, so you will know it when you smell it again.

Step #5 – Get Taken Down a Peg or Two.

Not only do you need to be a victim of some bullshit, but you need to be a victim of stupidity, you need to be put in your place a few times, and corrected by people who have stronger arguments or better facts.

Step #6 – Change Your Ways.

As I mentioned at the very beginning, I was a very manipulative kid, and I would lie all the time. This is something you need to stop doing, it is only a minor detail, but still important. You need to get out of the habit or circulating urban legends, don’t pass off stories that you know are not true as true. Don’t lie (to your self as well as others), and don’t make up things that you think could maybe work and tell them as if they would work for sure.

Step #7 – Eat Some Humble Pie

Learn to admit when you are wrong, Ignore the sting you feel the first few times you do it, until all you feel when you admit you were wrong is a general sense of fact.

Also you should take a look at some cosmology documentaries, not because they will make you a critical thinker, but because nothing will make you more humble than realizing what you are.

Step #8 – Doing The Hard Parts

Go online, or get out there, learn what a logical fallacy is, learn what logic is, learn how to formulate and argument and how to verify a source, learn about confirmation biased, watch some debates, read a heap of books and expose your self to loads of information.

Step #9 – Psychologically Self Harm

Do you believe aliens visit earth? do you think 9/11 was an inside job? do you believe you can predict the future? whatever you believe… take your pet theory and pull it to pieces. Take the ideas you hold to be true and moral and just and pull them to pieces too.

Now on step 9 you have the tools you need to start really figuring out what is real and what is not, take those tools and clear out anything that looks like it does not belong.

Step #10 – Humans Like Round Numbers

This thing really did not need 10 stages, 9 was enough, but my mind compelled me to add a 10th, just because my mind likes round numbers. As you go about your day as a critical thinker, keep in mind that people like to do stuff like this.

To me, a god giving man 10 commandments, just looks too tidy and convenient for my taste, maybe originally there where only 9 of them too.

@crisw

I meant that I do believe critical thinking does come naturally to some without efforting.
I think it can be natural.

Great Question. There is a very short and readable book by Jamie Whyte called Crimes Against Logic. Simply reading it and absorbing what it says is a good start. You can get a lot more armor against the current trend toward anto-rationalism by reading Susan Jacoby’s excellent bookThe Age of American Unreason

Then, as others have pointed out, opt out of groupthing, junk thought and junk science. Think critically about what you hear the talking heads on TV tell us. All too often, it is full of junk thought and junk science.

Not believing everything you are told whether it’s the orthodox or fringe viewpoint. Questioning everything, not just choosing one side. Investigation, not blind faith before coming to conclusions. Not making conclusions based on cognitive dissonance. Open-minded but not guillable. Many self proclaimed “critical thinkers” are anything but that.

As a fourth grade teacher I teach critical thinking skills everyday – it is something the Education Administrations are big on. We are told to ask students to evaluate, analyze and synthesize (i.e. “Bloom’s Taxonomy” http://www.sanchezclass.com/handbook/blooms.pdf). So yes, I do believe it can be taught.

HOWEVER, (here comes my bitching)
We still measure students’ learning by selective response standardized testing AND judge the ability of a teacher based on his/her students’ test scores. Even if the test question is a critical thinking skill question, if the student truly uses his schema (knowledge of past experiences) and evaluation, analysis and synthesis then the answer might not be one of the four answer choices. Because the schema is different for a child raised in “the hood” and a child raised in white suburbia. I could go on, but I’m an overworked, tired, poor teacher and need to go to bed….lol.

You want to really light my fuse….try to compare our (U.S.) test scores to Chinas….if you really think the scores are apples to apples rather than apples to oranges, talk to a young dedicated highly educated teacher.

Thanks for all of the interesting answers! I wondered about it because I’ve considered myself a critical thinker since 6th grade, though I wouldn’t have used those words to describe myself back then. It was at that time that I really began questioning things, and decided, on my own, to read the bible all the way through. Big eye opener, there! Concluding that there was no truth to much of what so many accept as the ultimate truth pretty much sealed the deal.

