Critical Thinking: Learning to Think About How You Think
We live in an age with more information at our fingertips than any generation before us. Unfortunately, having access to information and knowing what to do with information are two very different skills. Also unfortunately, since schools started teaching to “the test”, it is no longer regularly integrated into the learning environment.
We are surrounded by headlines, TikToks, podcasts, political claims, advertisements, wellness advice, AI-generated content, opinions, research studies, memes, personal anecdotes and that one person on YouTube who is absolutely certain they hold the secret to “life, the universe, and everything” who seems to be building a cult. We are drowning in information and some of it is poisonous.
The problem isn't simply figuring out what information is available. It is figuring out:
What should I believe?
And perhaps even more importantly:
Why do I believe it?
That is where critical thinking comes in.
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is sometimes mistaken for intelligence, skepticism or simply knowing a lot of facts. It isn't any of those things.
The research paper A Cognitive Emotional Methodology for Critical Thinking by Edward P. Hanna describes several definitions from the critical-thinking literature. One describes critical thinking as purposeful, self-regulated judgment. Another describes it as an open-minded search for understanding when dealing with a problem for which there may not be one definitive answer. Still another emphasizes carefully examining things presented as true and questioning assumptions, beliefs, reasoning and experiences.
Put more simply:
Critical thinking is the ability to examine information - including your own thoughts - before deciding what it means and what you're going to do about it.
Note this important distinction!
Critical thinking isn't: “I question what you believe.”
It's: “I'm willing to question what I believe, too.”
That second one is considerably harder.
Your Brain Is Not an Impartial Judge
It is nice to imagine our decision-making works something like this:
Information → careful analysis → conclusion
Unfortunately, humans frequently work more like:
Information → emotional reaction → existing belief → conclusion → explanation for why obviously I am correct
Then we call that explanation “reasoning.”
One of the concepts Hanna discusses is belief preservation—our tendency to make evidence serve our existing beliefs instead of allowing evidence to guide those beliefs.
That is enormously important.
Suppose I believe:
“People don't want to work anymore.”
Then I encounter ten pieces of information. Five support my belief. Five contradict it.
If I'm not thinking critically, I may enthusiastically collect the first five and find reasons to dismiss the other five.
I haven't actually asked:
“What does the evidence suggest?”
I've asked:
“What evidence can I use to prove what I already believe?”
Humans are remarkably good at this.
Including intelligent humans.
Including educated humans.
Including therapists.
Including scientists.
Including me.
Including you.
Intelligence doesn't automatically protect us from bias. Sometimes it just gives us better tools for constructing impressive arguments defending what we already wanted to believe.
Critical Thinking Requires Emotional Awareness
This is one of the most interesting ideas in Hanna's paper.
Traditional approaches to critical thinking often emphasize cognitive skills: analyzing information, evaluating evidence, constructing arguments, solving problems and drawing conclusions. Those skills matter but Hanna argues that this leaves out something important:
The person doing the thinking has emotions, values, assumptions and beliefs.
Critical thinking therefore isn't purely intellectual. The paper argues for integrating cognitive and emotional processes rather than assuming that teaching reasoning skills automatically produces reflective decision-making.
Think about the last argument you had.
Were you calmly analyzing competing hypotheses?
Perhaps.
But there's also a reasonable chance your nervous system had entered:
PVP MODE: THIS FOOL MUST BE DEFEATED.
Once we're angry, frightened, ashamed, defensive or deeply invested in an outcome, the way we process information changes. That doesn't automatically mean emotions are bad. They are neutral. They are information, to be analyzed and integrated.
Hanna's model gives us a wonderfully simple way to sort this out.
Four Questions for Critical Thinking
The methodology proposed in the paper separates thinking into four positions:
What do I feel?
What do I believe?
What do I know?
What do I do?
The purpose is to separate mental processes that otherwise tend to become fused together, creating more opportunity for reflective rather than reactive behavior.
1. What Do I Feel?
Imagine someone doesn't respond to your text for several hours. You notice yourself becoming upset. A typical automatic first question is, ““Why are they ignoring me?”. That question is carrying a backpack full of assumptions.
Redirect to “What am I feeling?”
Maybe: Angry. Rejected. Embarrassed. Anxious. Unimportant. Afraid.
Notice something important here?
None of those feelings tells us why the person hasn't answered.
The feeling is real but the explanation is still unknown.
Hanna's model begins with recognizing emotional responses rather than suppressing them. The paper argues that feelings - including unpleasant emotions such as anger, sadness, grief and fear - have legitimate places in human experience. The goal is to recognize and understand them rather than allowing unexamined emotional reactions to automatically determine behavior.
That's a vitally useful distinction:
My feeling is real. My interpretation may or may not be accurate.
You can feel rejected without having been rejected.
You can feel unsafe without actually being in danger.
You can feel absolutely certain and still be wrong.
Conversely, sometimes your feelings are pointing toward something very important. Critical thinking doesn't mean dismissing emotion. It means identifying it before allowing it to present evidence.
