critical thinking is overrated

The Disadvantages of Critical Thinking: Don’t Overthink It

Sometimes, critical thinking can lead us to spend too much time and energy on analyzing every detail and possibility of a situation, which can cause stress. Overthinking can also prevent us from taking action or trusting our intuition when it is appropriate. And also make us focus on the flaws, risks, and weaknesses of an idea or a solution, rather than on its strengths, benefits, and opportunities. This can lead to a pessimistic or cynical attitude that can affect our motivation and creativity. Emphasizing the negative can also make us overlook or dismiss positive feedback. It's our duty to identify them and take actions.

Sanju Pradeepa

We’ve all had moments when we spent more time thinking than acting. And that’s usually because we got caught up in the process of critical thinking. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to indulge in. After all, it makes us analyze our decisions, weigh the pros and cons, and come out with a conclusion that is backed by facts and data.

But what if there’s a downside to critical thinking? To be clear, this isn’t an attempt to convince you to just go with your gut feeling all the time. Instead, this article is intended to provide perspective on how excessive overthinking can hinder your progress instead of helping you make an informed decision.

We’ll cover why using critical thinking too much can lead to poor decision-making, how it affects your stress levels, and when it matters most. So don’t overthink it. Let’s dive in and explore the disadvantages of critical thinking together.

Table of Contents

What is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term you’ve probably heard bandied about, but what does it actually mean? In short, it’s a way of examining information and forming opinions or judgments based on the evidence at hand.

It’s the ability to take an analytical approach to a problem. This means that critical thinking involves analyzing information in order to form an opinion and then continuing to assess the data in order to challenge and modify that opinion.

At its best, critical thinking can lead to more informed decisions and more effective problem-solving. But there are also some disadvantages to this method of thinking. Read on for more information.

Let’s know more about Critical Thinking – 7 Types of Critical Thinking: A Guide to Analyzing Problems

Disadvantages of Critical Thinking, When You Have Too Much

We all value the power of critical thinking; it’s an invaluable skill to have in any field. But like anything, too much of a good thing can be a problem.

When we overthink things and become overly critical, the consequences can be significant. Often, it can prevent us from making decisions in a timely manner, if at all. It can also lead to missed opportunities, as we become paralyzed by our analysis and fail to seize the moment.

Furthermore, analysis paralysis can lead to high levels of stress and anxiety as we struggle to make up our minds on a given subject or action. We might even fail to recognize the real risks at hand when focusing too much on minor details and missing out on what matters most for successful outcomes.

The takeaway here is that being critical is valuable but remember to balance it with intuition and trust your instincts before you get too deep into overthinking things.

1. Difficulty in Decision-Making

One of the biggest disadvantages of critical thinking is that it can be difficult to make decisions. Because critical thinkers are constantly analyzing and evaluating data to draw conclusions, this can be a time-consuming process.

Even after all the facts and evidence have been gathered, it can take a long time to weigh the pros and cons of each option before making the best decision possible. This means that in some cases, a critical thinker will not be able to make a decision quickly or easily.

On top of that, if there is not enough data or information available about a particular decision, it can be even harder for a critical thinker to come up with a solid solution in an efficient manner. This can cause even more delays in decision-making and may lead to frustration as well as inadequate solutions.

2. You might be overthinking every situation.

When you engage in critical thinking, you may find yourself overthinking every situation and making an issue out of things that don’t need your attention. Going back to our earlier example, if you were to critically analyze the situation of your friend sleeping at your house, you might start to worry about the extra resources it may consume or about how it may affect your relationship. While this could be true, it might also be a bit excessive. In certain situations, it’s better to accept certain things and not overthink them.

This is one of the most common disadvantages of critical thinking: overthinking can lead to analysis paralysis, where one is so focused on analyzing a situation that one becomes unable to make any decisions at all. This can lead to frustration and decreased productivity as no progress is made. Additionally, engaging in too much critical thinking can lead to stress and burnout , which are both counterproductive in any situation.

Therefore, while it’s important to engage in critical thinking when necessary and appropriate, it’s also important not to overdo it. Otherwise, the outcomes you’re hoping for will never be achieved.

3. Unavoidable biases and prejudices

You may think that critical thinking is the answer to everything, but it has its disadvantages too. Most notably, it’s impossible to completely remove our biases and prejudices when looking at the facts. We all have a unique way of looking at things , and these biases may affect how we interpret evidence.

Confirmation Bias – One of the most common biases is called “ confirmation bias,”  where people seek out evidence that supports what they already believe or look for fault in evidence that contradicts it. This often leads to people discrediting any evidence they don’t agree with.

Overconfidence – Another common bias is overconfidence, which can lead us to make more decisions than necessary or, worse yet, poor decisions based on what we think we know.

These biases can affect how people interpret evidence and make decisions, regardless of how logical and reasoned those decisions might seem. That’s why we need to be aware of our own prior beliefs , values, and experiences to prevent our biases from affecting our judgment when using critical thinking skills.

4. Disruption of Imagination and Creativity

As great as it may sound, critical thinking can have its downsides, particularly in the area of imagination and creativity. The process of critical thinking often encourages a strict focus on facts and evidence, which can lead to tunnel vision and the inability to think outside the box.

When we focus too much on analysis and facts, we can become stifled in our creative pursuits. This means that instead of creating something new or being able to think of novel solutions to problems, we are confined by existing thought patterns that don’t allow for exploration or experimentation outside of what is already known.

Limiting Ourselves – Critical thinking is great when it comes to evaluating or assessing existing information or situations, but when it comes to innovating, critical thinking can be limiting. After all, if we are stuck looking at the same evidence from different perspectives, how much further can we go? We need to be open to new ideas and experiences if we want to move forward in our creative pursuits.

Training our brain for critical thinking – An over-reliance on critical thinking skills means that our brains get trained over time to do less imaginative things because our brains become accustomed to relying on a certain pattern of thinking. This means that our brains become so accustomed to certain types of analysis that there is little room left for coming up with unique solutions or uncovering innovative ideas.

It’s true; critical thinking has its advantages. But relying too heavily on this form of thinking could mean that you’re missing out on opportunities for growth and creativity.

5. Lack of Emotional Engagement

Another possible disadvantage of critical thinking is a lack of emotional engagement. The process of critical thinking involves looking at a problem objectively, dispassionately analyzing the facts, and logically concluding. This can be helpful, but it can also lead to a disconnect with the emotional aspect of the problem or issue at hand.

At times, emotional engagement is essential for tackling certain problems. For example, certain social issues might require individuals to tap into their emotions and empathy to come up with solutions that can bring about positive change without harming anyone or anything.

Moreover, emotional understanding is important for developing solutions that take into account different perspectives and experiences. This can help create solutions that are more inclusive and equitable for everyone involved.

Ultimately, critical thinking should not be used as an exclusive method for problem solving or decision-making; it should be used in conjunction with emotional understanding and empathy. This balance between intellectual analysis and emotional engagement can help to ensure solutions that are highly effective and satisfying for everyone involved.

6. Potential for stress and anxiety

As discussed previously, critical thinking can be a great skill to have. However, it does come with disadvantages. For instance, people who engage in critical thinking can experience significant stress and anxiety as a result of constantly evaluating complex ideas and situations.

This is especially true for those who are very good at it, as they may feel pressure to always think critically and make the “right” decision. Additionally, when you’re constantly taking a hard look at problems from all angles, it can be easier to become overwhelmed. It can be difficult to decide which way to go when you have so many options available.

The constant search for evidence – People who think critically often spend a lot of time searching for evidence or trying to find the correct interpretation of facts. While this might lead to effective problem-solving and decision-making, it can also be exhausting psychologically. When you’re constantly sifting through evidence looking for the right answer, it can be hard not to become overwhelmed or discouraged if you don’t find what you’re looking for right away.

The struggle between intuition and logic – It’s also common for critical thinkers to struggle with integrating intuition into their thought processes since they tend to rely heavily on logic and evidence-based reasoning. While this type of thinking is valuable in certain scenarios, relying solely on logic can lead to overlooking potential solutions that may be based more on emotion or instinct than on facts. This can make it difficult for critical thinkers to make decisions without feeling like they’ve overlooked something important.

7. Critical thinking can be time-consuming.

You know that critical thinking is important, but have you ever considered the time it takes to think critically? Well, thinking critically can be a time-consuming endeavor .

You might not think twice about making a quick decision based on intuition or reverting to old habits, but truly making a thoughtful, well-informed decision requires more effort. It’s easy to underestimate the amount of time it can take to dig into the facts and look at an issue from all angles, but that’s what critical thinking is all about.

To ensure that you get the best possible outcome, there are several steps in critical thinking:

• Identify and analyze the problem.
• Research and gather data from reliable sources.
• Generate alternative solutions and evaluate them logically.
• Choose the most suitable option.
• Implement your chosen option, then evaluate its effectiveness and impact.
• Adjust your plan as needed.

This type of process uses up more of our precious time, but it is worth it when you come out with an informed, well-reasoned solution that you can confidently stand behind. That’s why so many organizations prioritize this way of thinking when faced with tough decisions.

8. Critical thinking can lead to uncertainty.

One of the major disadvantages of critical thinking is that it often leads to uncertainty. When you’re looking at a problem or issue from all angles and considering all the available evidence, it can be difficult to come to a definitive solution. It can be hard to know exactly what steps to take as there may be multiple potential solutions.

This can lead to indecision and doubt, which can slow down progress on any project you’re working on. Furthermore, if there are many possible solutions available, it can take time and effort to evaluate each one fully before coming to a decision.

Another downside of critical thinking is that it requires a lot of mental energy and effort. Balancing this with other aspects of work or life can be tricky, as focusing too much on one area at the expense of others is not desirable. It’s important to remember that there are limits to how much critical thinking you should do in any given situation.

While there are certain disadvantages to critical thinking, it is certainly a skill worth having. It can enable you to see past false claims and identify logical fallacies, form your own well-reasoned opinions, and spot when others might be attempting to manipulate or deceive you.

That said, it’s important to remember that critical thinking doesn’t necessarily lead to the “right” answer. It’s important to keep an open mind and be willing to have your beliefs challenged. When used responsibly, critical thinking can be an invaluable asset to anyone. 

• The Advantages & Disadvantages of Critical Thinking by MICAH MCDUNNIGAN published in CLASSROOM (https://classroom.synonym.com/)
• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking published in EGGCELLENT Work (https://eggcellentwork.com/)

Call to Action

If you want to learn more about this types of topic and discover some tips and tricks to boost your brain power, click the link below and subscribe to our newsletter. You will also get access to exclusive content and offers that will help you achieve your goals and become smarter every day.

Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.

Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.

Follow Me on

You May Like Also

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More From Forbes

Critical thinking is underrated: why you need to make room for it.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Critical thinking seems to be a vanishing skillset. As a leader, I’ve often watched people on my team spinning their wheels—physically and mentally. Things are moving, but despite their best efforts, they aren’t getting anywhere.

That’s because they are doing without thinking.

We can define critical thinking as when you “question, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and make a judgment about what you read, hear, say, or write. … Good critical thinking is about making reliable judgments based on reliable information.”

Before heading down any path or rabbit hole—STOP. Think. Ask yourself why you are making the decisions you are; how your current path is contributing to the big picture. And if you don’t have a big picture and you are just doing , then take time to zoom out and contemplate what you really need to accomplish.

Far too often in business I have seen those “Flavor of the Month” sales leaders who, when sales get off-track, throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. They have no plan. They have no why for their decisions, no big picture. Instead, decisions are made without data, without analyzing, and without facts. When choices made in the dark those spinning wheels are a lot more likely to drive you into a ditch.

The elements I consider essential to critical thinking include:

• Gathering information and data
• Analyzing what you have discovered
• Regrouping and strategizing based on your new perspective
• Big picture thinking on moving forward

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of September 2023

Best 5% interest savings accounts of september 2023.

I have had, throughout my career, several assistants—most of them women. I hired each of them because I believed in them and their talents. Once they are acclimated to their positions, I have sent them as my proxy to various meetings. I remember one time, my assistant called me and said she was very nervous. “I don’t know what to say, Puja.”

But I had given her all the tools to succeed. Winging it is antithetical to critical thinking. In addition to an outline of how to do the presentation, I gave her this pep talk: “Listen, I need you to get off this phone, and I need you to do some critical thinking about what you should say based on our discussion and the data. And then you can do it.”

And she did. Just like I knew she could.

Throughout my leadership career, team members have asked me, “Puja, what should I do?”

My response is always: “What do you think you should do?” It's that ability to critically think that many people do not have or don’t cultivate enough. As a leader, I want my team to be full of critical thinkers.

I don’t just espouse this philosophy. I live it, and I have my team live it too. I wake up an hour earlier than I have to so I can have that time to strategize, think, and get centered. I insist people on my team take “think days.” They need to go do something that is not work-related—something that energizes them. Then they use that energy and invariably it releases the kind of creativity, problem solving, and inspiration to get their wheels unstuck.

