critical thinking in the news

• Commissioner’s Comments
• Educator Spotlight
• KDE Employee Spotlight
• Guest Columns
• Gifted and Talented
• School Counselors
• School Safety
• Career & Technical Education
• Global Competency/World Languages
• Health and Physical Education
• Library Media
• Mathematics
• Social Studies
• Visual & Performing Arts
• Announcements
• Conferences & Workshops
• Contests & Other Events
• Special Recognition

Back-to-school must-haves to support critical thinking from the News Literacy Project

The News Literacy Project has several resources to help teach students about media literacy. Submitted photo

As a new school year approaches, Kentucky educators are tasked with guiding students through a complex world. Our information landscape is marked by the continued rise of artificial intelligence and hypersaturated social media feeds.

In this environment, it is imperative to prioritize teaching news literacy skills, such as critical thinking, analyzing claims and verifying sources. Empowering students to sort fact from fiction is too important to “squeeze in” or relegate to extra credit. To help educators incorporate these vital skills into any social studies curriculum, the News Literacy Project offers a Back-to-School Guide with free resources to develop future-ready students.

The guide lays the groundwork with our Framework for Teaching News Literacy and other foundational maps to support educators with common standards, essential questions and objectives for all grade levels. Next, dive deeper into key news literacy topics, such as news media bias, misinformation and conspiratorial thinking. Each of the guide’s resource subsets can build on one another, or teachers can choose a sequence that works best for their classroom.

Every element of the guide emphasizes a foundational skill for news-literate students. For example, the “InfoZones” lesson on the Checkology virtual classroom teaches how to determine the credibility of a piece of information by identifying its primary purpose: news, opinion, entertainment, advertising, propaganda or raw information. The skill of zoning information helps students sift through the myriad websites and social media posts they might encounter online. They’ll be able to think critically about an author’s intent and learn to be suspicious of unverified information.

Discover more free resources in the News Literacy Project’s Back-to-School Guide below:

• Framework for Teaching News Literacy: Prepare to teach news literacy by exploring common standards, essential questions, and knowledge/skills objectives, along with suggested performance tasks and learning activities. The framework can be used for integrating news literacy into existing curriculum, or as the basis for creating stand-alone courses or units.
• Grade Band Expectations for News Literacy: Reference this guide of scaffolded skills, content knowledge and dispositions for schools and districts seeking to implement news literacy curriculums. It’s designed to foster cross-curricular connections and complement already established benchmark requirements.
• “News Matters” Unit Plan: Dive into news literacy with students in grades 3-6 using this dynamic three-week unit plan developed in partnership with TIME for Kids.
• Checkology: Create your free educator and student accounts (or revisit them if you already have them) and start exploring our award-winning e-learning platform for grades 5-12. Assign the “Checkology 101” course (choose from the middle school or high school versions) for a smooth start and begin with the “InfoZones” lesson to explore primary purpose and zoning information. Most lessons and activities require between 15 and 60 minutes.
• “6 things to know about AI”: Hang or distribute this infographic in your classroom to guide a discussion about AI with students.
• The Sift: Subscribe to our free weekly school-year newsletter covering teachable moments in the news and packed with classroom activities, resources and more.
• “Breaking news checklist”: This infographic gives tips on how to navigate fast-moving news stories and how to avoid rumors, falsehoods and bad actors.
• “In brief: News media bias”: Use this infographic with students to explore six tips for thinking about the complicated subject of bias in news.
• “ How to teach news literacy in polarizing times”: Filled with practical tips, this infographic offers guidance and support for educators who are teaching news literacy in today’s divisive world.

Preparing students for a media- and information-saturated world is vital. The Back-to-School Guide streamlines the process of building news literacy into your curriculum, lessons and activities. Throughout the year, free tools like Checkology and the News Literacy Project’s Resource Library of lesson plans, classroom activities and more will deepen students’ knowledge of how to think (not what to think) and prepare them to engage responsibly in civic life.

Ellie Barnes is a communications intern at the News Literacy Project and a graduate of American University. Through marketing, creative communications and freelance writing, she drives social impact initiatives and empowers communities with critical thinking tools to engage thoughtfully in today’s media-rich world.

Share This Story

Related posts.

