The most uncomfortable part is challenging what we know or what we think we know. It's not a particularly exciting feeling and so requires a level of discipline plus humility plus courage. The discipline to keep on when the uncomfortable feeling creeps in, the humility to acknowledge that what we may have known for a long time, the assumptions, the information, the "knowledge" we have carried with us for some time, we may not have known it as much as we thought we did and the courage to accept it well.
This is such an important point. Real critical thinking is uncomfortable because it forces us to question not only the world, but ourselves. And as you said, that takes discipline, humility, and courage all at once. Most people want certainty. Very few are willing to sit with the discomfort of realizing they may have been wrong for years. That’s what makes genuine self-reflection so rare.
Unspoken heart.. due to lack of critical thinking minds , I had to recently had additional suffering in my life.. my thoughts are With those who can really hold the ability to discern 👏☺️good reading 📖
I’m sorry you had to experience that. Thoughtful people often end up carrying extra pain in a world that reacts faster than it reflects. And I really appreciated your phrase “the ability to discern.” Thank you for reading so thoughtfully.
You are pointing to a cognitive mechanism that suspends judgment when confronted with novel, unsubstantiated claims presented as “information.” In practice, we assign varying degrees of credibility to what we encounter, treating all claims as provisional because what is asserted may not be the case, and errors in judgment can carry real costs. Scepticism is therefore a natural response, shared across species, and becomes especially pronounced in environments where deception is common. In conditions of economic and political crisis, rather than a simple lack of critical thinking, it may be more accurate to speak of an inability to organise resistance, shaped by systemic efforts at narrative control and the management of social behaviour.
However, we are not “drowning in information,” but in data that is merely asserted to be relevant - what has been described as “data trash” (Kroker and Weinstein, 1994). Information is not inherent in data; it emerges through interpretation, when patterns or novelty are recognised. A major obstacle to critical thinking lies in the prevailing ideology of information, which equates understanding with passive retrieval rather than active internalisation, and frames knowledge as something extracted rather than constructed. This outlook is relatively recent and reflects a convergence of “data-class” Platonism and contemporary neoliberal strategies of power, which seek to capitalise on relativist traditions while simultaneously asserting epistemic authority through supposedly objective, omnipresent “cloud-based” information.
From this perspective, the term “information overload” is misleading. It reinforces the notion that understanding is overwhelmed by quantity alone, thereby obscuring the role of human agency in making sense of data.
Similarly, the frequent emphasis on confirmation bias in alternative media can function as an ideological tool used to discredit dissenting perspectives. In times of political crisis or declining institutional legitimacy, knowledge itself may be dismissed as misinformation, dogma, or conspiracy.
Indeed, in a society shaped by spectacle, where knowledge is habitually conflated with ideology, it becomes essential for individuals to cultivate their own critical capacities and strategies of resistance. At the same time, the invoked “crisis of critical thinking” should be understood as rooted in systemic political practices that actively undermine the conditions for knowledge.
I need to be challenged every single day. That's why I don't feel comfortable in an echo chamber where people keep repeating the same ideas. I would rather go somewhere that challenges my thinking.
Laziness is one of the main reasons people outsource their thinking to others and stop asking questions. I behave like a two-year-old, always asking "why?"
And yes, as Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing." I will never assume that I know.
I have long held the opinion that the rise of AI and reliance on search engines is resulting in the dumbing down of generations (including boomers such as myself) and increasing vulnerability to cultic control.
I try to find higher quality (There is an objective criteria.) information that I tend to disagree with. Reading something one disagrees with is rare. The goal in debate is to know your opponent’s arguments better than they do.
The unfortunate reality is that one side of the political spectrum in particular is typically incredulous because they have not made themselves aware of legitimate counter arguments to what they believe.
Some information is ubiquitous — other knowledge must be pursued with intent. Thus the problem with one side knowing more about the other is systemic. (There’s a reason it’s called mainstream media.)
I’m happy to show my cards and defend the assertion. “A particular politician is wrong.” will hit you in the face — information that proved they are correct takes effort. Wall Street Journal? The Economist? Realclearpoltics? Bjorn Lomborg? Thomas Sowell? Victor Davis Hansen? There is a long list of sources of counter information that is not part of mainstream information bubbles.
Non of this means one has to agree with Lomborg’s assertions about climate change. But I know the mainstream arguments — it would be a great pleasure to find a debate opponent who know’s the “Other Side’s” arguments.
Yes — there are studies that demonstrate one side of the political spectrum knows more about the other’s perspective. This imbalance is a major problem. Even Archie and Meathead knew each other’s arguments. They both knew the count of soldiers dying in Vietnam. They processed the same information differently.
Back when voters knew each other’s authentic beliefs, this would trickle up to legislators who would then design compromise legislation based on the “best of” both sides.
Now extremist on both sides typically block effective legislation. Effective policy at the federal level is achieved only through reconciliation. Only an advance in our collective ability in critical thinking — as described in this Substack post — could return us to more effective legislation.
Not thinking critically is often a form of intellectual laziness and comfort. Social media thrives on that laziness, rewarding quick reactions over deep reflection.
I would add one other point-- relativism has led us to a point where all conclusions and perspectives, sometimes quite specious or evidently wrong, are equally credited as 'truths' because we are unable to call them out as doing so would be demeaning.