Critical thinking is the twenty-first century skill we all need.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Current students
• Flinders dashboard (Okta)
• Flinders Learning Online (FLO)
• Campus map: Bedford Park
• Staff directory
• Jobs at Flinders
• Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching
• chevron_right

Critical thinking – overrated or under-utilised?

select a category

Search Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching

Does your course or topic have critical thinking as a desired learning outcome? It’s common throughout much of higher education, but how students demonstrate it and how we evaluate it varies, and do students even know what it means? Do we know what we mean when we ask it of our students?

A blog post from Dr Bruce A. Johnson  explores critical thinking from both the instructor and student perspective. He suggests that often faculty, whilst having a general idea about critical thinking, frequently don’t move beyond the rubric in explaining to students what is meant by critical thinking. Students on the other hand have varied ideas about what critical thinking entails.

He proposes the idea that critical thinking is a type of thinking beyond automatic or active thinking. It needs to be activated for a specific purpose and learned as a skill like any other. In this way it can lead to transformative learning, and thus is not overrated at all but perhaps under-utilized because of a failure to properly explain it to students.

What do you think?

Join up: Our Flinders University 2025 Agenda commits the University to embedding critical thinking skills into all graduates. In support of this, an informal Office365 group has been established for academics interested in critical thinking to discuss learning strategies for teaching critical thinking; organise continuing professional development in critical thinking for the group; share experiences in learning and teaching critical thinking; and explore questions, issues, and problems related to critical thinking and the challenge of embedding the skills in students. Discussions to date have been robust and engaging.

If you would like to join this group, search for Embedding Critical Thinking Skills in All Graduates (staff only) in Outlook Groups and request membership. The group is open to all staff of the University.

Contributed by Cassandra Hood Lecturer in Higher Education – CILT and Dr. Steve Parker – Senior Lecturer in Nursing and Health Sciences

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Are You a Double Hater?

Shakespeare’s sisters, friday comic: cosmos and effect.

• 2024-07-26T11:57:55-0500 2024-07-26T08:00:05-0500 2024-07-26T07:00:08-0500

Feeding Mind, Pursuing Truth

Is critical thinking overrated.

• October 1, 2015

How often do you see people clamoring for more ‘critical thinking’? Quite often, I suspect. But do we really want more critical thinking or do we simply mean we want more thinking and reflecting?

The emphasis in modernity on ‘critical’ is quite noticeable in social media. If one point of fault can be found (or assumed to be found) in a discussion or thought or creation, then everything else is dismissed. Indeed, there is even a smugness displayed by the one who finds something to critique, as if finding fault elevates one above the person(s) who actually created something.

The fact that this often takes place shouldn’t surprise us when we examine the meaning of ‘critical’. Consider Dictionary.com’s definition below:

• inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily.
• occupied with or skilled in criticism.
• involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.; judicial: a critical analysis.
• of or relating to critics or criticism: critical essays.
• providing textual variants, proposed emendations, etc.: a critical edition of Chaucer.
• pertaining to or of the nature of a crisis: a critical shortage of food.
• of decisive importance with respect to the outcome; crucial: a critical moment.

It is as if we are educating individuals to look upon a beautiful, centuries-old, stained-glass window in order to find and judge the faults in it. And upon finding the faults, the judges throw rocks through it, leaving it in ruins. Is the window perfect? Of course not. But rather than dismissing it upon finding the faults, could we educate individuals to look upon the centuries-old window and acknowledge those faults while also admiring what the creator was attempting within the limits of his era? Would it be better to train our youth to look upon something and to ask themselves, “How can this be improved?” rather than to judge it as imperfect and to discard it?

Just look at the stained glass window to the right, which is at the Chartres Cathedral in France. It is hardly perfect, but it was also made 800 years ago. How many today could match that artistry using 800-years-old technology?

Now, there are certainly times for judgment and criticism. But one is not great simply because he can find the imperfections in everything. In an imperfect world, that is actually quite easy. Furthermore, it is the road to creating nothing and descending into a state of perpetual cynicism. Man is not perfect and, as such, what he creates and does will never be perfect. Nonetheless, there are many an imperfect creation that is worthy of admiration.

It requires a different kind of thinking to accept the imperfections while still finding the good in things and striving to build upon the good. And that’s what we need, more training in thinking and reflecting, and less in learning to judge and to be critical.

A note on the stained-glass window analogy : In 1903, Mark Twain wrote the following to Helen Keller, “For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them…” And so it is with that analogy above. I must admit that I read a far more eloquent description of the difference in thinking some time ago and cannot find the reference despite my best efforts. To the original author, my apologies.

Devin Foley

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Posts Carousel

• Culture , Featured , Politics
• July 26, 2024

• Culture , History , Literature

• Entertainment

Why Older Politicians Often Rise to the Top

• History , Featured , Politics
• July 25, 2024

Do You Have the Physique of a God?

• Culture , Featured

Etiquette Worth Resurrecting

• MomThink , Culture
• July 24, 2024

Most Read from past 24 hours

Most Read from past 7 days

Our Universe: Chaos, or Cosmos?

• Culture , Featured , Philosophy
• July 23, 2024

Most Read from past 30 days

Friday Comic: Crisis

• July 12, 2024

Most Read of All Time

How Music Training Speeds Up Brain Development In Children

• August 29, 2016

Reading to Your Child: This is why it's so important

• May 9, 2016

Special Interests Could Be Delaying a COVID-19 Vaccine

• June 17, 2020

The Simple Joys of Keeping a Cow

• Culture , Featured , MomThink

A Fond Farewell From Annie

• From the Editorial Board
• October 24, 2022

The Tragic Decline of Music Literacy (and Quality)

• August 16, 2018

Yellowstone: The Hidden Propaganda in Television and Movies

• February 23, 2023

Latest Posts

Frequent Contributors

Kurt Mahlburg

Contributor.

Walker Larson

Cadence McManimon

Heather Carson

Adam De Gree

Rebekah Bills

Nate Rudquist

Annie Scaife

Simon Maass

About intellectual takeout.

We provide a platform for rational discourse on all aspects of culture, inspiring action that leads to the restoration of a healthy and vibrant America.

Get In Touch With Us

Stay in the know.

Sign up for our  Daily Digest  email newsletter to receive intellectually engaging content and updates from our organization straight to your inbox.

Contact Info

Physical address.

8011 34TH Ave S Ste C-26 Bloomington, MN 55425

Mailing Address

PO Box 1244 Minnetonka, MN 55345

(612) 440-0205

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

• Identify credible sources
• Evaluate and respond to arguments
• Assess alternative viewpoints
• Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Table of contents

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

• Is free from research bias
• Provides evidence to support its research findings
• Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
• What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
• When did they say this? Is the source current?
• Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
• Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

• Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
• Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
• Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

• Who is the author? Are they an expert?
• How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

• Know how to find credible sources
• Use relevant sources to inform your research
• Understand what constitutes plagiarism
• Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• TalentPredix™ Strengths Assessment
• Practitioner Training
• Hire Talent
• Develop Talent
• Optimize Teams
• Thriving Careers
• Partner With Us

How to avoid overusing critical thinking in the way you lead others

James Brook

Based on decades of experience working with leaders, it is clear to me that many of the best are critical thinkers. Their ability to logically analyse information and evaluate problems to reach effective, well-reasoned decisions is vital for any business. 

When they’re in the zone, critically-minded leaders are quick to spot problems and gaps, identify potential gaps and risks in solutions and are very effective in playing “devil’s advocate” by pointing out gaps, problems and weaknesses when evaluating data and solving problems.

However, when used in excess, critical thinking can result in the following problematic behaviours for leaders:

• They can come across as negative, sceptical, or too critical  by overdoing their critique and evaluation. This can undermine the energy and morale, especially of people who are more creative, enthusiastic, and positive in nature.  
• They can dismiss others’ ideas and solutions too quickly , even when they are good or have only small, solvable drawbacks. This can quickly stifle creativity and innovation. 
• They may spend too much time focusing on the weaknesses  of an alternative or idea rather than considering the possibilities and new opportunities it presents 

However, there are a variety of techniques critically-minded leaders can apply to avoid these risks.  Based on my coaching work with this type of leaders, these are the most effective:

Identifying situational triggers for the overused behaviours

Leaders develop deeply ingrained habits and ways of approaching and handling tasks and decisions based on what’s worked for them in the past. These habits are developed over many years and are often very difficult to change. However, by becoming more self-aware of what triggers overused behaviours, critically-minded leaders can learn to monitor how they are using their critical thinking skills across different situations and the impact they are having on others. For example, periods of intense stress and pressure can often amplify overused behaviours. Similarly, they may be triggered by overly optimistic or positive people. Through practising “dialling up” and “dialling down” their critical thinking, they can adjust their behaviour to the needs of the situation and minimize the risk of overdrive behaviours showing up. 

Using signposting to clarify expectations 

Critically minded leaders are often misunderstood by others as being overly critical or negative, especially when the team is made up of positive and creative thinkers. By signposting their intentions to the team more clearly, critical leaders will be better understood and trusted to play a complementary role that brings value to the group. There are various ways leaders can signpost their intentions up front, however, the easiest is to say something along the lines of: “Are you ok if I play devil’s advocate during this meeting?” or “I’m happy to flush out issues and problems as we work through these options if everyone’s ok with that.”    

Effective questioning skills

In coaching critically-minded leaders over several decades, some of my greatest breakthroughs have occurred by helping leaders to understand how to shift the way they use their critical thinking talent from presenting arguments and objections to posing powerful questions. Critical thinkers typically ask themselves tough questions about the data or options in front of them but don’t always verbalise these questions. By communicating and inviting others to reflect on these open questions with them, they can enrich the conversation, promote better scrutiny of the data, and broaden the team’s conversation about potential options, risks, and decision criteria.   

Creating space for creative problem-solving

Leaders who are critical thinkers need to learn to make space for creative thinkers to have a voice and apply their talents, especially when creative problem-solving is called for to tackle complex problems or promote more innovation. This requires consciously “dialling back” on their tendency to find fault with ideas and solutions to allow sufficient time and space for creative thinking. They can either call on the natural creatives in the team to lead a brainstorming or brainwriting session or they can do this themselves. We recommend the former as this will provide creatives with an opportunity to shine and optimize their talents. Leaders can also make greater use of established divergent thinking techniques such as the  POINT  method when problem-solving. This encourages people to first look at the  P luses and  O pportunities associated with ideas and alternatives in advance of issues and problems. The second step is to encourage the team to raise  I ssues as  problem questions  rather than simply stating the issues, as questions invite divergent and creative thinking. Finally, the team explores  N ew  T hinking to tackle problem questions that have been raised and discussed.

When leaders overuse their critical thinking talents, their overwhelming critique, negativity, and problem-spotting can easily be misunderstood by others. These overused behaviours can lead to a multitude of other unintended consequences, including poor performance, damaged relationships, and low morale. However, by building greater self-awareness, adapting their critical thinking to the needs of the situation, and collaborating with others who are more creative and solutions-oriented, leaders who are critical thinkers can significantly improve their leadership effectiveness and outcomes.   

To find out how we can help your organization avoid using overused talents, contact us at [email protected]

About the Author

James is a leadership and talent consultant, business psychologist, and executive coach. He has over 25 years’ experience working with leaders, teams, and organizations to optimize their talent, performance, and future success.

Before moving into consulting, James held corporate leadership roles in People and Talent Management in the UK and abroad with companies such as Yahoo! and Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals. Since moving into talent consulting and assessment design, he has supported leaders and teams globally across many sectors and geographies. Clients he has worked with include Allen & Overy, Commvault, Equinor, Graze, LVMH, Facebook, GSK, Hilton, John Lewis, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, NHS, Oracle, Sainsbury's, Swiss Re, Tesco, WSP and Yahoo! James has founded and run several ventures, including Strengthscope®, an international strengths assessment and development business, that he sold in 2018.

James has a Master’s in Organizational Psychology, an MBA, and an Advanced Diploma in Executive Coaching. He is a regular writer and speaker on talent assessment and development, leadership, and the future of work.

Recent Articles

Talent Development and Optimization

21 great ideas to engage and inspire your people

By James Brook 18 Oct 2021

Southgate’s success puts leadership skills in spotlight

By Press 9 Jul 2021

Privacy Overview

Complete the form below to access the Career Development Workbook.

Complete the form below to access the full version of this white paper.

Complete the form below to start the 12-Week Team Effectiveness Challenge.

Error: Contact form not found.

Complete the form below to gain access to the full version of our Talent Management Checklist.

Complete the form below to gain access to the full version of our Leadership Transition Checklist.

Complete the form below to gain access to the full version of this 5-page comprehensive guide.

Complete the form below to gain access to the full version of this document for free with a total of 12 questions to help you succeed at work and thrive in your career.

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Additional menu

Creative Coach | Mark McGuinness | Since 1996

Helping you thrive as a 21st Century Creative

Why Thinking Is Overrated

By Mark McGuinness

Image by Brian Hillegas

Imagine you have no head.

I’m serious. Imagine you have no head. Right this instant.

You can feel your arms, legs, hands, feet, stomach, chest and back. But your bodily sensations stop at the neck. There’s nothing there.

At this moment, you can feel, touch, see and hear – but you can’t think.

(Don’t worry about how you can see or hear without eyes and ears – worrying requires a head, and right now you haven’t got one. 😉 )

Allow your centre of consciousness to sink from where your head used to be, down into your chest or stomach. Notice what it’s like to have your awareness located at your centre of gravity.