2. What Do I Believe?
Now we move one layer deeper. Why did the unanswered text bother me?
Maybe I believe:
“If someone cares about you, they answer quickly.”
Or:
“People eventually leave me.”
Or:
“Not answering someone is disrespectful.”
Now we're discovering the framework through which I'm interpreting the situation.
Beliefs come from everywhere: Family, Culture, Religion, Education, Trauma, Relationships, Personal experience, Community, Media. Some are extraordinarily useful while others are inaccurate. Most are a messy mixture.
Hanna emphasizes that beliefs and values are fundamental parts of human development but warns against confusing them with facts. Beliefs can feel like knowledge precisely because they are deeply integrated into how we understand the world. This is where critical thinking becomes uncomfortable.
Instead of asking:
“Why is this person wrong?”
we have to ask:
“Why do I believe what I believe?”
And:
“What would convince me that I'm wrong?”
That second question is one of the most powerful critical-thinking tools you can develop.
If the answer is: “Nothing.” You aren't currently investigating a conclusion. You're defending one.
3. What Do I Know?
Now we get to evidence. What can I actually establish? “Just the facts ma’am.”
Returning to our text-message example:
What I feel:
Rejected and anxious.
What I believe:
If this person cared about me, they would respond quickly.
What I know:
I sent a message at 10:14 a.m. It is now 2:30 p.m. They haven't responded.
That's it.
Everything else is interpretation. Maybe they're angry. Maybe they're working. Maybe their phone died. Maybe they're taking a nap. Maybe they saw the message, thought “I'll answer that in a minute,” and then their ADHD brain launched that intention directly into the void.
We don't know yet.
Hanna describes “What I know?” as an attempt to move from subjective reaction toward a more reflective position by looking for information supported by evidence, research, experience, scientific investigation and reality testing. Importantly, the paper also cautions that even what we call knowledge shouldn't automatically be treated as absolute truth.
Humility matters. Critical thinkers aren't people who never get things wrong. They're people who can say:
“Based on the information currently available, this is my best conclusion and I am willing to revise it if better information becomes available.”
That is true strength.
4. What Do I Do?
Eventually, thinking needs to produce behavior. That's the final step in Hanna's framework.
Once I've examined:
what I feel,
what I believe,
and
what I actually know,
I can ask:
“Given all of that, what is the most reasonable thing to do?”
Maybe I send another message. Maybe I wait. Maybe I ask directly whether something is wrong. Maybe I decide the issue isn't important enough to pursue.
What I hopefully don't do is jump immediately from:
“I feel rejected”
to:
“YOU CLEARLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ME!”
and hit Send.
Hanna describes this final stage as consciously managed behavior—action that emerges from processing the earlier stages rather than simply reacting to them.
This gives us a wonderfully simple formula:
Feel → Believe → Know → Do
Not because feelings are inferior to knowledge.
Not because beliefs are bad.
But because knowing which one you're working with matters.
Critical Thinking Is the Space Between Reaction and Response
One theme running throughout Hanna's paper is the movement from reactive behavior toward reflective, responsive behavior. That may be one of the simplest ways to understand critical thinking.
Something happens. Your brain produces an immediate reaction. Critical thinking creates space before action.
Inside that space we can ask:
What am I feeling?
What story am I telling myself?
What assumptions am I making?
What evidence do I actually have?
What information am I missing?
What else could explain this?
How confident should I be?
What would change my mind?
What happens if I'm wrong?
What response fits the information I actually have?
That's metacognition: thinking about your thinking, and it is a skill.
Why Critical Thinking Matters More Than Ever
Critical thinking has always mattered. Modern information environments have simply increased the difficulty setting. Consider scrolling social media which has admitted in court that it crafts algorithms to be addictive.
You encounter a headline that makes you furious.
That emotional response encourages engagement.
You share it.
Your friends,who generally have overlapping beliefs, respond approvingly.
The platform learns that this content holds your attention. It shows you more. You see repeated versions of the same claim. Familiarity begins to feel like credibility.
And eventually:
“I've seen this everywhere.”
becomes:
“Everybody knows this.”
But repetition isn't evidence. Popularity isn't evidence. Confidence isn't evidence. Virality definitely isn't evidence. And agreement with you isn't evidence either. The same applies to information we desperately want to be true as much as the opposite.
Critical thinking isn't only needed when evaluating claims we dislike. In fact, one of the best times to become suspicious of your reasoning is when you encounter something that perfectly confirms everything you already believe.
That's when your brain says:
FINALLY. A SOURCE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE.
Maybe.
Or perhaps your confirmation bias just found snacks.
Critical Thinking Doesn't Mean Becoming a Cynic
There's another trap here. Some people confuse critical thinking with reflexively disbelieving everything. That's not critical thinking. It's just another predetermined conclusion and frequently leaves the impression of a serious personality flaw.
If your default position is:
“Experts are always right,”
you're outsourcing your thinking.
But:
“Experts are always lying”
isn't an improvement.
Neither is:
“Research can't be trusted.”
Nor:
“If it's natural, it must be safe.”
