How to Think Critically
Can thinking critically be learned or is it something you are born with?
We live in an era where AI, deep fakes, photoshop, filters and other means of fabricating reality into scenes that deceive, manipulate and trigger abound. Some of this is done for fun and entertainment but much of it is done to advance agendas that rarely have our best interests at heart. Even when there is significant truth and real facts conveyed in the message, they are often used as a scaffold of substance to make the illusion even more convincing. The most effective type of manipulation generally includes sprinkles of easily provable claims. This creates the comfort of our hand being held while the holder is leading us down the path of our own demise.
Watch me rant this one off on Rumble.
Or watch the YouTube one below:
Of course, most will claim to already be aware of this trap. They will say “they’ve done their research”. They will claim they have reputable sources. They know this to be true. The thing is that it happens on virtually all sides of an issue. The spin comes from our perceived adversaries as well as our imagined allies. In fact, many times those who perpetuate propaganda, do so unwittingly. They are merely parroting what they’ve been taught and believe to be true. That’s the power of really good propaganda. We all have been programmed to some extent. Whether it was our parents, friends, school, culture, media, or the likes, we have been shaped by nurture since before we could form a logical thought.
This is true whether we live in the United States or Russia, whether we are pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, whether we embrace our culture or the counterculture and just about anything else. Arguably, the greater the stakes for a particular position the more embedded and covert the manipulation is. Subtle manipulation is likely to avoid our potential defence of self-awareness for longer and keep us in a domino effect of influencing others who trust us, believing our take is the right one. This is where manipulation is the most powerful. When the people we like, have allied with before and hold many similar views voice a perspective, it almost immediately entices us to embrace it. It would be far easier and more psychosocially convenient to not cast our doubt upon our friends and our team.
The problem is that the real world is very nuanced and almost every significant issue or event has layers of complexity that make simple explanations reductionist at best and often harmfully wrong. The notion that a single cause is at the root of a wide variety of problems can be seen as mono-thinking. Similar to mono-crop farming, it is devoid of the diversity that is inherent in healthy living systems. For example, if we blame everything on capitalism, we miss the other aspects that are at the very least contributing to the issues. In the case of capitalism, we might miss aspects like the individual greed of sociopaths and megalomaniacs, ideological rigidity in terms of individualism vs. collectivism, pre-existing structures in society which influence the execution of a capitalist market, etc.. Mono-thinking displays a poverty of critical thinking, creativity, and knowledge of the world. Rarely is just one thing completely responsible for another. Even just the context of a claim brings with it a level of multifactorial influence. Mono-thinking is far more likely to lead to decaying ideas than a nuanced approach. It is as susceptible to mind rot as a field of mono-crop is to disease.
It might seem that I am claiming the mainstream narrative is as reliable as the alternative narrative. If I am trying to be true to being a critical thinker, then I cannot make statements about either without examining each in a case by case basis. The old adage, “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” seems to be an important one in this context. Many people - myself included - could rant about the ills of the American experiment for a long time. However, as much as I have issues with much of it - the military-industrial complex, the education system, the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, Big Gov, Big Tech, Big Ag and more - the United States of America stills holds many vitally important and beautiful aspects of humanity. I would never hope that all would be laid to waste.
In the spirit of this notion, I believe we would do well to reflect on what the mainstream narrative contains that is valuable and likely true. We then strive to hold onto these pieces while we scrutinize the rest. We also hold onto these as we discerningly venture into alternative narratives. For example, while I am generally disappointed with the medical system - especially its capacity to deal with chronic disease and utilize preventative methods - I would be very hesitant to dismiss the value of emergency medicine and trauma care. What I think we should resist is embracing that which is not mainstream just because it is not mainstream.
Sadly, I have been seeing this more and more amongst the communities that are alternative and counterculture. Many beautiful and superior ideas have arisen in these bastions of free thinking but there are weed-filled sectors in these gardens of independent thought that are being pulled into ideologies that are not grounded at all. Free thinking is an interesting term. It implies free of the shackles of dogma but it can also be a reflection of having no anchors in reality. The paranoid schizophrenic is a free thinker but not someone I would necessarily rely on to guide me to safety.
In the wake of perhaps the greatest winning streak in conspiracy theorist history, we have slipped into a minefield of greater complexity than the covid chronicles offered. While some of the strategies we saw intensely pushed by the globalist and authoritarian powerbrokers from 2020 to 2023 - weaponization of virtue, divide and trigger, distraction, repetitive mantras of lies or half-truths (à la Goebbels), and more - still apply, the landscape of geopolitical maneuvering is far more complex, both in scope and history, than the pandemic debacle. I think it is inadvisable to superimpose the scrutinizing structures that the pandemic truth-seeking lens showed to work in the Pfizerian battles onto the current conflict in Israel-Gaza.
This current iteration of the hostility in a small piece of land in the Middle East has so many tentacles spanning out to other nations, religions, ideologies and more. It not only spreads laterally across the contemporary world but also back in history well beyond the Intifadas, the Lebanon war, the 1973 war, the 1967 war, the Nakba, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Holocaust, the World Wars, the pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the birth of all three Abrahamic religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism (listed in the reverse order of their inception). Even a renowned historian with a track record of primary source research across a sampling of cultures would need to have completed a separate dissertation in each of religious studies, political science, media studies and cultural psychology.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg too.