Stay in this state for at least a minute, before reading the rest of this article.

The Benefits of Losing Your Head

How do you feel now?

I first encountered this provocative Zen exercise on a seminar run by my friend and long-time collaborator John Eaton . When John suggested it , at first I thought the idea was very funny. As he talked us through the exercise, I felt curious, disoriented, fascinated – and finally relieved. It was as though I had let go of a heavy weight. My body felt lighter, freer, poised and energised.

Walking home after the seminar, I realised what a beautiful summer day it was. The tube train was delayed, but I wasn’t annoyed in the least. It was a pleasure to stand on the platform in the early evening sunshine, marvelling at the golden colours of the brickwork on the opposite wall, listening to the birdsong bubbling up from somewhere nearby.

From time to time, I’d ‘come to’ and realise I’d forgotten about the experiment, and had got lost in my thoughts. Whereupon I reminded myself that I didn’t have a head, and went back into the state of intense present awareness. Each time I did this, it felt like escaping from a dusty room into fresh air and sunlight.

All the way home, I felt an unusual sense of stillness and peace. There was no need to think over the day’s events or the things I had learned on the seminar. I had a calm confidence I would know how to use the knowledge when the time came.

This experience reminded me how my most valuable insights, and the solutions to the biggest problems I face, usually don’t come while thinking hard about the issue in hand. Typically there is a moment of realisation – the answer ‘just comes to me’ – in the middle of doing something else, or nothing in particular .

The sensation is more like recognition than reaching a conclusion. It’s as though someone else has presented me with the answer, holding it up in front of me, and all I have to do is nod my assent. And unlike some of the decisions I’ve reached by thinking things through logically, I’ve never found such insights to be ‘wrong’; whenever I’ve acted on the insight, it’s always had a positive effect on the situation.

I’m not alone in this – the literature on creativity is full of accounts of sudden insight or inspiration, often happening shortly after someone has given up trying to solve a problem through reasoning. Like the famous account by the French mathematician Henri Poincare:

Then I turned my attention to the study of some arithmetical questions apparently without much success and without a suspicion of any connection with any preceding researches. Disgusted with my failure, I went to spend a few days at the seaside, and thought of something else. One morning, walking on the bluff, the idea came to me, with… the characteristics of brevity, suddenness and immediate certainty, that the arithmetic transformations of indeterminate ternary quadratic forms were identical with those of non-Euclidic geometry.

Joseph LeDoux, a Professor of Neural Science at New York University, points out that most of our cognitive processes are unconscious, so that this kind of problem-solving, though experienced as mysterious, is no more than we should expect:

Just because your brain can do something does not mean that “you” know how it did it. If it seems odd that the brain can unconsciously solve geometric problems, imagine the kinds of automatic calculations that go on in the brain when we turn the steering wheel to navigate a curve at 60 mph (Joseph LeDoux, The Emotional Brain )

What we think of as ‘thinking’ is really only the tip of the iceberg. A tiny pinprick of conscious attention, like a single star in the vastness of the night sky.

We’ve previously looked at the research involving brain scanners and EEG sensors to monitor neural activity in people engaged in solving problems. According to the experimenters, logical analysis – a.k.a. hard thinking – is a poor second-best to daydreaming:

These sudden insights, they found, are the culmination of an intense and complex series of brain states that require more neural resources than methodical reasoning. People who solve problems through insight generate different patterns of brain waves than those who solve problems analytically. “Your brain is really working quite hard before this moment of insight,” says psychologist Mark Wheeler at the University of Pittsburgh. “There is a lot going on behind the scenes. In fact, our brain may be most actively engaged when our mind is wandering and we’ve actually lost track of our thoughts, a new brain-scanning study suggests. “Solving a problem with insight is fundamentally different from solving a problem analytically,” Dr. Kounios says. “There really are different brain mechanisms involved.” By most measures, we spend about a third of our time daydreaming, yet our brain is unusually active during these seemingly idle moments. Left to its own devices, our brain activates several areas associated with complex problem solving, which researchers had previously assumed were dormant during daydreams. Moreover, it appears to be the only time these areas work in unison. Robert Lee Hotz, ‘A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight’

An Irrational Love of Reason

So the neuroscientists and daydreaming poets are in agreement: if you’re serious about solving problems and creating new things, stop thinking so hard and let your mind wander more freely.

But it’s not exactly a popular message, at least in modern Western society.

We take enormous pride in our intellectual accomplishments, and venerate those who are reputed to be ‘great thinkers’. Children are taught to ‘study hard’ – furrowed brows are praised and rewarded, while daydreamers are rebuked for staring out the window.

When applying ourselves to the pressing problems of business, science, education, politics and the environment, the unspoken assumption is that we need more thinking – not less.

If we consider someone’s point of view or behaviour unacceptable, we say they are ‘irrational’ or ‘unreasonable’.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a thinker by nature. I love thinking. As a writer and creative entrepreneur, it’s essential to my work. And I’ve done the academic thing – dissertations and degrees – and got a lot out of it.

But the more I see of life, the less impressed I am by thinking per se. I’m not suggesting we should stop it altogether (although I’ve tried that). But you can have too much of a good thing. I’ve come to value other abilities at least as highly – things like intuition (gut feeling), improvisation, play and emotional intelligence – a.k.a. listening to the promptings of the heart.

Whenever I’m aware of spending too much time in my head, I recall the words of W.B. Yeats:

God guard me from those thoughts men think In the mind alone; He that sings a lasting song Thinks in a marrow-bone; (W.B. Yeats ‘A Prayer for Old Age’)

What Do You (Ahem) Think?

Do you agree that thinking is overrated?

Have you ever tried thinking less? What were the results?

What techniques do you use to get ‘out of your mind’ and allow insight to emerge?

About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a Coach for Artists, Creatives and Entrepreneurs . For a free 25-week guide to success as a creative professional, sign up for Mark’s course The Creative Pathfinder .

About Mark McGuinness

Mark McGuinness is a an award-winning poet , a coach for creatives , and the host of The 21st Century Creative Podcast .

Get Mark’s FREE Creative Career Course

Receive all 26 lessons of The 21st Century Creative Foundation Course to help you thrive as a creative professional

You'll also receive every new article and podcast Mark McGuinness publishes on this blog, plus occasional product and service offers, to help you succeed as a 21st Century Creative.

Learn more about the course here . Read the privacy policy here .

Reader Interactions

December 14, 2009 at 9:33 am

My best thoughts, my most creative ideas, my soundest arguments, have come when I’m not thinking at all. Usually in the worst moments, too – taking a shower or driving down the highway, where there’s no keyboard to be had.

I keep pen and paper in several places to jot down notes, though, so when I do tune out, forget about thinking for a while and get a sudden idea, I can grab it before it gets away.

Well, some of the time…

December 14, 2009 at 9:37 am

Right on. Getting ‘out of my head’ requires 1) meditation, 2) free-writing first thing in the morning. But both activities must be engaged in with no thought of result, i.e. done for their own sake. Meditating for the purpose of clearing your head is not meditation. So – it’s tricky.

December 14, 2009 at 9:43 am

Years ago, I began practicing “emptying my mind.” Much later, I still can’t do it. I cannot (yet) silence my thoughts. I am good at distracting my brain, and work hard to be present in the moment.

@James, several months ago, I wrote a post about where the best ideas usually occur–it was the shower for me.

Thanks for a great post, and a timely reminder. With Christmas chaos all around, forgetting I have a head will be a good thing.

April 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm

We developed left brain functions for a reason through evolution. Personally, to me, the way to deal with this is the mindfulness approach; watch the left brain do its’ thing but don’t buy into it. Eventually it gives up and meditation can occur. I also find when I laugh at my thoughts they disappear faster than when I buy into them, so one of my life slogans is,”Don’t believe everything you think” (along with “All’s well, all things considered”.)

April 26, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Yes, mindfulness is a great way to deal with it. Come to (ahem) think of it, mindfulness is a great way to approach just about everything.

December 14, 2009 at 9:44 am

Great article. Since learning to get ‘out of my head’ during Meisner classes ( a form of acting training) i’ve felt freer, lighter and always trusted my instinct, which hasn’t ever let me down. When you start learning these techniques you realise they are all the same, religion, meditation, self help books, they all guide us towards being truly happy within and the world without immediately looks brighter and sharper. I was always taught to study, and i love to learn, but i was never taught to give myself time to let things really permeate and sit in me. I find taking the time out to do this re-ernergises me and allows me to come up with new angles on old problems. Life is fuller, i have better relationships beacuse i’m truly seeing the people in front of me and when im emotionally truthful with people, they’re truthful back! I was always scared of it but it saves a hell of a lot of time!!! And i dont’t have to be in my head worrying! I just am.

December 14, 2009 at 9:46 am

Great article Mark,

I agree that overthinking can often take you away from solutions; very easy to become stuck in analysis.

I find thought reduction and incubating problems, sometimes overnight, sometimes longer, allows your mind time to seek out new ideas and answers.

Thought reduction is relatively simple although we have been so accustomed to thinking all the time, all our lives, initially it seems impossible, even to the point of dismissing it and not trying.

I created a Free 85 Page E-Book to share ideas on how to reduce thinking – readers can download it here:

http://www.mindmapinspiration.com/stop-thinking-free-85-page-e-book-paul-foreman/

It covers tips for reducing thoughts and how to meditate – techniques to free the mind to allow new thinking.

Hope it helps 🙂

December 14, 2009 at 10:02 am

I find this interesting. I have never considered what you write about not to be thinking. In my life (mind) I spend time collecting and analyzing data. Breaking it down through processes I have developed over decades. Then I spend a great deal of time with “unstructured thought” where I let the thoughts take me where they go. I am not looking to resolve or conclude anything in particular, but it happens.

I found this works best when there is no agenda. Agendas are emotional. Aren’t we really freeing ourselves from our feelings and not our thoughts?

December 14, 2009 at 10:21 am

Can I crack a joke?

This post made me think 😉

-kay, maybe not funny. the zen excercise was… unexplainable though. it felt freeing in a good sort of way.

December 14, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Acting training helped me a lot in getting out of my head. I didn’t do much Meisner (though I’d like to try more, Steph), but I did a ton of physical work (Butoh, Grotowski based training, mask work, and other dance & movement training, as well as Chekhovian physical gesture).

The idea of getting ‘out of your head’ is a bit of a misnomer – you need to instead get into something else – like your body.

This was a wonderful article. I thank my parents for leaving me hours and hours for exploring and imagination… whether building with lego or erector sets, or just wondering through the woods behind our house. I still do my best thinking on walks.

In fact, I was just thinking (or imagining?) today how I’ve always tested as an INFP on personality tests. But I’ve always felt the need to hide it so I wouldn’t be one of those “touchy-feely” types. So I projected an INTP personality. I’ve just begun allowing myself to explore this intuitive feeling side publically on a new blog and find it very hard to open my inner self, especially in writing. And it’s because of thinking. I’m going to start using this head-less exercise before I write to try and get over that stigma.

Thanks, Mark!

December 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Yes! I’ve spent the last 5 years relying on my gut feeling and since doing this my life has flowed seamlessly. As soon as I revert back to over-analysis everything goes pear-shaped, and I feel stressed! Meditation really helps too. I like the ‘no head’ exercise – will try that one. Great article thanks

December 14, 2009 at 12:55 pm

I used to carry my head under my arm, but that’s because it fell off with alarming frequency. Not quite the same as the Zen exercise.

I’ve gotten better at knowing when to stop thinking and trust my gut. But part of that – no, a lot of that – is due to experience. It took time to get acquainted with those instinctual cues, and enough trial and error (heavy emphasis on “error”) to realize I could trust them.

I sometimes tell people thinking through an idea or problem is like making soup – put in all the ingredients, then have enough sense to let it sit and simmer. Or go stand in the shower, like James and Dava. I get insights there, too.

Clearly, someone needs to invent a waterproof voice recorder.

June 21, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Very well put! The soup analogy is great.

December 14, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I’ve been a Reiki practitioner for 20 years. In that time, while doing Reiki on myself or others I’ve often found myself connected to an intelligence which seems both internal and external at once.

In that state I’ve encountered an awareness of thoughts which come from outside my personal experience. In some instances through this awareness I feel guided or directed to a certain understanding which helps me in some manner.

I’ve come to think of these events as insights from the collective unconscious. I’ve talked to others who refer to such happenings as angelic interventions.

It’s my belief that every human experience is entrapped within the reality of our existence, not unlike a huge encyclopedia. Those experiences are then cross indexed and referenced against the consciousness which originates with the source of all creation.

When we stop thinking allow ourselves to be fully open to the experience all that is available in one form or another, downloaded directly from our own inter-dimensional internet.

December 14, 2009 at 1:53 pm

I’ve explored the – forgive me – idea of intuition, actually the practice, since 1966, when I first began with yoga meditation. I eventually got a job as an assistant editor at Runner’s World, where I found the order of the day was a highly rational, male, scientific approach to training. As if to say – we aren’t legitimate until we’re “scientific.” Which, to digress, is why magazines begin as reader-written adventures in exploring their subject, full of life and enthusiasm, and evolve into dull, pedantic plodding fact-factories written by PhD’s.