‘The best professional experience of my career’: Evaluation findings from the Kentucky Reading Academies

District LETRS Spotlight: Anchorage Independent

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Education & Teaching

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking: Essential Steps for Developing Sound Reasoning and Arguments while Overcoming Hindrances to Rational Thinking Kindle Edition

• Print length 52 pages
• Language English
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publication date April 8, 2016
• File size 785 KB
• Page Flip Enabled
• Word Wise Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting Enabled
• See all details

Customers who bought this item also bought

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B01E1O1Q1C
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Greg R. Haskins; 2nd edition (April 8, 2016)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ April 8, 2016
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 785 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 52 pages
• #19 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
• #41 in Education Problem Solving
• #113 in 90-Minute Education & Reference Short Reads

About the author

Greg r. haskins.

Greg R. Haskins is an author of books on critical thinking and science, including A Practical Guide to Critical Thinking, which for many years was among the most widely read and downloaded reference sources on Skepdic.com. It became internationally adopted or referenced by educational institutions, medical institutions, militaries, government agencies, blogs, and newsletters as a handy guidebook on critical thinking.

Greg is a former multidisciplinary environmental scientist and project manager for Bechtel Corporation and a former project manager, technical writer and business process analyst for the County of Marin, California. While at Bechtel, he worked closely with environmental scientists and engineers representing multiple specialties on projects ranging from small hazardous waste cleanup jobs to large state-of-the-art industrial projects. The latter included nuclear power plants and nuclear waste repositories.

Greg has maintained a strong philosophical and psychological interest in how and why people believe things to be true, with a focus on science, religion and politics.

Products related to this item

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 46% 38% 8% 9% 0% 46%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 46% 38% 8% 9% 0% 38%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 46% 38% 8% 9% 0% 8%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 46% 38% 8% 9% 0% 9%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 46% 38% 8% 9% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

Report an issue

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

PALM DESERT CENTER

LEARN. EXPLORE. DISCOVER.

Building a Future on Truth: Science, Politics, and Critical Thinking

" The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it " — Neil deGrasse Tyson

By DR. CAMERON BARROWS

People who know me well know that as a strict practice, I stay away from politics. As central as politics are to a functioning democracy, the open willingness of (some, and perhaps many) politicians to stray from facts, proven truths, tells me that they are willing to operate within a very different moral code than I do.

Science is a search for truth about the world we live in. That certainly doesn’t mean that anything done under the umbrella of science is automatically true. Science is conducted by humans and humans have foibles, contradicting motivations, and biases whether they acknowledge them or not. So, scientists are not perfect, but science is the best way yet devised for understanding the world around us. The process of conducting science depends on random and robust (many) independent samples. Time and funding can limit just how random and how many samples are analyzed.

For instance, if I was interested in whether lizards are shifting to higher elevations in response to a warming climate, I could pick a trail and survey the distribution of lizards over a period sufficient to encompass warming conditions. But that would only tell me what was happening on that one trail and still might be limited by my ability to tally all the lizards living along that trail. It would not give me the ability to generalize how lizards are responding on other trails across a particular region in response to their changing environment. However, if I surveyed many trails with lots of observers the resulting data would provide a platform for generalizing across a region.  

Over time, things presented as scientific “hypotheses” are rigorously tested by independent scientists, verified or rejected, and so eventually deemed true or false. If proven broadly true, these hypotheses can become theories (e.g., the theory of gravity, of light behaving simultaneously as both a particle and a wave, of natural selection in the development of new species). That is the scientific method. Subjects particularly important to our health, or our planet’s health, get extra scrutiny.

Results of a recent Yahoo poll about politics and science was particularly dismaying as they pertain to both the state of American politics and the understanding of science by Americans. Granted this was a Yahoo poll, so participants were motivated Yahoo users wanting to engage in such a poll and its topics, not a random cross section of America. There was no effort to test the results with a different audience. The poll asked whether those taking the poll believed the statement regarding current science (was it true?) and then asked for their preference for the next U.S. President of the two leading candidates.  

Here are the results (the parenthetical percentages separate those believing it to be a true statement by their presidential preference):

1. COVID-19 vaccines are more harmful than the virus itself (55% vs. 8%) 

2. Climate change is being used for imposing totalitarian controls on society (68% vs. 7%) 

3. Prozac and other antidepressants have led to a rise in school shootings (35% vs. 12%) 

4. Vaccines cause autism (25% vs. 5%) 

5. Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender (8% vs. 4%).

