Dare to Challenge Your Beliefs: The No-Excuses Checklist for True Critical Thinking
Political activism doesn't always work in black and white. Make sure you're getting the entire picture before you act.
Critical thinking is the single most powerful tool you have in navigating a world filled with misinformation, manipulation, and bias. Yet, despite its importance, few people truly engage in it.
Most assume they already think critically, but the reality is that real critical thinking is a disciplined process—one that requires effort, honesty, and a willingness to challenge even our most deeply held beliefs. If you want to make sound decisions, avoid being misled, and build arguments that actually hold up, you need to master this skill. Here’s how.
There are rules.
Critical thinking demands certain things of us if we are to engage in it properly. That’s one of the reasons why so few people are good at it—we don’t always like things that demand something of us. If you want this skill, however, there are rules.
It requires:
that you spend time answering a set of questions about the idea or belief in question.
honesty with yourself about the answers.
that you NOT engage your emotions in response to the answers, in defense of them, or even against them.
that you be willing to accept the results (such as that you need to change your belief).
Certainly, free will comes into play; you're free to believe whatever you want, and that belief can be as emotional as you would like. You can choose to discard the results of the thinking exercise and continue with your belief. Just know that in an activism setting (or any setting, really), the decisions you make based on that choice will be less effective.
The Process: Questions That Matter
So what exactly is critical thinking? How many questions can there be? It can't be that hard, right?
Well, no, it's not hard per se, but it can be time-consuming. Again, that's why a lot of people don't do it. Here's a sampling (the REALLY important questions are in bold):
Context & Origin
Where did I get this information? (Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that unless it’s from a ‘journalist’ or media outlet, it’s false. Citizen media is often more informed than the mainstream these days—and often less dishonest. That being said, you still need to do some strict bias checks).
Is the source reputable, biased, or potentially influenced by external factors?
How did they get it?
Is there missing context that could change how this is interpreted?
What assumptions are being made?
Intent & Influence
Who does it help?
Who does it hurt?
What is the intended purpose of the information (persuasion, education, manipulation, profit, control)?
Who is the target audience for this information?
Is this idea being presented neutrally, or is it emotionally charged?
What persuasive techniques (fear, appeal to authority, bandwagon effect, etc.) are being used?
Evidence & Validity
What evidence supports this claim?
Is the evidence empirical, anecdotal, or speculative?
Are there logical fallacies in the reasoning?
Are the data and statistics used accurately, or are they misleading?
What counterarguments exist, and are they being fairly represented?
Who’s supporting it? What’s their track record like?
Are the sources used independent of each other, or do they all trace back to the same origin?
Implications & Consequences
What are the short-term and long-term effects?
Could this be used to justify harmful actions or policies? (A good rule of thumb when considering whether you want a policy or law, is to ask yourself if you’d still want it if the ‘other side’ was in power).
How does this align or conflict with historical trends or patterns?
Does this create unintended consequences that may be overlooked?
Comparative Analysis
How does this compare to other perspectives or alternative viewpoints?
Has this idea been tried before? If so, what were the results?
If this idea is being presented as new, how does it differ from similar past ideas?
What would change if this idea were framed differently?
Would I believe this if it came from a different source?
Personal Reflection & Bias
How does this align with my existing beliefs?
Am I reacting emotionally or rationally to this information?
Do I WANT it to be true (or false)?
Am I open to changing my mind if presented with stronger evidence?
Have I considered alternative explanations before accepting this as true?
How Deep Do You Need to Go?
Obviously, time is valuable. You don’t have time to apply this level of analysis to everything. The depth of analysis should depend on how much the topic directly affects you or your decisions.
Low-Stakes Issues: If you're deciding whether the right time to shovel the driveway is after 2 inches of snow or 5, you don’t need to go deep into intent, comparative analysis, or bias.
Moderate-Stakes Issues: If you’re evaluating the long-term sustainability of the keto diet, you should engage more of these questions, particularly those on evidence, validity, and consequences.
High-Stakes Issues: If you’re assessing a controversial political claim or a potential conspiracy, you should apply the full framework, repeatedly, to filter out misinformation, bias, and emotion-driven assumptions.
The higher the impact of a belief or decision, the more scrutiny it deserves. This is especially true when emotions are involved. The more emotional a topic is for you, or the more you want it, the more likely you are to fall into confirmation bias, which means you should engage the process even more rigorously.
Once you understand the process, you can start altering it to fit the situation—such as creating one to analyze your potential political action.
The Payoff: Nuanced Thinking
The main benefit isn’t that you can ‘prove’ you’re right, win online arguments, or even be ‘in the know’ on a given topic. It’s that you can learn to have nuanced opinions—which is where reality often lives anyway—and make decisions that take into account the totality of a situation. Two things can be true at the same time, and they rarely cancel each other out.
This can be seen in people who hold beliefs from both sides of an argument. Here are two examples:
Someone can believe that Russia had no right to invade Ukraine, AND believe that it’s not the job of the US to fix that, AND have deep empathy and compassion for those who are being killed.
Someone can believe that healthcare in the US is awful, AND believe that many of the workers are doing the best they can, AND disagree with socialized medicine.
Most people, however, don’t understand the concept of nuanced thinking because they don’t engage in this process. As a result, their thinking is very black-and-white and misses a lot of context. They are also easily defeated in any kind of conversation on the topic, because they can't think past what they WANT to believe since they've engaged their emotions.
The good news is that the more you do it, the easier and more second-nature it becomes. The bad news is...you're probably going to have to alter some of your beliefs, and completely ditch a few others.
If you find yourself getting a bit testy at the thought…you should probably start practicing these processes sooner rather than later.
We shouldn’t be aiming to be right—we should be striving to be correct.
There is no room for emotion in resistance operations, and no place for black-and-white, this-cancels-out-that positions. Oddly enough, almost NOTHING is actually all-or-nothing.
Have you had to change some long-held opinions as you found more information? I want to hear about it in the comments!
Thanks, Kit! So well written!! It helped me with an aggravating article I'd read just prior...