Anyway – intuition is highly common in sports training – it is the basis of what’s more acceptably known as “feeling-based training,” as preached and practiced by the great New Zealand coach, Arthur Lydiard and countless others (e.g., Bob Kennedy, one of just three Americans who’ve run 5000 meters in under 13 minutes).

So – yes, I do “believe” in intuition – but that’s too weak a word. I practice it daily. It guides every minute of my training. In yoga tradition, intuition, is associated with calm, dispassionate feeling in the heart. For anyone who’s interested, I wrote a book called Fitness Intuition – it’s posted in its entirety on my website, http://www.fitnessintuition.com .

December 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Leonardo and Poincare advocated the same notion: Get away from a problem and stop thinking about it if you’re deadlocked.

December 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Thanks for this post. I think way too much, and to balance my brain and body, practice yoga and doodling. Both help me drop down out of my mind.

Extra thanks for the resources mentioned; they come at a perfect time.

December 14, 2009 at 6:33 pm

This is great!

I want to thank you, Mark, for providing the missing question I needed to formulate a thought that has been gnawing at me for a while.

Like Chuck, I, consider the wandering mind to be in a different mode of thinking – a much more productive one.

The analytic mind uses words and numbers and formulas to create questions – that are not yes/no – in need of answers or solutions.

The question may sometimes be unasked, but it has to arise.

If left to the devices of the analytic brain, providing a solution may be extremely difficult, energy consuming and frustrating.

However – if we allow it – the question engages the intuitive brain, which works ever so more quickly and efficiently. I say – if we allow it – because it requires that we free the energy that would be taken up by the arduous analytic brain for the intuitive brain to do its thing.

Thus, using pictures/images, patterns and feelings – in non-linear fashion, the intuitive brain works feverishly, below consciousness, until it connects previously unassociated, and unbeknown to the “thinker”, relevant bits of information. Thus is created the aha moment of creativity.

But this is not enough, because the intuitive brain is incapable of communication the new-found understanding and sharing it as a contribution to the collective body of human knowledge. This requires the verbal (lingual ) capabilities of the analytic.

So, what I would like to call “effective thinking” is a leisurely duet of the analytic and intuitive minds, working in concert, and most important – getting out of each others way when it’s appropriate. ______________

So what was the question you provided? “How can I justify my own wandering mind?”

December 14, 2009 at 9:50 pm

I am being a bit cantankerous tonight (LOL). Responded to other blog posts with ‘my’ view. You offered an awesome topic. I hope you will return to this topic on occasion. Other comments are excellent.

They are astounding thoughtful ideas on where we should be going as a society.

I do feel that you made references to a limited source of origins of getting out of the ‘traditional mindset’. Too often I am seeing references to Zen (which I will not understand) or other sources that we in North America are not accustomed to. That is why I hope you will revisit this topic in the future.

As to thinking. Well. A common phrase is: You gotta think outside the box. I don’t know how to do that & I finally figured out why. All my life I have “lived outside that box”. I just discovered that trait in my 61st year on earth. I see inventions and creative works and new thought from a perspective that few have and I can express my interest about that.

I just watched a video in which I was exhorted to let go of worries and fear by thinking only in the minute. Yet, one line in this video belayed his whole theme. It pertained to how you get to your goals. Goals are future. In the minute type of dealing with fear usually won’t succeed because the fear pertains to the future goal. So…

I live outside the box. I see potential futures where goals lie. I think, in each moment, I have now fear of what the future brings. What is there is governed by how I operate in the now. How I operate in the now is based on getting to some sort of future. NO FEAR. The future will come and I have done a little thing now in preparation of getting there.

Just a response to a good topic.

December 15, 2009 at 12:00 am

As one whose mother often said “you think too much” I may surprise some by saying I totally agree with you. I’ve been through enough shifts to learn to rely on other instincts than simply thinking.

I love how you start this post. I often say to my clients: “Take your head off and put it over there on the table.”

My father, an engineer and inventor, often did his best “thinking” while dozing in front of the TV. He’d pop up all of a sudden with a solution to a design problem.

I get my inspiration when I am moving – walking/driving – something that makes scenery move past me.

Csikzentmihalyi, in his books on flow, points out that flow occurs when we are able to let our minds wander while doing ordinary things like showering, washing dishes and gardening. These are moments when the muse strikes.

I like to call it peripheral thinking…

Thanks again for a great post!

December 15, 2009 at 1:00 am

Thanks Mark. As always, your blog posts are insightful and inspirational. And tweet worthy! @TweetRightBrain

December 15, 2009 at 9:18 pm

I love the ideas presented in this post. It’s true that to fully engage creativity, it’s helpful (perhaps even essential) to disengage from linear thinking.

However, I don’t see Western culture as stuck on critical thinking, logic, or reason. In fact, I think these skills are sorely lacking in our society. Here in the U.S., science and philosophy have absolutely no place in mainstream culture, and that’s a big problem when your country is supposed to be a democratic republic whose citizens are educated thinkers.

I would say there are appropriate times and places for using your mind in different ways. Again, I love this post. I’m only mentioning this other perspective because the lack of critical thinking and the widespread apathy on the part of everyday people gives me great concern on the social and political stages as well as in the artistic arena.

December 16, 2009 at 7:48 am

Western cultures are not alone in the absence of so called critical thinking. Historically cultures everywhere are built on certain commonly held beliefs or ideals. Free thinkers are commonly discouraged if they threaten those generally accepted beliefs. Around the world today we see this in the existence of various religious fundamentalists and extremists.

There is a certain comfort that comes from being part of a group. So called group think is what drives most of those things which form the basis of society as we know it. Most of us learn from a very early age that to get along one must go along. We follow the rules and obey the laws in order to avoid unpleasantness or the social stigma of being different.

Those who stand out are often singled out for special treatment. This tends to discourage critical thinking and encourage individuals to stay within the fold.

When you get out of your head and into your heart it becomes obvious what the limitations of critical thinking really are. Group think takes on an entirely new dimension when you connect with the concept of oneness. This is the ultimate radical view which goes well beyond anything which is contained in any finite belief system.

December 16, 2009 at 9:37 am

My best ‘thinking’ comes when I am running. It’s like by physically exercising my body, my brain goes into ‘screensaver’ mode and only functions undercover. I have my most brilliant ideas then, or solutions to problems I was struggling with suddenly pop up.

I think it has to do with hand-brain coordination. When you occupy your hands (or any other bodily limb) there is less room for clutter in your brain, or it allows it to take unexpected turns.

Thanks for this article. I enjoyed that.

December 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Thanks everyone, I’m glad it’s not just me. 😉

@ Kevin – “Meditating for the purpose of clearing your head is not meditation. So – it’s tricky.” It is indeed! I trod a bit of a tightrope a while back when I wrote about meditation and its effect on productivity:

@ dava – I know how you feel. Sometimes it feels like my mind is incredibly vacant, yet as soon as I try to empty it on purpose, it feels very full. 😉

@ Steph @ Cory – I’d not heard of Meisner classes before, did some Googling and it looks interesting. I’ve tried Impro according to Keith Johnstone’s approach and found it an amazing experience (esp. mask work), might be interesting to compare it with Meisner.

@ Chuck – Well, maybe I’d go along with ‘unstructured thought’ if you mean something other than the ‘hard’ thinking and reasoning that gets trumpeted so much.

“Aren’t we really freeing ourselves from our feelings and not our thoughts?” – I’d suggest not. Given the choice, I’d go with an emotion rather than a thought anytime – emotions are from an older and in some ways wiser part of our brain. If I ignore a thought, I may not be missing much. If I ignore an emotion, I’m probably in trouble.

@ Philip – I used to test INFJ on Myers-Briggs, but after hanging around with John Eaton for a few years, I recently tested INFJ.

@ Abby – “As soon as I revert back to over-analysis everything goes pear-shaped.” Amen to that!

@ Stacey – “I used to carry my head under my arm”. Looks like you anticipated (or suggested) my Green Knight post! 🙂

@ George – What you call intuition, John Eaton calls Bodymind:

Bodymind is the intelligence of the body, working through the Brain, the Nervous System, the Glands, the cells and the Immune system. It’s primary function is to ensure the safety of the individual and to maximise health and happiness. From John’s website http://www.reversetherapy.com

@ Jack – “So, what I would like to call “effective thinking” is a leisurely duet of the analytic and intuitive minds, working in concert, and most important – getting out of each others way when it’s appropriate.” – That’s an excellent summary of the creative process.

@ Glen – If Zen doesn’t hit the spot for you, have you tried Timothy Gallwey’s Inner Game books? I see you coach golf – he wrote a book called The Inner Game of Golf where he talks about Self 1 and Self 2, which roughly correspond to the analytical an intuitive aspects of human beings. His basic coaching philosophy is that Self 1 (analytic) needs to get out of the way for sports players to perform at their best.

@ Kathy – Recovering heavy thinker here too. 😉

@ Melissa – I didn’t say Westerners were particularly good at critical thinking, just very impressed by it! 😉

@ Marvin – “Group think takes on an entirely new dimension when you connect with the concept of oneness.” Agreed. That sounds more like group feeling than group think to me.

December 24, 2009 at 9:35 am

I have couple things I do related to this article. Firstly, I do yoga specifically in order to feel what it’s like not to think. I find, that having to focus on breathing, movement, and muscles does not leave room for the thought-chatter that’s usually going on inside our heads.

The other thing, with different impact, is that I take 20 minute naps almost every day, and during that time I deliberately stop actively thinking about anything, but instead let the thoughts flow freely. It’s similar to sitting in a movie theatre and wathing a film, without taking any control or stand on the things I see.

January 3, 2010 at 11:45 am

Maybe there´s another way of thinking. I mean, those moments when you think differently then using only analytical though. Maybe, we limit our boundaries when focusing our minds through some methodical way of solving problems. If that´s real, it looks like it´s time to perceive a new way of thinking, where a bunch mechanisms works together, not only the brain, but vision, audition, voice, gestures, the whole body experiences a creative moment of living. Maybe?

February 19, 2010 at 8:26 am

I love this post. I can relate entirely with what you are saying. So many great ideas and solutions come to me when I am relaxed and able to “get my mind out of the way”. I am not ashamed to say that I believe in The Supreme Being and I know when we are quiet, thoughts of guidance come. Thanks for sharing.

February 20, 2010 at 9:53 pm

‘My best thoughts, my most creative ideas, my soundest arguments, have come when I’m not thinking at all. Usually in the worst moments, too – taking a shower or driving down the highway, where there’s no keyboard to be had.”

It’s the same way for me… most of my best thinking is in the car.

[…] a way of working on this tendency towards autopilot, Lateral Action’s post called Why Thinking is Overrated suggests an interesting Zen meditation in which you imagine you have no head (via […]

[…] (like me), or drink tea instead.2.  Give the tiresome, endless thinking a rest for a little while. Thinking is overrated. Probably new or different for most of us!3.  Try homemade boullion that doesn’t come in a […]

Of all the writers I know, I have learned the most about how to be a productive creative person from Mark. His tips are always realistic, accessible, and sticky. It’s not just talk, this is productivity advice that will change your life. ~ Jocelyn K. Glei, author, host of the Hurry Slowly podcast, and Founding Editor, 99U

Learn to thrive as a Creative Pro: get the FREE 26-week course

The 21st Century Creative Foundation Course

A FREE 26-week program to help you

Thrive as a creative professional, taught by mark mcguinness based on his work as a coach for creative professionals since 1996, learn more about the course here . .

Education: Our Most Overrated Product

We educate nonsensically ... and what to do instead..

Posted July 3, 2014

It’s almost embarrassing to make these recommendations. Although I have a Ph.D. specializing in evaluation of education from Berkeley and subsequently taught in its graduate school, the changes to education I’ll suggest are just common sense.

Replace mixed-ability classes with ability-grouped classes

In most elementary and even in some high schools, we now place kids in classes at random. That makes it much more difficult for teachers to meet students’ needs than if the classes were grouped by ability and/or achievement.

If you wanted to start learning Mandarin, you’d learn a lot less if the class consisted mainly of non-beginners, but for political reasons, elementary school students are typically assigned to a classroom a random even though it means that students learn less .

To ensure that low-ability classes don’t trap students in an inappropriately low-level class, placement must be dynamic and flexible, that is, each child reviewed regularly to ensure s/he is in the best-suited group or class.

The New York Times reports a resurgence in use of flexible ability grouping. This trend deserves to be, pardon the pun, fast-tracked.

Replace one-size-fits-all high school curriculum with multiple pathways..

We insist on a one-size-fits-all curriculum: everyone to college, even though many students would benefit from another path, for example, a career -centric curriculum, including an apprenticeship. If after eight years of school, you are still reading at the 5 th grade level, it’s foolish, even sadistic , to eliminate all options for you other than four years of deciphering Shakespeare, analyzing trigonometric functions, etc.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to capitalize on your relative strengths — perhaps helping people, working with your hands, or the creative arts? Most other developed countries realize that one-size-fits-all education doesn’t fit all. For example, in Germany, over half of high school students opt for a career-preparatory rather than college-preparatory high school path. Youth unemployment in Germany is half the U.S.'s.