All these topics have received intense scientific scrutiny, and none have more than fringe scientific support. The results do not speak well for the understanding of science by many of those who took the poll and the information they are being provided by their preferred presidential candidate. That there were no zeros indicating that, regardless of their political leanings, never did 100% of the people on one side or the other of the political aisle hold these statements to be untrue does not speak well for their ability to discern real versus fake information. Science provides a mechanism for determining what is true whether you want it to be or not.

Inserting science or science denial and eschewing its hypotheses and theories as a measure of allegiance to one candidate or another is particularly disconcerting. In another of Neil deGrasse Tyson ’s statements he said just that, that using one’s denial of science or a scientific finding as a litmus test of allegiance to a candidate, or citing minority-held, discredited scientific findings as a rationalization for stating that scientists are not in agreement, means “nothing moves forward.” Actions to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide toward early industrial revolution levels have become political cartoons. Rising sea levels are already lapping at the foundations of the world’s coastal cities and island nations. Desert species are trying to shift to higher elevations – if they are available. In some cases, like for Joshua trees and Blainville’s horned lizards in Joshua Tree National Park, they are already pressed against the local elevation “ceiling” and have nowhere else to go. Efforts to immunize us against the next pandemic will be slowed and people we care about, and people who may have unique insights for solving problems at global scales may succumb.

One long-term solution is to develop a critical thinking curriculum appropriate for each grade level, kindergarten through high school. An example is using multiple, independent sources of information, rather than relying on one source with a vested interest in your agreement with them. Then, eventually, perhaps our litmus test for earning our vote will be an honest, science-based assessment of the problems and solutions facing our cities, states, nation, and planet. Our vote then will be based on the candidate’s solutions, not a denial or obfuscation of the problem.

Until then, don’t talk to me about politics.

Nullius in verba – Go outside, tip your hat to a chuckwalla (and a cactus), and think like a mountain

Related Topics

• Application Security
• Cybersecurity Careers
• Cloud Security
• Cyberattacks & Data Breaches
• Cybersecurity Analytics
• Cybersecurity Operations
• Data Privacy
• Endpoint Security
• ICS/OT Security
• Identity & Access Mgmt Security
• Insider Threats
• Mobile Security
• Physical Security
• Remote Workforce
• Threat Intelligence
• Vulnerabilities & Threats
• Middle East & Africa
• Upcoming Events
• Newsletters
• Whitepapers
• Partner Perspectives:
• > Microsoft

Critical Thinking AI in Cybersecurity: A Stretch or a Possibility? Critical Thinking AI in Cybersecurity: A Stretch or a Possibility?

It might still sound far-fetched to say AI can develop critical thinking skills and help us make decisions in the cybersecurity industry. But we're not far off.

August 21, 2024

Will artificial intelligence ever think for us? In 2024, when AI is still in somewhat of an early stage, this might be a loaded question. In cybersecurity, the technology doesn't go beyond automating repetitive tasks, leaving security teams to do the decision-making bit. However, AI's impressive growth in the past two years inevitably makes us wonder if, soon enough, it will be used for critical thinking activities in the sector.

This question becomes even more pressing as hackers increasingly use AI to build better, more sophisticated attacks. And, as KPMG posits, the industry must  use AI to fight AI . If the industry wishes to be a step ahead of malicious actors, it must also elevate the technology to fight fire with fire. So, security teams must train their AI models to be smarter than their hacker counterparts, nearing critical thinking levels to outsmart attacks.

While AI's possibilities seem limitless and AI cyberattacks are a pressing matter, we can't get ahead of ourselves. There are many improvements yet to be made, and it's up to the cybersecurity industry to channel its development in the correct path. Where should the industry concentrate its efforts so AI can eventually aid in critical thinking tasks?

Let's explore the current state of AI technology in cybersecurity, the obstacles facing its development, and what leaders can do to get it closer to a critical thinking stage.

What's the Current State of AI In Cybersecurity?

In the larger scope, we are still attempting to build trustworthy AI that can generate accurate answers without hallucinations (which have proven to be extremely harmful to cybersecurity). In the cybersecurity industry, it's helping chief information security officers (CISOs) streamline workflows and forensics examine cyberattack incidents. It also provides valuable insights into new attack vectors.

Needless to say, when we talk about critical thinking technology, its purpose will be to aid humans in making decisions that require more than a yes or no answer and to go beyond the current logic we give it — analyzing angles, forecasting outcomes, and suggesting favorable choices.