Nor:
“If a corporation funded it, it must be false.”
Nor:
“If mainstream sources disagree with me, that proves I'm right.”
Critical thinking requires evaluating the quality of evidence, not simply sorting sources into Team Good and Team Evil. Skepticism is useful. Reflexive skepticism isn't.
How Do You Get Better at Critical Thinking?
Like most cognitive skills, critical thinking improves through practice.
Hanna's paper emphasizes that teaching information about critical thinking isn't necessarily the same as developing the ability to use it. Practice, self-awareness and the capacity to tolerate ambiguity all matter.
Here are several ways to practice.
Learn to Say “I Don't Know”
This might be the critical-thinking superpower. We are often uncomfortable with uncertainty. Our brains would much rather have:
THE ANSWER!
But: “I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion” is a perfectly legitimate conclusion. Sometimes it's the most accurate one available.
Separate Observation From Interpretation
Practice saying what happened without explaining why.
Instead of:
“She deliberately embarrassed me.”
Try:
“She corrected what I said in front of six people.”
Now investigate the intention separately.
Ask What Evidence Would Change Your Mind
This helps expose belief preservation. If no possible evidence could alter your conclusion, recognize that you're probably dealing with an identity, ideology or deeply protected belief rather than an open question. That doesn't automatically make the belief wrong.
It tells you something about your relationship to the belief.
Generate Alternative Explanations
Before settling on one interpretation, generate three.
Someone was rude to you.
Possibilities:
They dislike you.
They're having a terrible day.
You misunderstood their tone.
There may be twenty more or a hundred. You're not required to believe all alternatives equally. You're training your brain to remember: The first explanation is not automatically the correct explanation.
Look for Disconfirming Evidence
Don't just ask: “What supports my conclusion?”
Ask: “What doesn't fit?”
Scientists don't strengthen a hypothesis by protecting it from inconvenient data. Neither should we.
Watch Your Emotional Intensity
Strong emotions don't invalidate your reasoning but emotional activation is a good signal to slow down. If you feel an overwhelming urge to immediately:
POST.
RESPOND.
SEND.
CORRECT THIS PERSON WHO IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
Maybe give your prefrontal cortex a minute to log back into the server.
Check the Source
Ask:
Who is making this claim?
What's their expertise?
What evidence are they providing?
Are they describing research or merely referring vaguely to “studies”?
Is the original source available?
Does the source actually say what the person claims it says?
Are anecdotes being presented as evidence of frequency?
Are relative risks being confused with absolute risks?
Is correlation being presented as causation?
Could financial, ideological or social incentives influence the presentation?
Again, conflicts of interest don't automatically make information false. They are information to consider.
Practice Intellectual Humility
Try adding: “Given what I currently know…” to your conclusions. It's surprisingly powerful.
It turns: “This is how it is.”
Into: “Given what I currently know, this is the explanation that seems best supported.”
Now your belief can evolve without your identity collapsing.
Critical Thinking Also Means Thinking Critically About Yourself
Perhaps the hardest part of critical thinking is realizing that you are part of the system you're evaluating.
You bring:
Your history.
Your fears.
Your values.
Your culture.
Your assumptions.
Your relationships.
Your political beliefs.
Your education.
Your trauma.
Your hopes.
Your emotional state.
Your desire to belong.
Your desire to be right.
Your previous experiences.
None of this disqualifies you from thinking clearly. It simply means you have variables to account for.
Hanna's original paper was written for social-work education because professionals working with human beings must recognize how their own emotional reactions, beliefs and values can influence professional decisions. The author nevertheless argues that the cognitive-emotional methodology has broader application to critical thinking and decision-making beyond social work. I agree that the basic questions translate remarkably well to everyday life.
Before deciding what something means, ask:
What do I feel?
Acknowledge it.
What do I believe?
Examine it.
What do I know?
Investigate it.
What do I do?
Choose intentionally.
The goal isn't to become an emotionless logic machine. Frankly, humans aren't particularly good at that build. The goal is to become better at recognizing which part of your mind is currently talking.
Your emotions get a seat at the table. Your beliefs get a seat. So do your experiences. Evidence gets a seat. Uncertainty gets a seat. But none of them gets to quietly impersonate all the others.
That is where critical thinking begins.
Source
This article was inspired by Edward P. Hanna's 2013 paper, A Cognitive Emotional Methodology for Critical Thinking, which proposed a cognitive-emotional critical-thinking methodology originally developed in undergraduate and graduate social-work education. Hanna explicitly described the model at that time as being in its formative stages, with research into its constructs still underway.
The original paper also draws upon literature concerning critical thinking, affective learning, empathy, ACT, REBT, family systems theory, education and social-work practice. Its reference list provides useful starting points for exploring those theoretical foundations.
Hanna, E. P. (2013). A Cognitive Emotional Methodology for Critical Thinking. Advances in Applied Sociology, 3(1), 20–25.
Educational content only. This article is intended to encourage reflection and critical-thinking skills and is not a substitute for individualized mental health care.