With over half of U.S. college graduates under 25 unemployed or doing work they could have done with just a high school diploma, college is not as clearly a wise choice as it once was.

Don’t mandate arcana until life’s basics are learned.

We insist that every high school graduate able to solve quadratic equations and understand stochastic processes, esoterica that 99.9% of us never use, yet we allow them to graduate with poor or untested skills in conflict resolution, managing money, and parenting . Don’t we all know people who, despite an advanced degree, lack such critical skills?

From kindergarten through graduate school, we should first ensure that students graduate with important basics before we get to esoterica. That means stopping the arcana-enamored professoriate from dictating our K-16 curriculum.

Replace foreign language and P.E. with subjects likely to yield greater benefit.

We mandate physical education K-12 when in fact, students learn little there and there’s little evidence it enduringly increases physical fitness. Indeed, a study by the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation found that required PE makes girls less likely to do exercise!

We make students take years of foreign language when it’s well known that it’s extremely difficult for most students to learn a language past the age of five unless living in a country that speaks only that language.

STEM is oversold.

We’re doing an full-court press to get more students to major in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), claiming that’s where the jobs will be. We’d need to be awfully sure of that because most people find those majors extremely difficult and not particularly interesting. And by the time most of those students have finished their STEM degrees, even more STEM jobs will be offshored or automated.

Already, we have many more STEM graduates than there are jobs , even at the Ph.D. level. I gave a workshop on finding work for young neuroscience Ph.D.s. It drew 450 attendees. Afterwards, over 100 of them waited in line to talk with me – nearly all unemployed.

Stop tenure.

Because time takes its toll on people, we don’t give lifetime job security, for example, to social workers, lawyers, or doctors. You can be good in the beginning but burned out later. Yet after just two or three years, we give teachers lifetime tenure despite being aware of teachers who continue to bore and/or be punitive to class after class of students until they finally retire when they’ve maximized their pension. What could be more foolish and destructive to children and their learning?

Replace live teachers or at least homework with dream-team-taught online lessons. We’ve let the teacher’s unions strangle education in an even more important way. The unions insist that a course be taught by a live teacher rather than an online course taught by a dream team of the world’s most transformational instructors using simulations, video, interactivity, and ongoing assessment and individualized branching. A live teacher or paraprofessional would supplement to provide the human touch.

Dream-team-taught courses or homework would enable every child, rich and poor, from Maine to California, to have world-class instruction, even in subjects with a shortage of transformational teachers, for example, math, physics, and computer science. But that would doubtless eliminate teaching positions and the unions would rather save those even if children are more poorly educated.

Replace professors with transformative instructors.

Most college instructors are Ph.D.s, people who deliberately opted out of the real world to get an research degree, whose interests and abilities are usually greater in their arcane research than in teaching undergraduates. There just is too great a gap in intellectual ability, interests, and learning style between most Ph.D.s and their typical undergraduate students.

The best undergraduate instructors may hold only a bachelor's degree but have the ability to explain, motivate, and generate important learning. Professors are never held accountable for how much their students learn. And indeed studies of freshman-to-senior growth show that almost half of students grow little or not at all in writing, critical thinking, and analytical reasoning, perhaps the most important things one should derive from a college education.

Ensure ideological diversity. Much wisdom resides left of center, but not all. Schools and colleges should be a marketplace of ideas, representing the full range of benevolently derived, intelligent thought from far left to far right. Unfortunately, acceleratingly, teachers and especially university faculty present and advocate mainly left-of-center ideas. The hiring, training, and promoting of instructors should reflect teachers' near-sacred obligation to fairly and competently present a range of perspectives.

Replace country-club campuses with cost-effective ones.

Sticker price for an undergraduate degree at a brand-name private college is a quarter of a million dollars, assuming you graduate in four years. And nationwide, 41 percent don’t graduate even if given six years!

Financial aid? For most, the bulk is loan, which must be paid back with interest. And the higher education lobby is so powerful that it convinced Congress to make students loans virtually the only loan that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. So even though 53 percent of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or doing work they could have done with just a high school diploma, those students are stuck, absolutely stuck, with that massive debt.

In addition to porcine administrations, a major reason for higher education's obscene cost is the country-club-like campus, replete with fabulous libraries, when most people do their reading and research on the Net and e-reader. Campuses should be much smaller and more spartan and thus more cost-effective.

America ’s most overrated product.

Education is viewed as a magic pill, our nation’s most valuable product. In my view, it is America’s most overrated. For education to have a chance to fulfill its promise, we need to strengthen our resolve to force education to change:

• Stop letting the teachers unions strangle educational quality.
• Stop letting the outré-obsessed professoriate dictate curriculum in graduate school, college, let alone K-12 curriculum.
• We require tires to provide more visible consumer information than we require of colleges. We should require colleges to, on their home page, post their amount of student growth in learning and employability instead of photos of enraptured students and happy (if unemployed) graduates in cap and gown.

Only then can education possibly hope to close the achievement gap as well as enable our bright students to live up to their potential and enjoy school. Yes, enjoy. It’s a word too excised from the education experience.

Marty Nemko's bio is in Wikipedia.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

*Critical* Thinking, overrated Scop if you ask me.

Sup choombas. So like did y'all ever think maybe we're thinking to hard about this mystery/conspiracy? Like what if they put all the information in front of us but but throwing us off the trail with saying it's a mystery? Cause the best place to hide is right under the nose. Like, what if we connect some of the misplaced gold items we see with our scanner. That means important, right? Okay, so why do we have that mop bucket in the Vs megabuilding garage, the 'Ordinary Rose Painting' above Mistys. Have you ever looked at the delamain AV go to Vs 'Secret Mansion' before we even know how yo play the game and wonder who it is? Or how about that Helicopter that flies by when were walking up the hotel stairs with Placid the first time before he recruits us for GIM gig. Maybe this isn't a hex code. But like scatagories or a scavenger hunt and we gotta figure out the right clues. Food for thought and Happy Hunting, EdgeRunners

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

• Career Advice
• Job Search & Interview
• Productivity
• Public Speaking and Presentation
• Social & Interpersonal Skills
• Professional Development
• Remote Work

Eggcellent Work

Is critical thinking a soft skill or hard skill.

Is critical thinking a skill that can be taught and learned? I must admit I’m intrigued, pondering how to demonstrate critical thinking skill on resume when it can seem so abstract. I know I can’t be the only one wondering what type of skill is critical thinking?

This all started while scrolling through the numerous news articles that pop up on my phone every morning. I stumbled across an opinion piece on critical thinking and how it applies in today’s world of increasing misinformation and constant exposure to current events online. It got me wondering if maybe society thinks too critically when reading the latest news on Facebook or Instagram.

Perhaps people, and I’m one of them, are too quick to be outraged with what pops up online. In that case, is critical thinking a skill that can be learned and enhanced over time, or are some people just naturally much better at critical thinking than others? To figure this out, I’m going to look at soft and hard skills and where critical thinking fits in for the  165 million workers  in the U.S.

• The Ultimate Guide To Critical Thinking
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions
• 12 Critical Thinking Interview Questions and Scenarios With Sample Answers
• Top 10 Best Games To Improve Logical Thinking For Adults
• 5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace
• 11 Principles Of Critical Thinking  

What Are Soft Skills?

When it comes to critical thinking and other essential qualities for the workplace, I hear a lot about soft skills. According to the  U.S. Department of Labor , soft skills offer “a competitive edge” and are used by employers to evaluate work readiness. Soft skills include:

• Professionalism
• Communication (written and oral)
• Problem-solving
• Organization

Critical thinking is often grouped in with soft skills, which 21st-century employers rely on to support collaboration and project management. While it’s advantageous to have workers who know their reading and math skills, employers need well-rounded workers and team players. Employees should support one another, be willing to keep learning, and work hard to get the job done.

What Are Hard Skills?

Academics, particularly those specializing in humanities, have long since argued that critical thinking can be taught in schools. After all, the education system is responsible for teaching hard skills, namely the three “R’s” – reading, writing, and math. These skills are tangible and can be measured and taught, unlike soft skills that are harder to teach.

Here are some examples of hard skills:

• Foreign language

In other words, hard skills are easier to evaluate and track and are typically developed during school and work experiences. Many educators emphasize hard skills and let soft skills and personal traits speak for themselves.

What Type of Skill Is Critical Thinking?

So, is critical thinking a skill that can be learned and taught in educational and professional settings, or is it something that can’t be measured? Considering the soft vs. hard skills debate, it seems like critical thinking itself is more of a soft skill – a personal trait that plays a huge role in how you approach your daily life. Some people are quicker to think critically and apply such thinking to their everyday life, both in and out of work.

However, not everyone agrees that critical thinking is a soft skill. Some place it more in the middle, as critical thinking isn’t necessarily taught the same way as technical training, but it can be enhanced over time through educational experiences and professional development.

I read an article on  thebalancecareers.com  that listed logical problem-solving and critical thinking as valuable soft skills employers look for and ultimately prefer in job candidates. The author did go on to describe critical thinking as something that can be practiced and developed in school, listing science, art, and debate classes as ways to strengthen critical thinking.

I tend to agree that critical thinking falls into both camps, although it’s more of a soft skill on its own. Nevertheless, many aspects of critical thinking and the skills it supports are more on the side of hard skills. For example, risk assessments, performance monitoring, and decisive communication are all hard skills that go hand in hand with critical thinking.

Given such tangible outcomes of critical thinking, it makes sense to me why most professionals list this ability among other soft skills, as it’s so broad and difficult to pin down. A world-class debater may exhibit excellent critical thinking on the stand, but can that be measured the same as risk-benefit analysis or credibility assessments? I don’t think so, as many employees are unsure how to demonstrate critical thinking on resume when it’s so broad.

Read More: Is Common Sense a Skill in the Workplace? (+How to Cultivate It)

Final Thoughts: Can You Learn Critical Thinking?

At the end of the day, yes, I think critical thinking is a skill that can be learned, at least to some extent. I don’t think it’s the same as learning a foreign language or data management, as the training is much less technical and more abstract. To be good at critical thinking, you must force yourself to examine topics in a new light.

Let’s look at it this way: what is the opposite of critical thinking? That would be emotional thinking, subjective to each individual’s thoughts, emotions, and biases .  Critical thinking requires logical analysis, as you need to look at an issue objectively to form an opinion.

For the most part, it takes time and practice to become confident in your critical thinking skills. Sure, there are natural-born debaters who are always up for discussion, but even they need to work at critical thinking to ensure they maintain objectivity and see each issue from both sides. For those who view the world through a more subjective lens, critical thinking can be strengthened with applicable lessons during school and work.

It may actually be better to forgo the soft vs. hard skills discussion altogether when looking at critical thinking. Depending on your viewpoint, critical thinking falls into both skill categories or could stand on its own as neither a hard nor soft skill. Like other hard skills, critical thinking may be taught and measured, but it requires specific details and background depending on the subject matter.

Similar to soft skills, critical thinking is difficult to quantify or demonstrate on a resume, as this trait varies with individual experience and practice. The best thing you can do when trying to advance your career is prioritize critical thinking as a top skill and look for specific examples that demonstrate your logical analysis skills to impress future employers. Remember, they will be looking for a mix of hard and soft skills, and critical thinking is no exception.

10 Best Books On Critical Thinking And Problem Solving

• Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?
• Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking
• 25 In-Demand Jobs That Require Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
• Brainstorming: Techniques Used To Boost Critical Thinking and Creativity
• 12 Common Barriers To Critical Thinking (And How To Overcome Them)
• How To Promote Critical Thinking In The Workplace
• What Is The Role Of Communication In Critical Thinking?  

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

Is Critical Thinking Overrated?  Disadvantages Of Critical Thinking

5 Creative and Critical Thinking Examples In Workplace  

15 Best Books on Assertiveness in the Workplace

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills At Work And Make Better Decisions 

• Transcripts

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) Q2 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation ( NYSE: EW ) Q2 2024 Earnings Conference Call July 24, 2024 5:00 PM ET

Company Participants

Mark Wilterding - SVP & IR Bernard Zovighian - CEO Scott Ullem - CFO Larry Wood - Group President of TAVR and Surgical Structural Heart Daveen Chopra - Global Leader of TMTT

Conference Call Participants

Larry Biegelsen - Wells Fargo Robbie Marcus - JPMorgan David Roman - Goldman Sachs Joshua Jennings - TD Cowen Travis Steed - Bank of America Matthew Taylor - Jefferies Vijay Kumar - Evercore ISI Patrick Wood - Morgan Stanley

Greetings, and welcome to the Edwards Lifesciences Second Quarter 2024 Results. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded.

It's now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mark Wilterding, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

Mark Wilterding

Thank you very much, Kevin. Good afternoon, and thank you all for joining us. With me on today's call is our CEO, Bernard Zovighian; and our CFO, Scott Ullem. Also joining us for the Q&A portion of the call will be Larry Wood, our Global President of TAVR and Surgical Structural Heart; Daveen Chopra, our Global Leader of TMTT; Wayne Markowitz, our Global Leader of Surgical Structural Heart; and Katie Szyman, our Global Leader of Critical Care.

Just after the close of regular trading, Edwards Lifesciences released second quarter 2024 financial results. During today's call, management will discuss those results included in the press release and accompanying financial schedules and then use the remaining time for Q&A.