For example, let's say a company receives a convincing phishing email that appears to be from their CEO requesting an urgent wire transfer of a large sum of money. Traditional AI would simply analyze keywords in the email and sender address. If they match the CEO's information, the transfer could be flagged as legitimate but not necessarily verified.

On the other hand, critical thinking AI would analyze the email content, verify the request, identify anomalies, and cross reference data. This could mean the AI directly contacts the CEO to confirm he made the request, alert security teams about suspicious activities, and check on the CEO's calendar to see if he was even available at the time the email was sent.

AI never makes any vital choices in this scenario because the complexities of our lives, work, and decisions involve numerous little factors that it may not fully comprehend, at least for now. However, it does assess more data points than traditional AI, and becomes more resourceful on its own accord. Ultimately, humans should monitor and confirm its decisions before anything else is done.

This constant vigilance is crucial, especially considering the ongoing arms race with cybercriminals:  93% of leaders already expect  daily AI-powered cyberattacks. While the technology is being used to strengthen and secure systems, malicious actors have also found ways to refine their attacks and outsmart cybersecurity protocols — meaning leaders must keep pushing the boundaries of AI to keep platforms safe.

What Are the Most Pressing Obstacles to Building Smarter AI?

It's clear there is a long road ahead to achieving an AI tool we can trust with decision-making in the cybersecurity world. We must start by addressing some major pain points in how we implement the technology right now, like lack of context, data sharing, and unforeseen incidents.

AI is built on large language models (LLM) that can process vast amounts of data, but we might fail to give it a crucial piece of information: context. AI systems often lack the detailed understanding of personal and organizational specifics needed to make accurate choices that reflect a company and its members, leading to potential misjudgments. By giving it company, industry, and more task-specific context, it can begin to arrive at more well-rounded conclusions.

Explaining the "why" will empower AI to discern the best choices in given situations.

Lastly, the technology requires an extreme level of accuracy in terms of its algorithms, data quality, and prompt specificity to achieve the desired outcome. This means training data and algorithms must be optimized continuously, and prompt engineering must be taught to all users.

What Steps Can Cybersecurity Leaders Take to Refine AI?

To fully harness AI's potential while maintaining security, there must be a way to safely provide AI with the necessary context and information. One approach is to create secure and controlled methods for feeding relevant data to AI systems, ensuring they understand the specific goals, context, and security priorities of an organization. For example, automating security scans across attack surfaces can align data with security objectives. Implementing explainable AI  and context and scenario-building training data can also help improve AI's critical thinking.

And, as with anything, AI needs limits if we want to get the most optimal results. These limitations will help reign in the tech, preventing it from going out of scope and performing actions that developers didn't anticipate. This is particularly important when considering AI agents capable of executing specific tasks within the context of LLMs. For example, imagine using AI to transfer money for a mortgage payment but instructing it with a twist: "Don't use my money, use John Doe's." It must be developed to avoid unintended manipulation.

It might still sound wild to say AI can develop critical thinking skills and help us make decisions in the cybersecurity industry. However, we're not too far off, and developing the technology through the right path can help businesses build a smarter and more intuitive tool — going above and beyond automation and monitoring.

About the Author

Nenad Zaric

CEO & Co-founder, Trickest

Nenad Zaric is an offensive security professional with more than 10 years of experience in penetration testing, bug bounty hunting, and security automation. He is the co-founder and CEO of Trickest, a company focused on automated offensive cybersecurity. Before founding Trickest, he found critical vulnerabilities in Fortune 500 companies such as Uber, Snapchat, Spotify, Twitter, and Airbnb.

You May Also Like

Developing a Cyber Risk Assessment for the C-Suite

Catch the Threat Before it Catches you: Proactive Ransomware Defense

How to Evaluate Hybrid-Cloud Network Policies and Enhance Security

DORA and PCI DSS 4.0: Scale Your Mainframe Security Strategy Among Evolving Regulations