I have no recollection of anyone ever teaching me to be that way. In fact, I was brought up in an environment where no one ever questioned the head of our family (my grandfather) about anything. He was an old-school Southern Democrat – racist, sexist, and Christian – and that was ‘right’. Except, it clearly wasn’t, to me. I pushed back, in a major way. The older I got, the more life experience I obtained, the more thinking I did and the less I understood why other people didn’t question things. The only contributing factor I can think of is obsessive reading of anything and everything (not with intent to learn, just because I love to read). But several other family members had this same habit, and most did not turn out to be critical thinkers.

Honestly, it’s not a struggle for me, thinking like this (though it does sometimes result in difficulty). It feels perfectly natural and innate. Emotions may overtake me for a moment, but in the end, rationality wins out. I know far more people who are not like this, though. Some seem willfully ignorant, others blissfully so. Would it be possible to not only teach those people how to think critically but to also maintain that approach? It just seems unlikely, to me. I suck at math, and no matter how many math classes I take… I’m still going to suck, you know?

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. I think critical thinking is developed, one has to be willing to separate the emotion and focus on the issue (even if unpopular or seeming unfair). Applying logic as pure as I could I believe made me a more critical thinker. Things are what they are, you can take them for what they are or try to spin them into things they are not or be PC (politically correct) about it.

@Hypocrisy_Central Fact from fiction, truth from diction.

Well said.

Here’s a good description:

Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

To me a key feature of a well-cultivated critical thinker is the ability to openly admit that he or she was wrong. Some never reach this level.

@mattbrowne Amen, brother. I can’t help but feel that those who think themselves “natural” critical thinkers are either applying a non-standard definition or are not critically thinking about whether or not they are critical thinking. But I think if one wanted to quantify critical thinking one might start by dividing the number of “I told you so“s from the number of “I’m sorry, I guess I was mistaken“s.

@crazyivan Since I’m one who identified as a “natural” critical thinker, I feel compelled to respond. I’ve been mistaken many, many times, and am always glad when I become aware of my mistakes even if they are sometimes humiliating, at the time. :p I don’t understand how people who are ‘never wrong’ can ever grow as human beings.

If one doesn’t allow for the possibility of being wrong, one is not a critical thinker. On that, we are definitely in complete agreement.

@augustlan
I agree. :-)

A true critical thinker allows possibility of the unknown to factor in as well as the possibility of being incorrect.
They do not adhere to strict rigidity, which by default prevents any new information from entering their mega-controlled inner sanctum.
One cannot claim to be of a critically thinking nature if they insist on amputating parts of the whole.

There are plenty of people that are wired to instantly make a big picture connection and are able to jump the linear hurdle, the dots connect instantly rather than through diligent process.

One thinking size does not fit all and there are many paths to ultimate deduction. ;-)

Everyone is wrong from time to time. Critical thinkers are very conscious about seeing this as an opportunity and frequently engage in self reflection.

@auguslan The reason that I push back against the idea of a “natural” critical thinking is because your brain is programmed in the opposite direction. There’s a lot more to it than just being able to admit that you’re wrong. The biggest obstacle to critical thinking is (in my experience) confirmation bias. We are all programmed to have this bias so unless you make a conscious effort to overcome it you’re not going to be able to critically examine your preconceptions.

Admitting that you can, have and will be wrong, though, is an important first step.

@crazyivan Ok, you definitely have a point. I’m aware of my own confirmation bias, and do actively work to overcome it. So I concede your point that effort is involved. I just don’t remember anyone ever teaching me how to do it. Or even why one should. It just seemed to, I don’t know… evolve?, as a result of ever expanding life experiences.

Too much thinking is a problem in itself.
Critical or otherwise. lol

I agree with everything @augustlan has just said…from a naturally born critical thinker :-p x

@Coloma It doesn’t seem to be a high risk factor these days.

@ETpro

Eh, I ‘think’ it’s probably what it’s always been.
Some folks are more conscious and self aware than others.

The mind is a tool, it is not meant to take over one’s life for better or for worse. lol