Please note that management will be making forward-looking statements that are based on estimates, assumptions and projections. These statements include, but are not limited to, financial guidance and expectations for growth opportunities, strategy, leverage and integration of acquisitions, regulatory approvals, clinical trials, litigation, reimbursement, competitive matters and foreign currency fluctuations. These statements speak only as of the date on which they are made, and Edwards does not undertake any obligation to update them after today.

Additionally, the statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. Information concerning factors that could cause these differences and important safety information may be found in the press release, our 2023 annual report on Form 10-K and Edwards' other SEC filings, all of which are available on the company's website at edwards.com.

Unless otherwise noted, our commentary on sales growth refers to constant currency sales growth, which is defined in the quarterly press release issued earlier today. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP numbers mentioned during the call are also included in the company's press release.

With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Bernard for his comments.

Bernard Zovighian

Thank you, Mark, and thank you all for joining us. This afternoon we issued two press releases which the team and I will review in more detail with you now. The first, outlining our Q2 results. And the second, highlighting our acquisition of JenaValve, a pioneer in the transcatheter treatment of aortic rehabilitation or AR. And Endotronix, a leader in heart failure management solutions.

I will start with our second quarter performance. Total company sales of $1.6 billion increased 8% on a constant currency basis versus the year ago period. In addition, we made important advancements in our clinical research, new product introductions and efforts by Edwards employees to address the unmet needs of many more patients around the world.

TAVR growth in the second quarter was lower than expected, yet we are pleased with the increasingly significant contribution from TMTT. Our vision for TMTT is becoming a reality and our strategic commitment has developed into a growth portfolio of differentiated technology. Overall, Edwards remain well-positioned to deliver strong, sustainable growth.

We also announced this afternoon two acquisitions, JenaValve and Endotronix. We have known this company for many years. Discussions with the companies have been ongoing for some time and the timing of these acquisitions coincided with earnings. We are pleased to expand into two new structural heart therapeutic areas, AR and heart failure, and we will leverage our innovation capabilities with worldclass science and clinical evidence to ensure accelerated access to life-saving technologies for patients around the world.

Now, I will provide some additional detail on Q2 results by product group. In TAVR, second quarter global sales of $1.04 billion increased 6% year-over-year, lower than we planned. Edwards competitive position did not meaningfully change globally, although we experienced some regional pressure, and we maintain pricing. We are confident in our differentiated technology, high-quality evidence and the value we continue to demonstrate to patients, clinicians and the healthcare system. We remain focused on continuing our deep commitment to advancing evidence for AS patients.

At the New York Valves meeting in June, we presented additional analysis from the PARTNER trials, which demonstrated excellent clinical outcome up to five years in women and patient with small annuli. Adding to the global body of evidence on the platform, we also anticipate additional data from the RHEIA study to be presented at the upcoming [ESC] (ph) Meeting in London. RHEIA is a prospective randomized study in more than 400 patients across 35 sites in Europe comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVR versus surgery in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

We are actively pursuing significant opportunity to grow TAVR globally over the long-term and are proud to continue our deep commitment to advancing science for aortic stenosis patient through the progress and early TAVR trials, which could fundamentally change how AS patients are treated. Early TAVR trial results will be presented at TCT this year, and we believe if the data are compelling, it could have a meaningful impact on the timing for patient treatment, while also streamlining referral and patient care for all severe AS patients.

In the US, our year-over-year second quarter TAVR sales growth was slightly below our global constant currency growth rate. We believe our US competitive position was largely unchanged. Second quarter, US TAVR sales grew slower than expected. The continued growth and expansion of structural heart therapies, including newly approved tricuspid therapies and other fast-growing structural heart therapies put pressure on hospital workflows, which impacted TAVR. These pressures were also observed in the recent spike in emergent TAVR cases as reflected in claims data.

As centers adopt these new therapies and they become part of extended processes, we expect this will stabilize. We know from experience that hospital have historically demonstrated the ability to scale to support transcatheter procedure growth over time. We believe significant undertreatment of severe AS persists, evidence demonstrates that a large number of in-system patients currently go untreated.

We are accelerating our efforts to improve referrals and treatment rates for patient already in the hospital system who are suffering from severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. We recently launched the Edwards ENACT patient activation program, which leverage a comprehensive cardiovascular AI platform and worldclass support to bring real-time insights to TAVR program and improve quality of care for patients. This first of its kind program is focused on streamlining the identification, evaluation and treatment of severe aortic stenosis patient within the hospital system.

Outside of the US, in the second quarter, our constant currency TAVR sales growth was slightly above our global TAVR growth. In Japan, we generated double-digit sales growth driven by SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA. We continue to focus on expanding the ability of this therapy and believe AS remain a significant under threated disease among the substantial elderly population in Japan. In Europe, while share is down slightly on an annualized basis, we were pleased with the momentum, driven by the launch of SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA. We are pleased with high procedure success rate and exceptional patient outcome. We expect the momentum to continue to build as more centers have experienced with the first-choice valve for lifetime management.

In closing, we now anticipate second half TAVR sales growth similar to the first half year-over-year growth rate of 5% to 7% full year growth rate versus previously guidance of 8% to 10%. This equate to full year global TAVR sales of $4 billion to $4.2 billion. We believe hospitals are motivated to continue scaling to accommodate increasing volume of transcatheter procedures, which will bring tremendous value to patients and the healthcare system. We remain confident that Edwards is positioned for healthy and sustainable TAVR growth, driven by our differentiated TAVR portfolio, our deep commitment to advancing patient care for high-quality clinical evidence and new indications and our investment in patient activation initiative.

Turning to TMTT. Our deep structural heart expertise has enabled us to significantly advance our portfolio of differentiated technologies, including the PASCAL repair system, the EVOQUE tricuspid replacement system and the SAPIEN M3 mitral replacement system. Our exciting pipeline of innovations is addressing the large unmet needs for patients with mitral and tricuspid disease.

In Q2, we achieved positive results with sales of $83 million, representing a 75% increase versus the prior year. Q2 sales were led by PASCAL globally and early commercial introduction of EVOQUE in the US and Europe. PASCAL adoption is growing, reflecting its premium differentiation and the value it brings to physician and patients. We believe the mitral tier markets continues to grow double-digit in both the US and Europe. We are excited to bring this therapy to more geographies, more physicians and more patients.

The EVOQUE commercial launch continue to progress well. Our disciplined strategy is focused on outstanding patient outcome in centers investing resources required to grow a successful tricuspid program. We are now opening new centers both in Europe and the US after having started with our clinical trial sites. We continue to see strong interest in the therapy, which reflects the significant unmet need in this population of patient who have few options for treatment.

Our early real-world commercial experience has demonstrated excellent clinical results. Consistent with those from the TRISCEND II trial. We look forward to presenting the full cohort of TRISCEND II data at the TCT Conference in October. Last month, CMS announced the opening of a national coverage analysis for transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement. Since EVOQUE was granted FDA breakthrough status and is utilizing the CMS parallel review process, we believe CMS can move quickly to finalize national coverage.

SAPIEN M3 remains on-track to be our first transcatheter mitral valve replacement therapy to gain regulatory approval and launch around the world. We are also pleased to have received a breakthrough designation from the FDA, and we completed enrollment in the mitral annulus classification or MAC arm of our ENCIRCLE study. We now expect SAPIEN M3 to receive CE Mark earlier than previously expected by mid-2025, with FDA approval in the US to follow in 2026.

Earlier this month, we announced the acquisition of JenaValve. JenaValve early-stage technology will add to our growing pipeline of innovative therapy in TMTT and we expect to close the acquisition later this year. We further expect that JenaValve technology combined with Edwards expertise in mitral disease will enhance the company TMVR technologies to address large unmet structural heart patient needs and support sustainable long-term growth. Based on the first half 2024 momentum and the ongoing global adoption of our differentiated technology PASCAL and EVOQUE we are increasing full year sales guidance for TMTT to the higher end of our previous $320 million to $340 million range.

We remain confident that our unique portfolio strategy with repair and replacement therapies for both mitral and tricuspid disease will offer clinician the broader set of options needed to treat this complex and diverse patients. The advancement of our long-term TMTT strategy has positioned us for strong, sustainable growth over many years, driven by a growing portfolio of innovative therapies.

In surgical structural heart second quarter sales of $264 million increased 5% over the prior year. Growth was driven by strong global adoption of Edwards premium surgical technologies INSPIRIS, MITRIS and KONECT. We continue to see positive procedure growth globally for the many patients best treated surgically, including those undergoing complex procedures. We continue to expand the overall body of RESILIA evidence and have completed enrollment in the US and Canada for our momentous critical trial studying RESILIA performance and the mitral position. MITRIS adoption in Europe is ramping up, and we are pleased to have been granted reimbursement for the device in France earlier than expected.

In summary, we remain confident that our full year 2024 surgical sales will be 6% to 8% driven by continued adoption of our RESILIA portfolio and growth in overall heart valve surgeries. In Critical Care, second quarter sales were $246 million, which increased 7% versus the prior year. Growth was led by a pressure monitoring devices using the ICU with strong contribution from our SMART Recovery technologies, including the Acumen IQ sensor. Demand was also strong for Swan-Ganz catheter. Critical Care remains focused on driving growth through SMART Recovery and SMART Expansion, which are designed to help clinicians make more informed decision and get patients home to their family faster. Since announcing the sales of Critical Care to Becton Dickinson in June, our team has made significant progress and we plan to close by late Q3. I want to thank all of them for their hard work and dedication.

Turning now to the strategic acquisition of JenaValve and Endotronix. These acquisitions provide an expanded opportunity in new therapeutic areas to address the unmet needs of AR and heart failure patients around the world. Furthermore, the acquisition reflects our deep commitment to advancing patient care through our unique strategy and reinforce our confidence in Edwards sustainable long-term growth. Starting with JenaValve, a pioneer in the transcatheter treatment of AR, a deadly disease that impacts more than 100,000 patients in the US alone and is largely untreated today.

Edwards anticipate US FDA approval of the JenaValve Trilogy Heart Valve System in late 2025, which will represent the first approved therapy for patient suffering from AR. Edwards will invest to accelerate development of this novel technology to enable earlier patient access. As the pioneers in valve innovation, we believe we are best positioned to lead this next frontier of aortic valve disease treatment. We expect this to be the beginning of a long-term iterative strategy similar to TAVR.

Turning to Endotronix. Edwards made its first investment in the company in 2016. So we are very familiar with the technology, the opportunity and the employees. Many structural heart patients Edwards serves today also suffer from heart failure with limited options. This acquisition will expand Edwards structural heart portfolio into a new therapeutic area to address the large unmet needs of patients suffering from heart failure, which we believe has a significant long-term growth opportunity. Last month, Endotronix received FDA approval for Cordella, an implantable preliminary artillery pressure sensor that directly measure the leading indicator of congestion following the publication of a successful US pivotal trial.

We are pleased to enter the structural heart therapeutic area with innovation, worldclass science, and clinical evidence to provide access to life-saving technologies for patients around the world. We anticipate this investment will strengthen its leadership in structural heart innovation and represent long-term growth opportunity. Minimal revenue contribution from JenaValve and Endotronix is expected to begin late in 2025. As you can tell, we have a lot of positive momentum and many catalysts across our core businesses, TAVR, TMTT and Surgical combined with opportunities to reach new patient population.

And now, I will turn the call over to Scott.

Scott Ullem

[Technical Difficulty] quarter total company sales performance, where TAVR sales growth came in below our expectations. However, it's important to understand broader context, we are pleased that TMTT continues to outperform our expectations. And overall underlying sales growth, including Critical Care was nearly 8%, adjusted EPS was $0.70. GAAP earnings per share of $0.61 included one-time separation expenses related to the sale of Critical Care. A full reconciliation between our GAAP and adjusted earnings per share is included with today's release.

So, now I'll cover additional details of our P&L, which reflect total company results, including Critical Care. Note that Critical Care will be presented as a discontinued operation in the 10-Q we will file next week. As we noted in the press release, we'll provide Q4 2024 information reflecting the sale of Critical Care and the acquisitions announced this month when we report third quarter results.

For the second quarter, our adjusted gross profit margin was 77.1% compared to 77.7% in the same period last year. Last year's second quarter gross profit margin benefited from a more favorable impact from foreign exchange rates. We expect Edwards Q3 adjusted gross profit margin, including Critical Care to be in line with Q2, driven by high-value technologies that yield strong gross profit margins.

Adjusted, selling general and administrative expenses in the quarter were $509 million or 31.2% of sales compared to $469 million in the prior year. This increase was driven by an expansion of field-based personnel to support growth of our transcatheter therapies, including the launch and rollout of PASCAL and EVOQUE. Adjusted research and development expenses in the second quarter grew 12% over the prior year to $303 million or 18.6% of sales. This increase was primarily the result of continued investments in our transcatheter valve innovations, including increased clinical trial activity.