Harnessing the Power of Automation to Boost Enterprise Cybersecurity

[Virtual Event] The Essential Guide to Cloud Management

Black Hat Europe - December 9-12 - Learn More

SecTor - Canada's IT Security Conference Oct 22-24 - Learn More

Editor's Choice

Threat Hunting's Evolution:From On-Premises to the Cloud

State of Enterprise Cloud Security

Managing Third-Party Risk Through Situational Awareness

2024 InformationWeek US IT Salary Report

Proven Success Factors for Endpoint Security

Evolve Your Ransomware Defense

The Future of Passwords and the Passwordless Evolution

OT Cybersecurity Glossary & Quick Start Guide

Tracking the Untrackable: Taking a Proactive Approach to Emerging Risks

Leveling Up Cyber-Threat Intelligence Maturity for More Value and Better Insights

China nurse saves life of 820-gram baby in ‘critical danger’ born in toilet during flight

Pregnant mother with 4-year-old goes into labour at 25 weeks, newborn cannot breathe inside fetal membrane

A nurse in China has won massive plaudits for her calm, swift actions as she saved the life of a premature baby during a flight.

The mother was only 25-week pregnant when she gave birth in the toilet of a Southern Airlines plane from Haikou, Hainan province in the south of the country to Beijing on August 3, reported state broadcaster CCTV.

The woman was travelling with her four-year-old daughter to meet her husband in Beijing.

Chen Shanshan, a nurse who works in the neonatal department at Hainan Provincial People’s Hospital, responded quickly after flight attendants asked around the aircraft for emergency medical aid for the newly-born baby.

Chen said she saw the mother, surnamed Zhang, holding a palm-sized infant in her hand, and the baby was still wrapped in the fetal membrane.

Assisted by two doctors from different departments of the same hospital, Chen, wearing gloves, tore off the fetal membrane so the baby could breathe.

They soon realised the newborn’s entire body looked far too pale, it was not crying or breathing and they could not feel a pulse. The baby did not respond to stimulation.

“This little weak life is in critical danger. Every single second is vital to her,” Chen said as she performed emergency CPR on the tiny girl.

She asked cabin crew for a warm water bag to keep the child’s temperature stable, which is especially vital for premature babies who are at the risk of hematosepsis and even death.

Chen and the two doctors let out a sigh of relief as the baby’s breath and heartbeat stabilised.

The pilot made an emergency landing in Changsha, central Hunan province, southern China for the safety of the infant and her mother.

Chen had kept up the chest compressions for 90 minutes until the baby was sent to a hospital in Changsha.

“It was only as I saw the baby taken into the rescue room that I realised my arms were numb,” she said.

Zhang’s husband hurried to Changsha hospital when he heard about the birth of his younger daughter.

He said the infant weighed a mere 820 grams, gaining 50 grams during her two-week stay in hospital.

“Thank you for being there at the critical moment. We will tell our kid and she will remember you forever,” the father said in a video clip sent to Chen.

He said he would thank the nurse in person after the baby was discharged from hospital.

Chen said that she was not thinking about much at the time, she was so focused on rescuing the baby. She said the cabin crew and the two doctors also deserve thanks.

The story has triggered an outpouring of compliments for Chen on mainland social media.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

AI assistant monitors teamwork to promote effective collaboration

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

On a research cruise around Hawaii in 2018, Yuening Zhang SM ’19, PhD ’24 saw how difficult it was to keep a tight ship. The careful coordination required to map underwater terrain could sometimes led to a stressful environment for team members, who might have different understandings of which tasks must be completed in spontaneously changing conditions. During these trips, Zhang considered how a robotic companion could have helped her and her crewmates achieve their goals more efficiently. Six years later, as a research assistant in the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), Zhang developed what could be considered a missing piece: an AI assistant that communicates with team members to align roles and accomplish a common goal. In a paper presented at the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) and published on IEEE Xplore on Aug. 8 , she and her colleagues present a system that can oversee a team of both human and AI agents, intervening when needed to potentially increase teamwork effectiveness in domains like search-and-rescue missions, medical procedures, and strategy video games. The CSAIL-led group has developed a theory of mind model for AI agents, which represents how humans think and understand each other’s possible plan of action when they cooperate in a task. By observing the actions of its fellow agents, this new team coordinator can infer their plans and their understanding of each other from a prior set of beliefs. When their plans are incompatible, the AI helper intervenes by aligning their beliefs about each other, instructing their actions, as well as asking questions when needed. For example, when a team of rescue workers is out in the field to triage victims, they must make decisions based on their beliefs about each other’s roles and progress. This type of epistemic planning could be improved by CSAIL’s software, which can send messages about what each agent intends to do or has done to ensure task completion and avoid duplicate efforts. In this instance, the AI helper may intervene to communicate that an agent has already proceeded to a certain room, or that none of the agents are covering a certain area with potential victims. “Our work takes into account the sentiment that ‘I believe that you believe what someone else believes,’” says Zhang, who is now a research scientist at Mobi Systems. “Imagine you’re working on a team and you ask yourself, ‘What exactly is that person doing? What am I going to do? Does he know what I am about to do?’ We model how different team members understand the overarching plan and communicate what they need to accomplish to help complete their team’s overall goal.” AI to the rescue Even with a sophisticated plan, both human and robotic agents will encounter confusion and even make mistakes if their roles are unclear. This plight looms especially large in search-and-rescue missions, where the objective may be to locate someone in danger despite limited time and a vast area to scan. Thankfully, communication technology augmented with the new robotic assistant could potentially notify the search parties about what each group is doing and where they’re looking. In turn, the agents could navigate their terrain more efficiently.

