The Critical Thinking Paradox

by Santiago Gisler

There lies a crucial paradox in critical thinking development: as we focus on mastering our critical thinking skills, we also learn to automate them—sometimes to their detriment.

It's fair to say that most people seeking to master a skill visualize their future self effortlessly performing said skill.

Whether we learn programming, sports, or, as my clients, scientific communication, we love the feeling of the so-called flow state or "being in the zone," where we dedicate all our attention to a task unaffected by distractions. For example, when I'm in a flow state, I imagine myself as an unstoppable tank rolling through ditches and barricades. But that's me.

Still, while we strive to automate our work, making it more streamlined, one skill suffers from automation: critical thinking. As we increasingly master critical thinking as a skill, it becomes more automated and less critical. I call it the critical thinking skill paradox.

The Critical Thinking Skill Paradox

People without enough university-derived practice in critical thinking may want to enhance their critical thinking skills independently. For instance, they might consider practicing the art of evaluating the credibility of sources or recognizing logical patterns in arguments.

The results can be remarkable! I've met many well-trained students who are excellent at immediately pinpointing fallacies and biases in arguments.

As avid learners, we may reach a point in our practice when these skills become second nature or automated. Trained responses take precedence over thoughtful analysis, potentially undermining true critical thinking. While it may feel good as we navigate through new information and arguments, automation contradicts an essential aspect of critical thinking: reflective judgment.

We use reflective judgment when thoughtfully considering different perspectives, evidence, and uncertainties, including our thinking. It's like "taking a step back." It's a slow approach to thinking.

Fast or Slow Thinking?

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, psychologist Daniel Kahneman describes our thinking as two separate systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 thinking is effortless and automated, allowing us to make decisions quickly. By contrast, System 2 is slower, more deliberate, and more conscious thinking.

When we first learn a skill, we engage with it through System 2, where skill practice requires reflection and purposeful thinking. As we become more skilled, our brain increasingly relies on our faster, automated System 1. This transition also applies to our critical thinking skills—hence the paradox.

We need System 1 thinking. It can offer us mental shortcuts, also known as heuristics, that spare us from reinventing the wheel whenever we tackle tasks and problems. Approaching tasks this way saves us time and energy by relying on existing synaptic pathways rather than creating new, energy-consuming ones.

For example, when we see a dark cloud, we might automatically grab an umbrella without analyzing the weather forecast. That's System 1 in action.

However, energy-saving comes at a price. Eventually, we might continue relying on the same tried and tested approach or mindset at the expense of more efficient solutions. This mental blind spot, the Einstellung effect, describes how automated thinking can obstruct new and sometimes better solutions to problems.

The truth-seeking nature of critical thinking requires assessing the information we have and reflecting on how we approach the problem. To think critically, we need the patience and reflective judgment associated with System 2 thinking, taking time to reflect on decisions and the possible outcomes. This form of reflective judgment also includes metacognition, which refers to our thinking about thinking, a vital reflection mechanism for critical thinkers.

How to Avoid the Critical Thinking Skill Paradox

Since skill training, such as spotting fallacies or learning logic, can eventually become overly automated System 1 thinking, it might seem like I discourage learning critical thinking skills. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Critical thinking skills are vital for approaching problems, evaluating information, and discerning truth from manipulation. They can save us when confronted with charlatans, manipulative arguments, and misleading information and help us quickly recognize red flags or logical inconsistencies even before engaging in deeper analysis.

So, seeing that we can and should learn critical thinking, how do we avoid the Catch-22-like conundrum where skill training both helps and invalidates our critical thinking?

Train Inclination to Critical Thinking

In his essay, The Burden of Skepticism, Carl Sagan asks, "How will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don't have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy?"

We need skills or tools to analyze and question our surroundings to approach the truth. However, the problem with skills is that they eventually become automated and less critical.

Besides the skill, we need one more puzzle piece for proper and sustainable critical thinking: disposition. A disposition refers to a person's mindset or inclination to behave in a certain way or respond to certain situations.

