By Dayna Mason

Most of our thinking runs on autopilot. That’s how the brain keeps us safe—it helps us drive, react quickly, and avoid immediate danger.

But autopilot was never meant to decide what we believe, who we trust, or which ideas we support. When we rely on it for those kinds of judgments—where there’s no immediate threat but real long-term consequences—we become easy to influence. We buy things that aren’t good for us, repeat ideas we haven’t examined, and end up supporting beliefs that harm our world and the beautiful people who inhabit—without meaning to.

The Foundation for Critical Thinking puts it this way: we all think, but left unchecked our thinking can be biased, distorted, and uninformed—and the quality of our lives depends on the quality of our thinking. In other words: sloppy thinking costs us. Clear thinking helps us live better and must be cultivated.

Critical thinking is looking at the facts and reasoning things through before you decide what you believe.

Bias isn’t a bad word

Bias is basically the brain’s thinking shortcut. We rely on it because we have too much information coming at us to analyze everything. Our experiences, preferences, education, and upbringing all contribute to the way we see the world—our bias. It’s what helps us slam on the brakes when a car cuts us off. Bias only becomes a problem when it leads to unfair treatment of people or bad decisions.

Malcolm Gladwell points out in Blink that snap judgments can be surprisingly accurate, but they can also be shaped by unconscious bias—race, appearance, status. That’s why it matters to trust intuition and question it. Both are needed.

One of the best ways to reduce faulty reasoning is to use a little logic—not formal, academic logic. Just basic “Does this actually make sense?” thinking.

How to spot faulty reasoning

An argument is just a claim (conclusion) backed by reasons (premises).

• Claim: what someone is trying to convince you of
• Reasons: the reasons they give to support it
• Assumptions: the “unstated” ideas the argument depends on

Step 1: Find the claim and the reasons

Ask: What do they want me to believe? That’s the claim.
Then ask: What reasons are they giving me?

Example argument:
“Everyone wants to get married someday. Confidence is important for attracting a spouse. Therefore, everyone should develop confidence.”

• Claim: Everyone should develop confidence.
• Reason 1: Everyone wants to get married someday.
• Reason 2: Confidence helps attract a spouse.

Step 2: Ask three simple questions

1. Are the reasons true?
   No. Not everyone wants to get married.
2. What assumptions are hiding inside the argument?
   That marriage is everyone’s goal.
3. Do the reasons actually lead to the claim/conclusion?
   Even if confidence can help in dating, the argument falls apart because it’s built on a false reason/premise.

That’s faulty reasoning.

More questions worth asking

• Is this fair and balanced, or emotionally loaded and one-sided?
• Are the reasons relevant and reliable—or vague and dramatic?
• Is the tone thoughtful, or sarcastic and dismissive?
• Is it using a common logical fallacy?

Five common logical fallacies to watch for

Logical fallacies are reasoning mistakes that can sound convincing while still being wrong. Sometimes they’re accidental. Sometimes they’re used on purpose—especially in advertising, media, and politics.

Here are five of the most common:

1) Bandwagon (Appeal to the Majority)

“If lots of people believe it, it must be true.”

Examples:

• “9 out of 10 dentists recommend this toothpaste.”
• “Most people oppose the bill, so it must be a bad idea.”

2) Fear (Appeal to Fear / Scare Tactics)

An attempt to create support for an idea by playing on deep-seated fears and prejudice.

 “Something terrible will happen unless you agree with me.”

Examples:

• “Buy this or you’ll end up alone.”
• “If we don’t do this, everything will fall apart.”
• “The highest aim of human existence is the conservation of the race. If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the question of legality is only of secondary importance.” -Hitler

3) Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)

Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument. Also referred to as “name-calling.”

Examples:

1. “Don’t listen to his arguments on education. He’s a loser. He didn’t even finish high school.”
2. “He’s not a great athlete; he’s a cheat and a liar.”

4) Red Herring (Changing the Subject)

Dragging in something irrelevant to side-track the discussion and distract from the real issue.

Examples:

• A child asked to go to bed suddenly needs water, the bathroom, and a deep discussion about life.
• A politician asked about the economy responds by highlighting unrelated accomplishments.

5) Slippery Slope

Claiming one small thing will inevitably lead to a disaster—with no real evidence.

Examples:

• “If we allow this policy, next thing you know society will collapse.”
• “If tuition rises again, college will cost as much as a house.”

Thinking more critically

Critical thinking is what happens when we slow down and ask better questions to reach more accurate conclusions than our brains would automatically.

Here’s a simple practice exercise (adapted from SkillsYouNeed.com). Think of something you heard, or someone recently told you—an opinion, a claim, a “fact.” Then ask:

Who said it? Someone you know? Someone in a position of authority or power? Does it matter who told you this?

What did they say? Is it fact, opinion, or a mix? What’s missing?

Where did they say it? Private conversation? Social media? A place where people can challenge it?

When did they say it? Was it before, during or after an important event? Is timing important?

Why did they say it? Did they explain the reasoning behind their opinion? Were they trying to make someone look good or bad?

How did they say it? Calm and reasoned—or angry, mocking, manipulative?

When something matters—when it shapes what we believe, how we vote, what we buy, how we treat other people—it’s worth slowing down. Ask questions. Check assumptions. Look for fallacies. Make sure your conclusion is actually supported by reality.

Because the goal of critical thinking isn’t to “win.”
It’s to see clearly—and make better decisions for your life and your world.