This type of task organization could aid in other high-stakes scenarios like surgeries. In these cases, the nurse first needs to bring the patient to the operation room, then the anesthesiologist puts the patient to sleep before the surgeons begin the operation. Throughout the operation, the team must continuously monitor the patient’s condition while dynamically responding to the actions of each colleague. To ensure that each activity within the procedure remains well-organized, the AI team coordinator could oversee and intervene if confusion about any of these tasks arises.

Effective teamwork is also integral to video games like “Valorant,” where players collaboratively coordinate who needs to attack and defend against another team online. In these scenarios, an AI assistant could pop up on the screen to alert individual users about where they’ve misinterpreted which tasks they need to complete.

Before she led the development of this model, Zhang designed EPike, a computational model that can act as a team member. In a 3D simulation program, this algorithm controlled a robotic agent that needed to match a container to the drink chosen by the human. As rational and sophisticated as they may be, cases arise where these AI-simulated bots are limited by their misconceptions about their human partners or the task. The new AI coordinator can correct the agents’ beliefs when needed to resolve potential problems, and it consistently intervened in this instance. The system sent messages to the robot about the human’s true intentions to ensure it matched the container correctly.

“In our work on human-robot collaboration, we’ve been both humbled and inspired over the years by how fluid human partners can be,” says Brian C. Williams, MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics, CSAIL member, and senior author on the study. “Just look at a young couple with kids, who work together to get their kids breakfast and off to school. If one parent sees their partner serving breakfast and still in their bathrobe, the parent knows to shower quickly and shuffle the kids off to school, without the need to say a word. Good partners are well in tune with the beliefs and goals of each other, and our work on epistemic planning strives to capture this style of reasoning.”

The researchers' method incorporates probabilistic reasoning with recursive mental modeling of the agents, allowing the AI assistant to make risk-bounded decisions. In addition, they focused on modeling agents’ understanding of plans and actions, which could complement previous work on modeling beliefs about the current world or environment. The AI assistant currently infers agents’ beliefs based on a given prior of possible beliefs, but the MIT group envisions applying machine learning techniques to generate new hypotheses on the fly. To apply this counterpart to real-life tasks, they also aim to consider richer plan representations in their work and reduce computation costs further.

Dynamic Object Language Labs President Paul Robertson, Johns Hopkins University Assistant Professor Tianmin Shu, and former CSAIL affiliate Sungkweon Hong PhD ’23 join Zhang and Williams on the paper. Their work was supported, in part, by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Artificial Social Intelligence for Successful Teams (ASIST) program.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Brian Williams
• Yuening Zhang
• Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
• Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Related Topics

• Artificial intelligence
• Aeronautical and astronautical engineering
• Computer science and technology
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)
• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

Related Articles

A faster, better way to prevent an AI chatbot from giving toxic responses

MIT engineers are on a failure-finding mission

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Students learn theater design through the power of play

Read full story →

A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations

Designing better delivery for medical therapies

Making a measurable economic impact

Faces of MIT: Jessica Tam

First AI + Education Summit is an international push for “AI fluency”

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

The News Literacy Project

Using the news to develop students’ critical thinking

Published on March 10, 2022 Updates

Pamela Brunskill

By Pamela Brunskill

Students today are immersed in a news and information landscape  that pervades every aspect of their lives. From TikTok to Instagram to Twitter, they are inundated with posts, and many of them are not credible or legitimately grounded. It is difficult to know what is true. Because this environment is complex and riddled with misinformation, it provides a prime opportunity to authentically develop students’ critical thinking abilities.