Turning to taxes. Our reported tax rate this quarter was 5.2% or adjusted 8.4%. Our unusually favorable non-GAAP rate in the second quarter reflects several positive one-time items that were recorded during the quarter. This unexpected favorability in our tax rate benefited earnings per share by $0.04 in the second quarter. Foreign exchange rates decreased second quarter adjusted sales growth by 120 basis points or $17.6 million compared to the prior year. FX rates negatively impacted our second quarter adjusted gross profit margin by 60 basis points compared to last year's second quarter.

Free cash flow for the second quarter was reduced $47 million for payments associated with special activities relating to the separation of Critical Care. Excluding the impact of these items, adjusted free cash flow was $333 million. First half adjusted free cash flow was $539 million. We expect to receive cash from the sale of Critical Care in the third quarter.

Turning to the balance sheet. We continue to maintain a strong and flexible balance sheet with approximately $2 billion in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments as of June 30. Now I'll finish this update with comments about our previously announced sale of Critical Care, as well as guidance relating to our acquisition announcements. We announced on June 3 that Edwards entered into an agreement to sell Critical Care to BD, and we are planning to close the sale late in the third quarter. During the second quarter, we recorded $80 million of one-time costs associated with the sale. Additional one-time costs will be incurred throughout 2024.

We expect Q3 sales, including the assumption that we own Critical Care for the full quarter of $1.56 billion to $1.64 billion and Q3 earnings per share of $0.67 to $0.71. We do not expect the recently announced acquisitions to contribute to Edwards sales in 2024. We intend to provide fourth quarter guidance reflecting the sale of Critical Care and the acquisitions announced this month when third quarter results are reported in October. We will also provide 2025 guidance at our Investor Conference in New York on December 4.

In the meantime, I'll share a few early expectations for 2025. Next year we expect minimal revenue from acquisitions. While we are planning on incremental operating expenses from these early-stage companies, partially offset by operational efficiencies we plan to realize following the sale of Critical Care. We do not expect increased operating efficiencies to completely offset the loss of profits from the sale of Critical Care in 2025, but we are planning healthy, long-term profit growth. In addition, we plan to maintain a strong balance sheet to support continued internal and external investments as well as opportunistic share repurchase.

Most importantly, we are confident in the moves we have made to reshape our portfolio of technologies to focus specifically on structural heart. The sale of Critical Care provides extra management bandwidth, as well as additional liquidity to fund external growth investments. And at the same time, our original vision for TMTT is becoming a reality and the early-stage investments we made in companies like JenaValve and Endotronix position us to acquire high-quality and high potential businesses with talented employees. We have other jewels in our portfolio of internal and external investments that will benefit Edwards in the years ahead. Over the long-term, we see an exciting future with expanded opportunities in large and growing market, which we believe will result in sustainable double-digit revenue and earnings per share growth.

So with that, I'll pass it back to Bernard.

Thank you, Scott. So let me share a few closing thoughts. In TAVR, we have significant opportunities, and we are committed to growing globally by advancing science over long-term, progress and early TAVR trials could fundamentally change how AS patient are treated. In TMTT, our deep expertise has enabled us to significantly advance our exciting portfolio of innovation. And our long-term TMTT strategy has position us for strong, sustainable growth over many years.

In surgical structural heart, we continue to see strong global adoption of our premium surgical technologies. Our JenaValve and Endotronix acquisitions provide an expanded opportunity in new therapeutic areas. The buffer presents significant long-term opportunities. We remain confident that our innovative therapy will allow Edwards to treat more patient around the world and continue to drive strong organic growth in the years to come. Our special inclinations increasingly recognize the significant benefit of transcatheter-based technology, we remain as optimistic as ever about the long-term growth opportunity.

With that, I will turn back to Mark.

Thank you, Bernard. We're ready to take questions now. In order to allow for broad participation, we ask that you please limit the number of questions to one plus one follow-up. If you have additional questions, please re-enter the queue and management will answer as many participants as possible during the remainder of the call.

Kevin, please go ahead with additional details on accessing the Q&A portion of the call.

Question-and-Answer Session

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is coming from Larry Biegelsen from Wells Fargo. Your line is now live.

Larry Biegelsen

Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. Two for me. Let me start with early TAVR, and then I had a follow up for Scott on 2025. So what would be -- for early TAVR, what would be compelling to you? Do you need to show a mortality benefit to be more compelling? And how should we think about the impact on your TAVR growth if the study is positive, do you expect it to accelerate the TAVR growth in 2025 above the 5% to 7% you expect this year? And I had one follow up.

Sure. Hey, Larry. This is Larry. Thanks for your question. I think at a very high level there needs to be a compelling story for why early intervention is better and basically make the case against watchful waiting. And we've done a lot of work when we were powering the trial, and we obviously had a lot of belief in it. The primary endpoint is death, stroke and rehospitalization. And so, it's really the composite of all those. And winning that trial and obviously, the more you would win it by makes the more compelling case.

In terms of the individual components, we'll have to look at those. But when you think about it from the patient journey if they're waiting and bad things are happening to them while they're waiting, and it's resulting in unplanned rehospitalization, or it's resulting in stroke, or it's resulting in mortality, all those are very meaningful things, and that's why they're all composites in the endpoint, so we'll have to wait and see the data, we'll have to see the story, but death, stroke and rehospitalization has kind of become almost a standard now for most of these trials because the clinical community believe these are all important considerations and endpoints.

Maybe let me add something to what Larry said. For sure asymptomatic is very important to us and to the community and to patients. But it is one thing of one of the many things we are doing, and we are confident in growing this TAVR opportunity. So asymptomatic is one, patient activation, we see some impact already, but also moderate. So if you think about over the next few years, we see many catalysts. It is why we are confident in this TAVR opportunity. Granted, we know that Q2 was lower than expected, and I guess we are going to talk about it, but in front of us, we see that this opportunity as a big one, like we saw it few years ago, still we see it, still we are confident, and we are doing all the things to realize this opportunity.

That's helpful. And Scott, thanks for the initial color on 2025. I'm sure you know that's important. Everyone on this call right now to try to understand -- try to as best as we can to model that. So a couple of pieces, follow ups on that. The press release says strong sustainable growth. It doesn't say 10% operational growth for the remaining business in 2025. I just want to confirm that that 10% from the analyst meeting last year in December is not -- you're not reiterating that today.

And second, on dilution, we estimate -- I think most of us estimate about $0.40 of dilution from Critical Care spin, any reaction to that? And the incremental spending you talked about from the acquisitions, any additional color on that? And just lastly, the use of the proceeds, should we just assume share, buyback or additional M&A? Thank you.

All right. That's a multi-part follow up question. Let me try to hit a couple of the things you asked about, Larry. First of all, on the 10% long-term top line growth, we're just not commenting on guidance at this point, it doesn't mean we're increasing it or decreasing it or changing it. It's just the kind of thing where we don't update that during the course of the year, so we're not providing an update today. We will definitely provide an update as we always do at our December investor conference.

For dilution from Critical Care. Yes, a lot of this depends upon how we end up prioritizing investments in the company as we separate Critical Care. And as you can imagine, there are a lot of different moving pieces as we do that. So we're not going to be able to give you a specific figure on, I'll call it, remain co, ex-Critical Care at this point. And it does tie to your question about incremental operating expenses that we're absorbing with these acquisitions, and those depend upon a couple of things. One is, when we actually close the acquisitions and start to realize that spending. Two, how we end up integrating them inside of Edwards. And as you can imagine, we just announced them today, so those plans are not completely developed.

Finally, in terms of use of proceeds from Critical Care. As you know we're always interested in buying back stock. We're always looking for buying opportunities. But the first call on cash hasn't changed one bit, which is we're going to continue to invest in the company. We're going to continue to invest in the capacity that we need to support the growth of the company. We'll certainly be looking at other external investments. And then finally, we'll look at capital, at allocating capital to share buyback. So there's a little bit of color and we'll obviously give you a lot more as we get towards the end of the year.

Larry, on the guidance, I agree with what Scott said about. We are not planning to communicate the guidance on 2025. But if you look at the quarter, TAVR grew about 6%, the company about 8%. So you see a big contribution from TMTT, and we see that contribution to get bigger as we go because right now we are just at the beginning of PASCAL expansion. Just at the beginning of the EVOQUE expansion. We have M3 coming, in TAVR, we have asymptomatic end of the year, so are we confident about sustainable growth over the long-term? Yes. We are going to talk about guidance in December.

Thank you. Next question Today is coming from Robbie Marcus from JP Morgan. Your line is live.

Robbie Marcus

Great. Thanks for taking the questions. Two from me. Maybe first, you talked about it in the script, but I was hoping you could give a little more, TAVR has clearly come in below your initial expectations for the year. The guidance has moved down. The US is slowing. OUS is facing pressure. We saw two of your smaller competitors, but still competitors see pretty nice growth sequentially and year-over-year. So the TAVRS taking more in Europe and outside the US, Japan. How are you thinking just about the underlying growth rate of the TAVR market? And I appreciate it's a huge opportunity and it's still a lot to conquer in the future, but in, let's call it the short to medium term, how are you thinking about the overall market growth? And is there anything you can do to help accelerate it?

Yes. Thanks, Robbie. Well, obviously we expected growth rate to be higher in Q2 than it was. We had a slow start in Q1, but we were exiting March and we felt good about where we were. So this did come as a surprise. I think when we reflect back on it, and we look more deeply at it, you have to think about all the things that have shown up that are going to the same structural heart team at all of these hospitals. We're seeing rapid growth in mitral repair. We're seeing a lot of growth in other procedures, and we had two new therapy approvals recently in the tricuspid space, and I think a little bit we looked at the procedure volumes and the hospitals have shown a pretty good job of being able to handle these things. We probably underestimated the burden of even starting these new programs, even preparing to start these new programs, because you have to screen the patients early on. There's a lot of learning, screen failures, all of those things, and I think it's just tackling the teams.

Now, in terms of things we can do to help, there are certainly things we can do to help. We can do a lot of imaging workups and take some of the load off the team. We can do device prep. We can come in with our benchmark program and teach them efficiencies and do those things. But once a program has been optimized that it really does come down to the hospital to add another team or add additional days and do those sorts of things. So there are some things we can do, but we can't do everything.

I think the other thing is, I think highlighting this for the clinicians and we're very confident, this isn't some slowdown because there's a lack of patients. We didn't see any of the fundamentals change in terms of new data that was concerning or any of these things, I think it's just a matter of the workflow right now. And we need to be able to engage with hospitals. But two important things we saw is we saw an increase in time from CT to procedure, which indicates patients are waiting longer and the other thing that we saw was a sharp increase in the number of cases being quoted as emergent versus routine. And I think that speaks to these patients waiting in the queue as these workflow issues sort out. So I think hospitals will certainly do that in time. These patients don't wait well, and we know that there's a lot of them, but we're going to have to continue to work through that with the hospitals.

Yes. So let me add on what Larry said. To be fair, we are contributing a little bit on this pressure. At the same time we are benefiting. If you look at the TMTT growth in the quarter. So we are contributing and benefiting at the same time. Now, big picture, we have seen this picture in the past, don't you think we have seen hospital facing like more to do, more technology to adopt, to be trying on new technologies, and we are very good at scaling. We are very good at learning. We are very good at adapting their workflows in the cath lab, so we believe it is temporary. And we are the real still with this team are, with Larry are partnering on this one. So we are fully focusing on this one helping in real hospital. But we have faith the hospital are going to do that like they did it in the last 10 years. Thanks.

Great. And maybe a follow-up to that guidance implies roughly stable TAVR first half into second half. I appreciate the need to be conservative, but it sounds like some of the learnings you saw in second quarter could possibly help in the back half of the year. Maybe just walk through the thought process of the 5% to 7% TAVR guide and kind of what you're baking into that? Thanks a lot.

Yes. I mean, it's pretty straightforward which is we're baking into it similar market conditions. The year-over-year calculation is pretty similar. Fourth quarter comp gets a little bit tougher. But we think that all things considered, that 5% of the low end, 7% on the high end captures the likely scenario for the second half combined with the first half that we've already reported.

We believe, to add on that one, we believe early TAVR, TCT, it will be already almost the end of a quarter, Robbie. So TCT is in late October. So we believe it will have a very minimal impact in Q4. So it is why we didn't want to take too much risk here.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from David Roman from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now live.

David Roman

Thank you, and good afternoon. I wanted just to come back actually on some of Larry's comments there regarding, and maybe you're characterizing it as capacity. And as you think about the myriad of therapies going into structural heart right now, whether that is some of the new valve therapies, whether it's Watchman. To what extent do you think hostile economics factor into the decision and prioritization making here and how does that, if it does in any way impact your kind of pricing decision around TAVR or EVOQUE?

Yes, it's a good question. And I'll defer to Daveen on EVOQUE, but I'll start with the TAVR side of it. It doesn't really change the pricing, and we don't think this is an economically driven thing. I think when new therapies come forward, hospitals are competitive. They want to be able to offer all of the therapies. And that means they want to aggressively start these newer programs and make sure that they can offer all of the options for their patients. And so, I think that's what's driving some of this more than other things. And I think all companies before they're willing to bring a new technology in, they want to -- the center has to demonstrate competence, right? They have to demonstrate they have the ability to screen, they have to have patients in queue and all those things. And I think it becomes a big thing, but I don't think this is an economically driven thing. I think it is just the result of all the new things that are coming into the cath lab and again, I think that does get corrected with time.