The most uncomfortable part is challenging what we know or what we think we know. It's not a particularly exciting feeling and so requires a level of discipline plus humility plus courage. The discipline to keep on when the uncomfortable feeling creeps in, the humility to acknowledge that what we may have known for a long time, the assumptions, the information, the "knowledge" we have carried with us for some time, we may not have known it as much as we thought we did and the courage to accept it well.
This is such an important point. Real critical thinking is uncomfortable because it forces us to question not only the world, but ourselves. And as you said, that takes discipline, humility, and courage all at once. Most people want certainty. Very few are willing to sit with the discomfort of realizing they may have been wrong for years. That’s what makes genuine self-reflection so rare.
Unspoken heart.. due to lack of critical thinking minds , I had to recently had additional suffering in my life.. my thoughts are With those who can really hold the ability to discern 👏☺️good reading 📖
I’m sorry you had to experience that. Thoughtful people often end up carrying extra pain in a world that reacts faster than it reflects. And I really appreciated your phrase “the ability to discern.” Thank you for reading so thoughtfully.
The Enlightened Spectator exists to prevent critical thinking from dying!
Keep up the good work dear.
You are pointing to a cognitive mechanism that suspends judgment when confronted with novel, unsubstantiated claims presented as “information.” In practice, we assign varying degrees of credibility to what we encounter, treating all claims as provisional because what is asserted may not be the case, and errors in judgment can carry real costs. Scepticism is therefore a natural response, shared across species, and becomes especially pronounced in environments where deception is common. In conditions of economic and political crisis, rather than a simple lack of critical thinking, it may be more accurate to speak of an inability to organise resistance, shaped by systemic efforts at narrative control and the management of social behaviour.
However, we are not “drowning in information,” but in data that is merely asserted to be relevant - what has been described as “data trash” (Kroker and Weinstein, 1994). Information is not inherent in data; it emerges through interpretation, when patterns or novelty are recognised. A major obstacle to critical thinking lies in the prevailing ideology of information, which equates understanding with passive retrieval rather than active internalisation, and frames knowledge as something extracted rather than constructed. This outlook is relatively recent and reflects a convergence of “data-class” Platonism and contemporary neoliberal strategies of power, which seek to capitalise on relativist traditions while simultaneously asserting epistemic authority through supposedly objective, omnipresent “cloud-based” information.
From this perspective, the term “information overload” is misleading. It reinforces the notion that understanding is overwhelmed by quantity alone, thereby obscuring the role of human agency in making sense of data.
Similarly, the frequent emphasis on confirmation bias in alternative media can function as an ideological tool used to discredit dissenting perspectives. In times of political crisis or declining institutional legitimacy, knowledge itself may be dismissed as misinformation, dogma, or conspiracy.
Indeed, in a society shaped by spectacle, where knowledge is habitually conflated with ideology, it becomes essential for individuals to cultivate their own critical capacities and strategies of resistance. At the same time, the invoked “crisis of critical thinking” should be understood as rooted in systemic political practices that actively undermine the conditions for knowledge.
I need to be challenged every single day. That's why I don't feel comfortable in an echo chamber where people keep repeating the same ideas. I would rather go somewhere that challenges my thinking.
Laziness is one of the main reasons people outsource their thinking to others and stop asking questions. I behave like a two-year-old, always asking "why?"
And yes, as Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing." I will never assume that I know.
Wonderful advice. It is very useful to me. and silence is sometimes a Godsend.
I have long held the opinion that the rise of AI and reliance on search engines is resulting in the dumbing down of generations (including boomers such as myself) and increasing vulnerability to cultic control.
Strong agreement here.
I recently posted on how to train critical thinking as a leader.
Worth a read.
Excellent!
I try to find higher quality (There is an objective criteria.) information that I tend to disagree with. Reading something one disagrees with is rare. The goal in debate is to know your opponent’s arguments better than they do.
The unfortunate reality is that one side of the political spectrum in particular is typically incredulous because they have not made themselves aware of legitimate counter arguments to what they believe.
Some information is ubiquitous — other knowledge must be pursued with intent. Thus the problem with one side knowing more about the other is systemic. (There’s a reason it’s called mainstream media.)
I’m happy to show my cards and defend the assertion. “A particular politician is wrong.” will hit you in the face — information that proved they are correct takes effort. Wall Street Journal? The Economist? Realclearpoltics? Bjorn Lomborg? Thomas Sowell? Victor Davis Hansen? There is a long list of sources of counter information that is not part of mainstream information bubbles.
Non of this means one has to agree with Lomborg’s assertions about climate change. But I know the mainstream arguments — it would be a great pleasure to find a debate opponent who know’s the “Other Side’s” arguments.
Yes — there are studies that demonstrate one side of the political spectrum knows more about the other’s perspective. This imbalance is a major problem. Even Archie and Meathead knew each other’s arguments. They both knew the count of soldiers dying in Vietnam. They processed the same information differently.
Back when voters knew each other’s authentic beliefs, this would trickle up to legislators who would then design compromise legislation based on the “best of” both sides.
Now extremist on both sides typically block effective legislation. Effective policy at the federal level is achieved only through reconciliation. Only an advance in our collective ability in critical thinking — as described in this Substack post — could return us to more effective legislation.
Not thinking critically is often a form of intellectual laziness and comfort. Social media thrives on that laziness, rewarding quick reactions over deep reflection.
Your link to buy a coffee may not be working. I tried several times! Thank you for the article. I enjoyed the read!
I would add one other point-- relativism has led us to a point where all conclusions and perspectives, sometimes quite specious or evidently wrong, are equally credited as 'truths' because we are unable to call them out as doing so would be demeaning.