Critical thinking defined

One of the most highly sought goals of educators is to get students to think critically. In a rough sense, this involves the skills and dispositions necessary to make an informed judgment. According to a meta-analysis  on the subject, critical thinking is purposeful, methodical, and habitually inquisitive. Critical thinkers have the skills to interpret, analyze, and evaluate content; they are diligent and persistent in considering a question, and they approach life honestly and with an open mind.

While there is some debate whether the best approach to teaching critical thinking is through generic traits or through discipline-specific skills, a compromised approach allows students to develop both . If we follow the belief that students need context to accurately reason about a subject, then they must have some background knowledge in that subject. How else can they think critically about something? Further, how would that naive thinking compare to that of experts in the field? Regarding the news and information landscape, if students are going to think critically and be discerning with the content they share, then they must learn news literacy.

How to use news literacy to teach critical thinking

Step 1: develop disciplinary literacy in the news.

In an era of misinformation, students can evaluate information by learning how news is made. This includes explicit instruction in  concepts and content  such as identifying different types of information, recognizing the purpose or intent of pieces, understanding the watchdog role of the press, and recognizing quality arguments and evidence. It also includes explicit instruction of  skills  such as evaluating sources, identifying branded content, recognizing bias and motivated reasoning, and verifying evidence. Of course, students also need to demonstrate understanding of these concepts and practice these skills. In so doing, they gain disciplinary literacy, the notion of specialized reading practices for a field of study. Often, disciplinary literacy is framed as thinking like a mathematician, a historian , or a computer programmer . Regardless of the content area, students gain greater depth in their understanding of the underpinnings of that discipline. In this case, students learn to “think like a journalist.”

Example of developing disciplinary literacy: Jennifer Liang Twitter thread

Step 2: Teach topical content

Once students comprehend how news is made, they can deconstruct it and analyze its creation. But they also need the context surrounding the piece of news they’re reading and/or studying. To this end, teachers should provide explicit instruction in the topic at hand, whether it involves immigration, global warming, sports, health, statistics, or any other content area. This is where each discipline offers its own guidance, and as with all good teaching, this requires an effective approach to tackling reading comprehension . This might include studying vocabulary, writing about text through think sheets and short responses, and discussions, among other strategies. Then, students can explain a disciplinary concept such as immigration and explain why not all images of border walls  are accurately portrayed in memes.

Why news literacy?

Of course, integrated studies between all subjects are possible, but there is a special partnership between English and social studies in relation to news literacy. The stakes are high: think about the consequences of misinformation as well as the potential for civic action. A lack of news literacy threatens democracy and our public health — just look at the conspiratorial thinking that led to the Capitol riots and erroneous claims about COVID-19 . Conversely, when individuals have the competency to judge reliable and credible news, they can take civic action such as correcting a piece of misinformation, contacting elected officials, and participating responsibly in political discussions. Being accurately informed is crucial to participating in a democracy.

Example of disciplinary-specific content : Conspiratorial Thinking poster 

Critical thinking is critical in today’s world

Using the news in classrooms can authentically develop higher-level thinking skills and dispositions. Combining understanding of how journalism works along with topical content allows students to determine the credibility of information they encounter. This integration enables students to interpret, analyze, evaluate, explain, and make judgments — to think critically. By teaching news literacy, we can teach students the skills and habits of mind to not only navigate today’s information landscape, but also to navigate our society.

More Updates

Misinformation Dashboard: Election 2024 Updates: Getting to know the dashboard

This blog post, part of a new limited series from the News Literacy Project, provides updates and analysis from the Misinformation Dashboard: Election 2024.

Published on Aug 29, 2024 Updates

New election misinformation dashboard tracks the trends

NLP’s Misinformation Dashboard: Election 2024 collects viral falsehoods and puts them in context by analyzing common trends and topics.

Published on Aug 22, 2024 Updates

NLP commits to systemic change in education

In my life before NLP, I was a middle school teacher, and later, a school district superintendent. These experiences were ideal preparation for doing the important work of ensuring news literacy is a national education priority. In fact, there is a direct through line. Let me explain. When my eighth grade U.S. history students walked…

Published on Aug 16, 2024 Updates

Search Close

• Call for Volunteers!
• News & Announcements
• Newest Pages Added to CriticalThinking.Org

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

News & Announcements

Announcements.

