The Importance of Critical Thinking

I debated about whether or not to post this study. It's a study on misinformation in the 2010 election, but you may have heard of it as the "Fox News Viewers most misinformed." The press release doesn't emphasize that angle however, and neither does the report(PDF). The reason is probably because misinformation was present among virtually every group polled--Fox News was merely the worst, not the only perpetrator.

I think looking at general misinformation is a better angle, because, to me, the levels of misconceptions are too high, regardless of the network/source. We can't let CNN or MSNBC off the hook because one study showed their viewers to be slightly less likely to believe a popular myth.

This study does have some problems, though, that this video by How the World Works points out. For some of the misconceptions, the truth is somewhat more complicated than the questions posed by the survey suggest. For example, the question about the healthcare reform bill doesn't distinguish between the bill itself and related bills also necessary for healthcare reform. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was instructed to tally up the costs for H.R. 3590, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Healthcare Reform. However, for political reasons, various healthcare reform-related bills were separate and not part of the CBO's tally. So it is both correct and incorrect to say that healthcare reform would increase the deficit: the primary bill won't, but various other bills probably will. Actually, it's even more complicated than that, but given the question's wording, I think the study authors were actually correct to label the answer they did as correct. (For a full explanation, see my addendum.)

The video insists that the study is worthless for this and other reasons, but I think the validity of the majority of the questions means the study is still valid. Therefore, I suggest that you read or skim the study (or if you prefer, the generally hyperbolic news coverage of the study) and ponder the question I'm pondering: how do I (as a voter and citizen) avoid misinformation?


I cannot provide links to magical, error-free reporting or a web browser that marks untruths for you in purple underlining (green and red are taken, see). I do want to suggest a real-world alternative, and that is critical thinking. Critical thinking is basically thinking hard about your own beliefs and opinions and considering why you believe X and not, say, Y. I don't know a lot about critical thinking, though, and really anyone can always learn more.

Enter Critical Thinking

Fortunately, I found an excellent resource for critical thinking. It's a video and audio podcast series. You can get them on the author's website or on iTunes (video). The author, Kevin deLaplante, (aka PhilosophyFreak) has identified five key characteristics: Logic, Argumentation, Rhetoric, Background Knowledge, and Beliefs and Views. I am not an expert on Critical Thinking, but I find this to be a helpful way to look at it, especially after going through his videos.

Critical thinking is a fundamental part of fact-checking (i.e. what I do here), but I think it has a more personal aspect. Dr. deLaplante used the phrase "taking responsibility for your own beliefs" to describe this aspect of critical thinking. It is the idea that you understand not only your own position, but the alternatives. This isn't a cursory, "how-can-I-debunk-this" understanding, either. Dr. deLaplante says that critical thinking should let us be able to articulate our opponents' positions to their satisfaction. Thinking critically is about having solid reasons for your beliefs and understanding the alternatives.

This is an ongoing effort, obviously: new information is constantly coming in and we need to filter and make sense of it all. Naturally, a lot of that sense-making and filtering comes from within our existing worldview. Our beliefs, values, and ideas (i.e. our worldview(s)) are like "rules" for processing the information. Critical thinking brings not only incoming information, but also the 'rules' up for evaluation. Some 'rules' are more fundamental than others: ideas about human rights are more central than ideas about a particular politician, for example.

Of course, some of our ideas and beliefs are essentially transcendental: ideas about freedom, God, and our country aren't primarily informed by history, biology, or economics. Such beliefs are tied to our culture, family, and self and may be the product of tradition or personal experience. These may be the most fundamental and important, but are at least partially out of the realm of critical thinking.

A quick aside: a lot of my ideas here are works in progress. As I think, read, and discuss, these ideas may very well change. If you have any links, books, films, articles to recommend, comment! Even more importantly, if you have any of your own ideas, comment!

Bringing it back to the study

Unfortunately, most writing on critical thinking doesn't go too deeply into how it works in a world bombarded by information. Part of the reason I like the podcast above is that it seems to be a practical course. It doesn't cover a lot of the practical side. People, even curious people committed to understanding, can't walk around researching every claim they hear every day. We can infer that sometimes, claims will have to be ignored, but the series doesn't make explicit how to think critically when there's so much to think critically about.

Besides fact-checking, one of my hopes for this blog is to write about fact-checking and how we can implement it in our daily lives without spending all our time either verifying or guessing. This practical issue is why I felt like critical thinking may be an unsatisfactory solution to the problem pointed out by the study. Many of the people in the study do read the newspaper, watch the news, and think about things. They do their homework, in other words.

On the other hand, the study didn't cover exactly what people did beyond watching news. I assume some people went beyond a 30 minute nightly program and conversations with family and friends, but how many? I assume practices like checking multiple sources, reading background information, and evaluating claims based on existing knowledge (rather than accepting them at face value) help, but how much? As I read and write more about critical thinking, I hope to answer the practical question: what tactics are most effective, time- and understanding-wise?

This was accidentally published with the wrong date. I'm actually not positive about the precise date I posted the article originally, but I'm adjusting it to my best guess.