Critical thinking is often misinterpreted as thinking that applies critique or criticism.

If an outcome is important—if the decision is critical—then apply critical thinking.

Critical thinking implies an ability to analyse, evaluate, and make judgments that facilitate decision-making.

I’ve been researching critical thinking (CT) for almost 20 years now, and, because of that, much about it I take for granted. I’ve defined it, exemplified it, shortened its description, and analogised it for so many people so many times, of course, it would be easy for me to assume that most people would know what I’m on about. Luckily, I don’t fall prey to this kind of "curse of knowledge," as I’m also quite familiar with the great trouble researchers and educators alike have had for many years in defining CT. Only relatively recently is research acknowledging a fairly consistent conceptualisation among CT researchers, but that’s not necessarily the case for educators (which happens to remain a large barrier to efforts to enhance CT in younger populations).

Misinterpretation of Critical Thinking

With that, I was surprised recently by the occurrence of the same misinterpretation twice in the space of as many weeks, not only because it represents such a basic feature of CT but also because such an issue had not occurred to me over the course of those almost 20 years. Maybe I have fallen prey to the curse of knowledge! Indeed, there is something much more fundamental to understanding CT than its definition. Why do we call it critical thinking?

The misinterpretation I heard twice was in reference to it being critical in terms of "critiquing" an idea. This is absolutely, 100 percent not the case. Sure, the outcome of CT can be a critique of some nature, in some situations, but nowhere does it say that it has to be. In fact, CT just as often leads to agreement as it does disagreement and perhaps even more so, given that previous steps of CT will have ensured evaluation of informational sources as being credible, and, as such, it’s typically the case that critical thinkers will agree with credible sources and information. Notably, the confusion we might sometimes see between CT and critical theory, through their similar naming, may lend itself to this focus on "criticism," which is often a core focus of the latter. No, the reason we refer to CT as critical thinking is two-fold.

Two Reasons It Is "Critical"

First and foremost (I would argue—perhaps, because it leaves less room for ambiguity), it is critical because it is important. When we think of "critical reasons" as to why we should think or believe something, the term "critical" lets us know that they are crucial or important and that ignoring this/these issue(s) could be disastrous. Indeed, CT is effortful and time-consuming… well, relative to other non-goal-directed forms of thought, anyway. So, I often give the advice that the application of CT requires consideration. For example, do you care about the outcome of your thinking with respect to a particular decision? If it’s about something inconsequential, like what coffee to order at the café, then applying CT is likely a waste of resources. However, if the outcome is important to you—if the decision is critical—then, yes, be sure to apply CT.

The second reason, I’ll admit, is more of a semantic issue, but may nevertheless hit the core of the issue more directly. As above, where I discuss how CT is not named as such because of some misinterpretation of criticism or critiquing, it is important to recognise that the historical basis for those words is the Greek kritikos. Critical, as we mean it in terms of CT, follows the same etymological tradition—also coming from the Greek kritikos. However, despite that similar starting point, meaning has evolved over time, through translation, application, and connotation. For example, "critique" (from the French) and critic or criticism (anglicised version of the Latin criticus) refer to the negatively connoted fault-finding.

On the other hand, the CT version of kritikos refers to a description that has changed less over the years—as an ability to judge, discern, decide, analyse, and evaluate. Indeed, this more traditional perspective maps on well with modern conceptualisations of CT. We analyse and evaluate information so that we can infer a conclusion, through reflective judgment, and use that to decide what to do or what to believe.

In conclusion, we refer to CT as critical for two main reasons. First, because we acknowledge that the decision to be made is important, and second, because it implies an ability to analyse, evaluate, and make judgments that facilitates such decision-making. However, by no means does CT imply that we must critique or provide criticism. Sure, critical thinkers are sceptical, but they’re also open-minded. Being critical (critiquing) in one’s thinking implies that there’s more often than not something "wrong" or negative, which just sounds like a lot of bias—the opposite of CT. So, apply CT when your decisions are important, be impartial, and be sure to analyse and evaluate.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today