Daveen Chopra

Yes, this is Daveen, and I'll just jump in for a second here. We're seeing as we bring in new therapy like EVOQUE, right, while procedure times are relatively efficient, and they are, they're an hour-long procedures. It takes up a lot of energy, effort, thoughts, processes to start a new therapy, right? It takes a lot of bandwidth for people in terms of trying to find the patients, where are the referrals coming from? How does it kind of work through the system? How we pre-case plan? And these are often the same groups of people, valve clinic coordinators, interventional cardiologists, etc. that are working on TAVR. So as you bring in just a new therapy and start building it up, it takes a while, a lot of bandwidth and a lot of energy to get it going. But then over time, like we've seen for every other therapy, you create efficiency. It gets faster, and we're going to help them do that. But hospital then figure out, okay, now this is how the therapy is going to work its way through the system, and it becomes more efficient and becomes better so that there is more capacity to do more procedures overall.

That's very helpful. And maybe just a related follow-up to that, can you maybe unpack the $83 million in the TMTT line for us in a little bit more detail. It sounds like minimal EVOQUE contribution with PASCAL accelerating. But maybe if you could sort of delineate a little bit the different product drivers within there, and then maybe some of the different geographic drivers? And then maybe if I could sneak a follow-up into the response there, how long do you think Larry it takes to dislodge the sort of capacity constrain or sort of that digestion of multiple therapies going to the systems?

This is Daveen. I'll start off a little bit with TMTT. I mean, first, just at a higher level. We were actually super excited to see that in quarter two, our vision becoming more and more reality. We've made a strategic commitment that we need a portfolio of repair and replacement technologies for the many different mitral and tricuspid patients, and it was nice to see that step forward in Q2. Also, when you break it down on the level Q1 sales were led by PASCAL, right. PASCAL is a larger pool. It continues to grow in adoption. We believe in this differentiated premium technology, and it was our largest growth driver. We also did see the early commercial introduction in the US and Europe of EVOQUE, right, EVOQUE got approved in Europe late last year, in the US earlier this year, so we're beginning that important process of training centers getting up to speed, beginning to train our own internal people and start that kind of case cadence. So those were kind of the two. And in terms of size and scale, just because in Europe we've been in Europe since 2019 now that's a much larger base. Since when you have a larger base, you have kind of a stronger growth coming off that, but the US is growing up quickly now. And we're continuing to expand our technologies around the world beyond just the US and Europe.

Yes. And just to follow up, how long does it take to dislodge? It's hard for us to be exact, and I think we try to account for that in our guidance that it's not a light switch. But the best analogy I can say is when we brought TAVR into all these hospitals, we heard repeatedly that there was impact on coronary procedures and other things that were going on in the cath lab, and we were kind of taking up a little bit of that mind share, a little bit of that workflow space, but it wasn't sustainable. You can't just park your coronary patients forever. And you can't park AS patients forever. So I think once centers have certainty of the added workload and certainty of the volume, I think they add the resource, and they do the things necessary, but nobody's going to go hire a bunch of people in advance as the new therapy show up. They always are kind of recovering as the workload gets high, and I think to agree that's just how hospital systems operate.

Yes, we are confident by experience that the hospital and we do learn fast, adjust their workflow, their processes. And this is why we are seeing it is temporary, obviously, patients when they stay home, they have a terrible quality of life, and many of them are dying, so I don't believe it is sustainable. And everybody is committed. The hospital are committed. We are committed. So when you have a full commitment behind it, we know it is going to be resolved.

Got it. Thank you for taking the questions.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Josh Jennings from TD Cowen. Your line is now live.

Joshua Jennings

Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Wanted to just start off with the TAVR outlook and kind of longer-term you guys have put a $10 billion kind of TAM forecast by 2028 in the past. Should we eventually still be thinking about that TAM opportunity being in place, but maybe pushed out a little bit or maybe the aortic regurgitation indication gets you there by 2028, but you may not be reiterating today, but it sounds like you're confident in the TAVR market in that $10 billion TAM, but not sure if you're reiterating it now.

Yes, I think you said it in your question. We are confident we are not updating the guidance for next year or for 2028 here on the market, but we are confident. We will do so in December at the investor conference in New York. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Travis Steed from Bank of America. Your line is now live.

Travis Steed

Hey, thanks for taking the questions. I wanted to go back and circle back on Robbie's question on TAVR. It feels like there's a little bit more of a change here. Just three months ago, you thought TAVR was going to accelerate over the course of the year. I thought the 8% to 10% at the beginning of the year was supposed to be a conservative guide. So just want to understand like, I hear what you're saying on TMTT, but that's a small number of faction versus the overall TAVR centers, so I don't know if there's anything else that you'd kind of call out or kind of what surprised you on the TAVR line. I know there was some of the European stuff and competition there that you called out last quarter, just understanding kind of the full change and why you got the initial TAVR guide wrong at the start of this year.

Yes. Thanks, Travis. Yes. When we exited Q1, we thought we were on a good ramp, and we thought we were on a good pace, and that's why reiterated guidance and we felt good about it and we just didn't see that play out in Q2 the way that we anticipated and by no means do I mean to say this is all Daveen's fault and it's all EVOQUE because that's not accurate or fair when you look at the number of procedures. I think it's the cumulative impact of all the things that have hit the structural heart teams over the last year, and it's one of those things you can always increase a little capacity, work a little harder, increase a little capacity, work a little bit harder, but then at some point, you reach a breakpoint when it's simply too much. And the heaviest lift for centers is starting a program and it's not just the procedure volume. It's all that screening and all of the case reviews and all the interaction that just consumes a lot of resources and a lot of time and the training, they have to go to training and observe cases, in many cases, and all of those sorts of things.

And so, I think it's just the cumulative impact of those things that happen over time. And we did see the slowdown more acutely in large centers and small centers, which fits a little bit of the model as well in terms of the centers that are most likely to be looking to start these new programs and are competitive about that. And again, I said it earlier, but we did see a spike in emerging cases over routine cases, and I think that fits what we're saying as well. But that's not going to be sustainable for people. Emerging cases have more complications. They don't have as good a patient outcomes and people will have longer length of stay and that's going to adversely impact patients and the hospitals themselves. So I think people will have to adjust it over time. And we're going to have to work closely with them to help them do that.

All right. That's helpful. Any color on Q3 TAVR and kind of where that's settling out versus the full year guide. I think you guys had extra selling days in Q3. And then on the dilution from the acquisitions, I know there's like a range of outcomes like that's going to be, but we all have a pretty good sense of Critical Care and the dilution there, but just to give a sense of kind of range of outcomes on some of the dilutions that you've got, like I was thinking. $0.10 is kind of ballpark, but I don't know if you'd react to that at all.

Yes. Thanks for the question, Travis. In Q3, you're right, we do have a little help from extra selling days in the third quarter. And that's factored into our guidance. It's in the guide that we provided. In terms of dilution from acquisitions, again, we've got to first close the acquisitions, then work on integrating them. Obviously, we spent a lot of time with the plan, but it takes some time, actually, before we actually get businesses inhouse and start recording what kind of financial implications there are before we can report out on those. We'll know a lot more by the end of next quarter when we've actually gotten further down the path, and we'll talk about it then. And of course, we'll give full guidance for EPS in 2025 at our investor conference.

Great. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Matt Taylor from Jefferies. Your line is now live.

Matthew Taylor

Hi. Thanks for taking the question. I guess I wanted to follow up on some of your US TAVR commentary and the workflow angle, because I'd like to understand better why you think it's showing up so acutely now, I guess, given you're still in a limited rollout of EVOQUE. Is this an issue that's been matriculating for a while and we're just seeing it more now? And could you help us understand your history there, you talked about the impact on coronaries. How long do you think it'll take for the hospital to adjust. Is this a one quarter or three-quarter issue or it'd take years. What kind of time frame would you put on them adjusting to accommodate the additional workflows?

Yes. Thanks, Matt. The thing that I would say is, I guess if I were to draw an analogy, if you had a factory and you saw demand for your product going up, you can always add a little more hours and you always have a little bit of excess capacity. And you can adjust to those things. I think there is just a point in time where you hit a wall, and it's harder to do those things, and I think that's a little bit of what we saw here. It's the cumulative effect of all of these things that have played out over time. If you look at total cath lab procedures for the structural heart team in the last three years is probably close to double during that period of time, which is a lot of growth that these teams are having to absorb and they're having to adapt to, and I think it will take time. And again, when you're starting these new programs, these new therapies, that's the heaviest lift part of it. And again, I think this gets corrected over time, and we'll work closely with the hospitals to do that. But we reflected that in our guidance and just wanted to be realistic and not be tone deaf to what's happened, but on the same thing I'll tell you is none of us are happy with the growth rate. None of us are happy adjusting guidance and we're going to be working as hard as we can to do everything we can to restore the growth to where we think it should be.

And we are not happy as a company, the patients are not happy, the physician are not happy, the hospital are not happy. So we are fully aligned about it is a problem we need to solve it. So it is why also we are confident here.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Vijay Kumar from Evercore ISI. Your line is now live.

Vijay Kumar

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I guess one on, just based on what competition is saying, I know there's been noise on small and light trial. How do you respond to -- this is not competitive dynamics what we're seeing in the US market?

Sure. Yeah. We presented our data at New York Valves, and I don't think we've seen the impact of that in any meaningful way. I know some of the smaller competitors have reported, but you have to take their growth rates in consideration of the base they're growing off of versus the base that we're growing off of globally.

Understood. And maybe Scott, one for you on the guidance here, EPS, your prior guidance $2.70 to $2.80 inclusive of Critical Care, right, is that still intact or what's the new range? I just want to get an apples-to-apples sort of EPS baseline.

It's a fair question. We are not providing a new update. And the reason is because we know Critical Care is going to close sometime late in the third quarter. But as a result, fourth quarter will not include Critical Care. And so, we obviously, looked at a whole bunch of different pro forma scenarios, but it didn't make sense to try to provide some kind of a bridge to the original $2.70 to $2.80 guidance. So, sorry, but we've not given an updated number for the full company just because it's not -- it wouldn't be comparable with Critical Care coming out at the end of the third quarter.

Or is there a comparable like, without Critical Care for the full year, what the underlying number is.

Well, the underlying number is actually pretty similar in terms of growth rate with and without Critical Care. And our guidance for the full company is 8% to 10% underlying growth. That's similar, whether it includes Critical Care for the full year or excludes Critical Care for the full year, but we have not translated that down to EPS, with or without.

Understood. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Patrick Wood from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now live.

Patrick Wood

Fabulous. Thank you so much. Just two quick ones. I guess, on the EVOQUE side and the initial rollout on the clinical feedback and success that you guys have had. How's that been going? There's been a little bit of volatility in the more database. So I'm just curious how the clinician feedback has been.

Hey, thanks so much, Patrick. This is Daveen. Overall, if you pull back, we've actually been very pleased with the initial rollout of EVOQUE in both the US and Europe. We continue to see really strong physician demand and it really, for us, reinforces the unmet need of these patient group who are looking for better solutions. As I mentioned earlier, we're seeing those predictable outcome times. We're seeing it similar to the clinical trials. And just to look at, we're seeing very similar clinical results to what we saw in the clinical trials, specifically from TRISCEND II, So we've been seeing very similar rates there of kind of clinical outcomes. We've seen so far on the journey, especially in Europe now, where PASCAL is actually approved for EVOQUE. We see that it reinforces the need for both the repair and the replacement technology to really treat the maximum number of EVOQUE patients. So overall, we continue to be very excited and happy with where the EVOQUE launch is going.

Very helpful. And then maybe just quickly on Endotronix. I was with Harry and Ariel at THT, and like the conical data on their side looks very interesting. How do you see this fitting into the business overall, because my understanding was that probably this would be initially used for fine-tuning medication management, right? Is this more about building the rolodex patients, so that you know them a little bit better further downstream when it comes to a trans catheter approach. How do you see it strategically fitting in? Thanks.

Thanks for the question. So let me start big picture with first the patients. We decided to get into this field because we see very largely the patient population needs. Heart failure is one-off, if not the largest driver of healthcare spending in the US. We have known the company for a long time. We were an investor in the company. We believe that they have very unique technology, differentiated technology. As a matter of fact, they received a broad label from FDA last month. There is an NCD ongoing right now, so we see that as a big opportunity, a natural progression for us. If you're asking about -- a very clear strategy about what we are going to do, where we are going to start all of this. It is a little bit early. Again, we expect the closing of the transaction in the third quarter, correct, Scott here. And in December, we will have a full deep dive on the strategy for Endotronix. We believe that many of these patients, are failure patient are patient we are serving and treating today with our valve technologies. So it is in our space. So we are super-excited about it. We see this one as a great opportunity, a great long-term opportunity to expand our reach as a company.

Thank you. We reached end of our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over to Bernard for any further closing comments.

Thank you, everyone, for your continued interest in Edwards. Scott, Mark, and I welcome any additional question by telephone. Thank you so much. Have a great rest of your day.

Thank you. This does conclude today' teleconference and webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.

• Read more current EW analysis and news
• View all earnings call transcripts

Recommended For You

About ew stock.

Trending Analysis

Trending news.