Thinking Critically – Through the Election and Throughout Every Day

As the election approaches, we’ll be inundated with ads and messages about a wide array of important topics. Effective democracy requires engagement by all of us. But we’re all busy enough with our day jobs. We have lots of demands on our time and our thinking. Very few of us have the time or inclination to suddenly become experts on immigration, health care, global conflicts, or the economy. How can we sift through the enormous volume of data that will come our way to assess the validity of arguments and make important decisions? In essence, how can we become better critical thinkers? And how can we apply that same reasoned judgement to all of the more immediate questions and issues we tackle at work every day?

The mainstay of effective critical thinking is a willingness to suspend making assumptions. That doesn’t mean we need to abandon our core beliefs and be open to anything. It means we need to listen better and pause in our decisions just long enough to evaluate the information in front of us more objectively.

To think critically, not just about national or global issues, but on a daily basis about the professional and personal issues we face, requires stepping outside ourselves and our biases and asking ourselves tough questions. In short, it requires considering three elements: the source of the information, the information itself, and our own biases about both that source and that content.

Consider the Source

Jim Ludes leads The Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, a think tank based at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island. His career has included working on Capitol Hill and at the Defense Department. “The bottom line to critical thinking is to be skeptical,” he says. That skepticism starts with considering the source of the information being presented. Ludes encourages his students to always ask:

1. Who is the author?
2. Can I reasonably expect them to know what they claim?
3. What affiliations do they have?
4. Does that indicate any kind of bias or expertise?”
5. Who, if anyone, do they quote?

It seems like a lot of work to consider all of these questions when listening to a news report. But many of those questions we can already answer just by our choice of news channel we’re listening to. That’s why listening to a variety of voices becomes important.

We can apply that same discernment process to our conversations at work. Let’s say someone who reports to you raises an issue about an initiative at your organization. Ask yourself:

1. How close is this person to the challenge they are sharing?
2. Are their comments coming from first-hand knowledge or hearsay?
3. Who are they connected to and likely listening to?
4. What self-interest may be motivating their argument?

Pausing to ask ourselves those questions helps us evaluate the ideas or comments we’re hearing. We can even ask the person we’re listening to some of those questions directly. Some of these steps you may take automatically, as when we immediately discount opinions coming from someone we don’t trust. But even a slight pause in all settings might help us become more thoughtful and critical in our assessments.

Considering the source of information not only helps us assess the truthfulness of the content but reminds us to be more humble in our critique of someone else’s opinion. According to Joseph Landau, the Dean of Fordham University School of Law, empathy plays a huge part in being an effective critical thinker. “Understanding where others are coming from, and acknowledging their problems, are crucial steps to forming our own opinions about an issue, especially if we are trying to be part of the solution to those problems,” Landau says. “This means considering not just the context of words, but the broader context so that we can engage in a dialogue that is both insightful and respectful.”

Landau places a premium on the “respectful” aspect of communication. Helping law students understand the importance of “civil discourse,” with an emphasis on civil, is a top priority for him.

Consider the Information

Once we determine we trust the source of information, we then have to look carefully at the information itself. First, ask yourself, “Does it make sense on its face?” Let’s turn an old adage on its head. “If it doesn’t look like a duck, quack like a duck, or walk like a duck, it’s probably not a duck.”

Ludes challenges his students to ask, “Does the content you’re reading seem consistent with other versions of the story available? If not, proceed with caution.”

That doesn’t mean new ideas or contrarian positions are wrong or dangerous. In fact, it’s the novel thinkers on topics that often move an issue forward. It just means you have to have your antennae up and approach the new argument with greater skepticism.

Obviously, we won’t know how an idea or set of facts differs from others if we only pay attention to one news source. Therefore, it’s important to expose ourselves to a number of views in order to enhance our critical thinking. Landau believes that “[e]mbracing that unknown and being open to unexpected opportunities are essential components of a critical mindset.” Those unexpected opportunities might include the chance to learn from sources we’re normally skeptical about.

As we approach the election, that means exposing ourselves to the platforms of both parties, truly trying to understand not just the statements on different issues, but how those positions sound to us from a common-sense perspective.

As we approach our next conversation at work, that means reigning in any knee-jerk reactions to someone’s offhand comment or a new idea presented at a meeting. If our immediate instinct is to either jump on board or nix the idea, hold off, take a breath, and tell yourself, “Let me reflect on this for a moment.” Then, make a list of the pros and cons of the idea.

“We need to ask ourselves if we have fully considered all aspects of an issue, including potential counterexamples and counterarguments. By challenging our assumptions and testing our hypotheses, we cultivate a mindset of discernment that is both rigorous and open-minded,” Landau says.

This requires a certain level of intentionality in our thought process. It’s the opposite of making snap decisions, which is instinctual for many of us. Mike Elias is the Director of Administration, Strategic Planning, & Communications for The College of Arts & Sciences at The University of Pennsylvania. He says, “Critical thinking – especially in a leadership role – involves an intentional process of examining the ways in which projects and initiatives align with institutional goals, meet the evolving needs of different audiences, and contribute to organizational efficiency and synergy.” That’s a lot of thinking, but when you’re in leadership, your decisions matter. There is no substitute for putting in the time to evaluate an issue thoroughly.

Consider Our Own Biases

Three biases get in our way of critical thinking.

The first is our bias for making quick decisions. That bias comes from an over-confidence in our own opinions. Elias suggests we need to get comfortable asking ourselves “Why” more often.  “We need to challenge our preconceived notions of our professional setting, and – perhaps most importantly – be open to change,” he says.

The second bias regards the source of the information we’re hearing. Certain people in our network have what’s known as the “Halo Effect.” We assign greater credibility to their opinions than those of other people. Other people are on our internal “Do Not Trust” list. We automatically roll our eyes the minute they offer an opinion. While both categories of people may have earned their designation, it’s important for your ability to evaluate issues to suspend that judgement while you are listening to that person. Ask yourself if you would have the same reaction to that idea if it were coming from someone you held in higher – or lower – esteem.

We’re also well served if we try to control our facial expressions and body language. The minute we scowl at someone else’s idea or offer enthusiastic approval, we make it harder on ourselves to change course after doing our analysis. That stubbornness does not serve us well.

Finally, we have a bias toward the information itself. When we feel we “know” something, we’ve chosen to “believe” that fact or assessment. “Believing” in something requires a certain level of intellectual commitment. Being open to shifting our attitude toward an idea or a fact, allows us to assess that fact or circumstance from a more reasoned and discerned position. Being open to hearing opposing views doesn’t always mean we’ll change our mind. Sometimes, that openness helps us learn why we believe what we do and allows us to become even more convinced in our position. If that comes from a place of thoughtfulness, that’s a good thing.

In sum, becoming a more critical thinker requires an investment of time, energy, and humility. There are no shortcuts. We have to be more skeptical of our sources of information and the information itself, and our own biases toward both.

Originally published on Forbes.com.