In critical thinking, we want a mindset that confronts assumptions with curiosity, seeks clarity, and remains open to new evidence, even when it challenges our views. This mindset keeps our thinking active and adaptable and counteracts the tendency for critical thinking skills to become automated and unreflective.

Although we need both components for optimal critical thinking, educators and coaches often emphasize one over the other.

Since skill work often offers the fastest and clearest results, teachers tend to focus on skills like identifying fallacies, recognizing symbolism, and applying logic rather than developing a disposition for critical thinking. Skills are more straightforward to frame and structure than training someone's dispositions, and the effects of disposition training remain elusive, especially in outcome-oriented or test-based classrooms.

We can improve reflective judgment by incentivizing people to better value critical thinking. Classroom-bound tactics that incentivize critical thinking disposition vary, including reflective journaling or problem-based learning. Although the methods can ignite the learner's inclination towards critical thinking, they are often restricted to specific course modules or classes.

We should constantly trigger our critical thinking disposition and remind ourselves to slow down and think. It's a full-time commitment. Let's highlight two real-life conditions that can improve critical thinking disposition.

Open Discussions and Participation

As a scientific communicator and coach, I often observe tendencies to control or limit scientific discourse. One prominent example is the opaque nature of many academic journals, where paywalls restrict access to knowledge, confining idea-sharing to a select few. Social media algorithms further shape the conversation by moderating content visibility, and an increasing number of academics advocate censoring dissenting peers.

Besides obstructing legitimate social fears, transparency, and public trust, gatekeeping can affect our critical thinking disposition. Censorship limits our access to diverse information and perspectives and can harm our ability or inclination to reflect, challenge, or accept opposing views. Stigmatizing "unwanted" perspectives can also discourage us from thinking outside the norm and formulating norm-breaking thoughts, so-called self-censorship.

One of the best ways to confront these issues is by inviting the public into the discussion and decision-making on topics that matter. Engaging the public to express thoughts, incentivizing research on essential issues, and welcoming diverse opinions will attract people to reflect and think critically. On the one hand, we get to train our minds to process or challenge opposing views; on the other, we feel less restricted to thinking outside the box.

This inclusive mindset doesn't suggest that the public's claims and scientific consensus carry equal weight in scientific discussions. However, it's worth noting that the scientific authority is limited to its realm of expertise.

Conclusion

It's challenging and stressful to consume content we disagree with. We feel much safer in environments or bubbles that share our opinions. However, opposing perspectives can teach us much more about our knowledge and thinking than we often acknowledge. That's why we need to train and maintain our critical thinking disposition; it forces us to analyze our world from different premises.

As a researcher, I was surrounded by intelligent people with scientific mindsets—critical thinkers. However, an even greater test of my understanding came when I discussed with people from the public who held different perspectives on science. They forced me to slow down, analyze their points of view, assess my current knowledge, and respond respectfully and purposefully. Their questions and perspectives kept me curious and encouraged me to keep my disposition open to learning more.

I invite you to do the same: respectfully and purposefully engage with opposing views and honestly analyze the quality of their arguments and your own. Slow your thinking and remember that it's okay to have patience or not know. As Sagan says, "Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."

We want to continuously balance skill practice and disposition development to avoid the critical thinking skill paradox or the Einstellung effect. Although more challenging to instruct and slower to implement, a maintained disposition will ultimately prove indispensable to critical thinking in the long term.
Whether we teach students, clients, or our children, an excellent approach to trigger their inclination to think critically is to challenge their assumptions and take their ideas seriously—even when they're wrong. Then repeat.

About the Author

Santiago Gisler is a scientific communicator, coach, and former cancer researcher who runs IvoryEmbassy.com and the YouTube channel @IvoryEmbassy. He focuses on improving scientific communication—from foundational skills to advanced techniques—to make science more transparent, inclusive, and honest. Through coaching, workshops, and content creation, he helps individuals and organizations communicate science more effectively, emphasizing critical thinking and scientific integrity.