A key component of critical thought is our willingness to reconsider our views and ways of doing things.

Many folks are unwilling to change their minds for fear that it would indicate a personal failing.

But being wrong is not a character flaw or something horrible from which one can never recover.

Critical thinking includes motivational dispositions, such as inquisitiveness, open-mindedness, tolerance for ambiguity, thinking about thinking, honesty in assessing or evaluating biases, and willingness to reconsider one’s own views and ways of doing things (see Killian, 2024, 2025).

This last part is crucial to our critical thinking capacity, and is represented in a negatively worded item of the Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale (Killian, 2024): “Changing one’s mind is a sign of weakness.” This item seems to be a mantra for many folks who refuse to honestly assess or evaluate their own biases, past and present, and are unwilling to change their minds for fear it indicates a personal failing.

But being wrong is not a character flaw or something horrible from which one can never recover. It need not be a source of embarrassment. It’s insisting on remaining wrong about something that becomes dicey. Many folks are afraid to face the truth (about their own sexist or racist views, about a political leader, or an unconstitutional government policy or act, etc.). They’re so afraid of the cognitive dissonance they might experience if they took the bold step of evaluating new information or facts that they may go so far as to claim that facts and truth no longer exist (a specific form of nihilism).

In addition to checking our own biases and updating our personal views, critical thinking helps us sustain the complexity of a phenomenon or problem and to avoid oversimplifying reality. Sure, when a political leader promises a simple fix to a complex problem, it can sound appealing, because of the reductionistic notion that an overly simplified problem can be remedied with overly simplified solutions. When government and private institutions tell us they have our interests at heart, that they are protecting us, we want to believe it’s true. But a complex problem rarely gets solved by reducing it to an overly simplistic form, and a leader’s promises during and following a campaign are often soon forgotten. Nonetheless, people “cling to the original story” because that’s what they know. It’s reassuring, familiar, and may have become a part of their identity, but it may not stand the test of time.

This week, Substack writer (and NBA All-Star Center) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote about why folks cling to the original story: “It’s what they voted for, what they pledged allegiance to, what they were certain they learned, what they based their future on. It’s become a part of them.” People often double down or triple down on their original belief rather than making a courageous effort to reevaluate outdated beliefs and assumptions and relegate them to the dustbin of history.

Abdul-Jabbar continues, “Admitting you were fooled means admitting you trusted the wrong person, or believed the wrong headline, or followed the wrong crowd. I try to remind myself that changing my mind is a sign of strength, not weakness. The world is full of people who will lie to protect their power, money, and image.”

Who are the people who keep us mired in deceptions and lies? Ourselves. We choose what infotainment ecosystems we partake of. As adult, responsible citizens, we have a civic duty to assess what reliable, reputable sources for news and information are and choose multiple ones to gain and fully engage multiple perspectives. Open-minded, critically engaged persons exercise freedom when they work hard to let go of a promise or a story that fooled them. The next step is creating space to write a new and improved narrative for both themselves and others.

Abdul-Jabbar, K. (February 24, 2026). Kareem Takes on the News. Retrieved February 24, 2026 at https://open.substack.com/pub/kareem/p/do-cartel-leaders-truly-die-is-crypto?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Killian, K.D. (2025). Why are political candidates, who lack trustworthiness, compassion, and experience, viable? Affective appeal, its psychometric characteristics, and preliminary findings. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 44(11), 11158–11169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07946-1

Killian, K.D. (2024). Whither feminist solidarity? Critical thinking, racism, islamophobia, gender, authoritarianism, and sexism in a U.S. National sample. Social Sciences, 13, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13100502

© Psychology Today