Most people who are commenting on this subject matter have a tiny grasp of this; usually it is tainted with emotional baggage and personal leanings as well as years of trusting whatever narrative has aligned with the rest of their worldview.
Those who are inclined to question the establishment continue to do so with even greater bravado but often unwittingly struggle to accurately place the objects of their support and condemnation in camps of oppressed and oppressor, underdog and top dog, victim and bully, etc. Inversions are happening regularly. Some of these vindicated conspiracy theorists have had so much success that they have become less discerning. Some never were. It brings to mind the saying: A broken watch is still right twice a day.
When anything that goes against the mainstream narrative is worth latching onto just because it isn’t the mainstream narrative, this becomes just as ‘sheep-like’ as those who drink CNN/Fox’s Kool-aid with glee. Critical thinking is not about always being a contrarian. It is more about maintaining a healthy skepticism and cautiously validating one claim at a time. Many of us pointed to the absurdity of a virtual endless stream of coincidences still being regarded as coincidental by many. At some point, it is reasonable to declare that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck. It is causal and not coincidental. However, the litmus test of such must be significant enough that mere perceived connections can not pass for fact. The human brain is excellent at seeing patterns, real or imagined. This can be insightful or problematic.
Critical thinking attempts to pierce all sides of a claim to find its weakness. Then it attacks that weakness. If the claim starts to fall apart, we must discard it - even if it was favorable to our well-being, worldview and comfort. This is hard. It can be extremely unsettling. Our once champions can have a metamorphose to monsters. At this stage, many turn to self-denial. The ego takes hold and resists the discomfort of change.
So how do we maintain a rigorous practice of true critical thinking?
Imperfectly is likely the true answer. Beyond that, it takes brutal self honesty and perhaps some sort of systematic approach to dismantling our biases as best as possible as well as catching lazy thinking and convenient conclusions.
In an attempt to offer some practical direction in this area, I have struggled to express some guidelines.
Here are 10 Guidelines for Thinking More Critically:
We all can be fooled. Consider this first and often.
The simplest answer is often the most likely (Occam’s razor1).
Don’t first ascribe to maliciousness that which can be explained by incompetence and stupidity (Hanlon’s razor2).
Check the metrics. If we can put something into accurate percentages of probability, then we can actually gain a good measure of its potential to be true. Stick with what is most likely (i.e., higher percentage of being true) unless there is a significant confounder.
Examine historical precedents and patterns to see if it aligns. A snake will continue to behave like a snake 99.99% of the time. If you are seeing a snake as a rabbit, it is more likely not a snake or you are wrong to see a rabbit.
Reflect on your emotional investments in the story you are seeing. Are they clouding any of the above? Prolonged emotional investments are prone to the sunken cost fallacy3.
Is the information telling you how you should feel about something? If it is, then it is not objective information. Facts are cold and hard. Interpretations are not. They are malleable. Good ones are derived from facts that are verifiably cold and hard. The ensuing interpretation should not migrate excessively from the factual roots it strives to explain.
Find others who have a track record for measured responses but are clearly thoughtful, multi-disciplinarian and precise thinkers. What are they saying? It is especially important to find these voices that are at least somewhat holding an opposing position. Why are they? Understand them. Break out of the echo chamber as a verification method for your ideas.
Be nimble and modest. Be willing to shift when the above litmus tests push your stance to the point of fragility. Accept the fact that all humans are fallible. Refrain from the ego taking hold. This is hard. Humans are notorious for this sticking point, especially with tribalism. Many people would rather, wittingly or unwittingly, uphold an erroneous belief than go against their allegiance to the tribe.
Review your opinions and positions over time. Things change. New evidence comes to light. What was once clear can end up being dubious. Time can break just about anything. It is preferable for it to break our ideas than our moral character.
What else?
I imagine this to be a working list. I will add more if they come to me and/or ones you share with me that seem to work.
I still wonder at what juncture between nature and nurture critical thinking lies? Some might say it is a skill that can be learned but I also consider that some are born with a stronger propensity for it. Regardless, whether it comes naturally to us, life carves it into our way of being, or we have to work at it, it is probably more important than ever that we strive to improve our BS detectors - to whiff out the crap in the world, others and ourselves.
As someone who prizes open-mindedness, the saying “It’s good to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out”, used to bother me. Now, I find myself more accepting of it as I see the willing gullibility of some of those who chastised ‘normies’ for their gullibility.
If everything is a conspiracy theory and everyone is controlled opposition, then you are either in a lonely solipsistic dystopia or you are just not seeing the world accurately.
It’s always a reasonable and wise stance to say that we just don’t know, we need more information and time, and we will sit with it.
That’s my take. I could be wrong.
What do you think?
Occam’s razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.
Hanlon’s Razor is a useful mental model which can be best summarized as: ‘Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect.’
The phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.