Verified by 
In a recent post, I discussed social barriers to applying critical thinking. I received interesting feedback on this particular topic and I thought further discussion around this dialogue would be of interest. First and foremost, consider when we should apply critical thinking. As I’ve stated before, it might come as a surprise to readers that someone like me, who places great value on such thought, would suggest that critical thinking doesn’t need to be applied as often as many might think. The reality is that critical thinking is effortful and time-consuming. If we thought critically about every mundane decision we had to make each day, we’d be exhausted before mid-morning. We should only think critically about issues that we care about and that are important to us.
Why would someone even contemplate engaging in critical thinking when they could potentially face negative outcomes for it? It’s because the issue is important to them. But, is that a good enough reason? It depends. For example, I have thought critically about some rather controversial topics (arguably, these are the ones that require the most critical thinking given that what makes them controversial is that so many people care about them, yet have very different views) and I recognise that the conclusions yielded, in light of logic and evidence, may not always be palatable to people in certain contexts. Depending on the situation, I will choose to share my conclusions or choose against them. This, of course, is where we find the fork in the road at the crux of this conversation.
As I mentioned in the aforementioned post, there are arguably two different perspectives on whether or not one should share their critical thinking in environments that might discourage or even punish this thinking, if the conclusions drawn contradict what is deemed acceptable (be it socially, politically, or even legally). First, there is the idealistic, yes, we should always share critical thinking. Second is the practical, ‘know your audience’. Often, staying quiet seems like a practical and prudent move.
With that, such prudence might be seen to contradict what many might view as intellectual integrity; but, on the other hand, it can just as easily be argued that inhibiting such response is appropriate—an act of metacognition (thinking about thinking) about a specific metacognitive process (critical thinking). And so, the intellectually appropriate thing would be to make the best decision you can for the preservation of what or who you care about, such as through this 'meta-metacognition'. Perhaps the key is the question of what’s contextually more important, being right or avoiding punishment? What is to be gained from speaking out? For me, the only situation I would share my critical thinking, in this context, is if my well-being or that of my family was at risk to the extent that such risk surpasses the impact of the punishment.
To reiterate, context is key here; what I do depends on the situation. Sometimes, having a conclusion is all that is needed. If I have thought critically about a topic to determine what is best for me or my family, why would I have to advertise my decision publicly? I don’t. Sure, I may choose to if I’m in discussion with friends, but I’m not required to do so (of course, this might change in situations where we are ‘forced’ to share our thinking, such as in cases where important decisions are being made for us or when we are specifically asked to infer a conclusion—for example, at work). Moreover, I’m less likely to share if I think it’s going to start a fight or annoyance. Why risk the hassle if there’s nothing real to gain? In both cases, self-regulation is useful. Most of the time, we can simultaneously benefit from engaging in critical thinking and keeping it to ourselves.
Consistent with this perspective, an important aspect of critical thinking is being practical. A practical person would not risk punishment unless they have a genuine chance of positively affecting the issue that they care about. An unfortunate by-product of this, in context, is that many critical thinkers remain quiet on controversial topics presented in the media (particularly if their thinking contradicts the status quo of the moral majority and their value signaling). Even though you may not be imprisoned for your conclusions (that is, in nations where people enjoy free speech), you might risk other negative outcomes. Sure, we are aware of various sides of the argument; but quite often, we only hear the bias and emotion-based perspectives. Passion is distinct from care in consideration of applying such thinking.
We often hear the emotional callouts of those ‘for’ and ‘against’ particular ideas and movements; but less often do we hear the critical thinking. That’s not to say that the thinking isn’t there; rather, it’s less likely to get the focus because of social mechanisms that thrive when emotion is at play—like ‘they who shout loudest’ or the ‘squeaky wheel gets the grease.’ It could well be the case, in terms of controversial topics, that critical thinkers might actually represent a substantially large, though silent population.
I’m cognisant that some people fear that critical thinking is dying. I don’t think this is necessarily the case; rather, it might be that those not engaging in such thinking are getting louder – not because there are growing numbers of people who lack critical thinking, but because we have so many platforms available for people to spread their messages. I’m not saying that this is harmless and that such people can simply be ignored (for example, uninformed populations can vote other uninformed individuals into positions of power and law-making), but at the same time, we should not overestimate the impact of every erroneous statement made publicly. Give people credit – just because one person posts something silly online, doesn’t mean that the majority agrees with them. With that, some errors are more influential than others. Avoid stressing over the ones that don’t affect you. Be concerned about the ones that do and evaluate whether it is in your interest to share your thinking in those situations. Engage critical thinking but be practical; and don’t get baited into discourses with people who haven’t thought critically, are not open-minded to other perspectives, and not willing to change their mind.