Dr. Carmen Polka ' s Dissertation, Principals' Definition and Identification of Critical Thinking in Teacher Practices , Available through ProQuest

The dissertation of Dr. Carmen Polka, Foundation for Critical Thinking Scholar and principal of Colorado Spring's Centennial Elementary School, is available here . The work makes extensive use of the Paul-Elder Framework for Critical Thinking.

The Critical Thinking: Going Deeper Podcast Returns

After a brief hiatus, new episodes of Critical Thinking: Going Deeper are being published. Released today is episode 27, The Human Mind: Going Deeper - Thinking, Feeling, & Wanting .

The Foundation for Critical Thinking Is Seeking Volunteers!

We are seeking a programmer and a social media marketing expert for help with two ongoing projects:

1. Code management, repair, and feature development for our membership website, The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online . 2. Routinely sharing content and announcements with our social media followers in a professional manner.

See our full Call for Volunteers for details. Volunteers will receive free access to our learning opportunities and to the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online while working with us.

Online Certification Course Announced for Fall 2024 - June 3, 2024

Those looking to be certified in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking can complete their certification training in the Fall 2024 Online Certification Course . Course meetings begin August 28th.

Certification Program Revised - June 3, 2024

We have made significant new revisions to our program for Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking . These changes help clarify benefits and obligations, and they describe which forms of certification are most appropriate depending on the applicant's purposes. Please see our White Paper at the above link for full details.

Special Conference Rates for Community Online Subscribers - May 14, 2024

Members of the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online receive 20% off the cost of registration for the entirely online 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking .

If you are a member and would like this special rate, please email us today.

New Interview with Dr. Linda Elder - March 27, 2024

In this interview, Dr. Elder answers important questions about critical thinking, its history, its development in humans, and its applications in human life.

We thank Mr. Maciej Winiarek for his excellent questions! See the interview here .

Podcast Episodes Available on YouTube, Spotify, Etc. - March 27, 2024

Formerly available only to Community Online subscribers, earlier episodes of the Critical Thinking: Going Deeper podcast are now being released to the public.

• Listen on YouTube
• Listen on Spotify
• Listen on Apple
• Listen on Audible
• Listen on Amazon Music

Classic 1988 Richard Paul Audio Released - March 5, 2024

Richard Paul's classic keynote speech at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking, in which he discusses education and critical thinking, has been released on YouTube. Listen here .

Validity Established for the Analysis Portion of the International Critical Thinking Essay Test - February 27, 2024

Peer-reviewed research published in Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines has validated the Analysis portion of the International Critical Thinking Essay Test . The research was spearheaded by social researcher Dr. Helena Hollis of Connected by Data, with contributions from Dr. Marina Rachitskiy of the University of Roehampton, Dr. Leslie Van Der Leer of Utrecht University, and our own Dr. Linda Elder.

Read More: https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20241513

Registration Open for Fall 2024 Online Courses - February 6, 2024

Our online courses , CT700 and CT800, have been redesigned with new activities, new resources, and a new topic order. We are excited to deliver a more helpful, intuitive learning experience for our participants.

The Fall 2024 semester begins August 20th.

Registration Open for 44th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking - January 22, 2024

The world's oldest critical thinking conference is now taking registrants for 2024 with the lowest prices in well over a decade!

The conference will be entirely online from July 21 - 26. Register here .

Online Courses Redesigned for Spring 2024 - January 9, 2024

The Spring 2024 semester begins January 23rd, but we are accepting new registrants through February 4th!

Certification Program Revised - November 14, 2023

We have extensively revised our program for Certification in the Paul-Elder Approach to Critical Thinking to reduce fees, add pathways to completing certification, and clarify benefits and obligations. See our White Paper at the above link for full details!

New Podcast Series! - September 18, 2023 Critical Thinking: Revealed

In the new Critical Thinking Revealed podcast, we interview those who have shown exceptional reasoning in a given area and explicate the examples of critical thinking therein.

Episode 1 has been posted on YouTube:

"Dr. Alex Hall, UCLA Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, UCLA - On the Climate Crisis"

Guest Presentation Program Posted for The 43rd Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking - June 12, 2023

Again this year, Guest Presenters from around the world will share their critical thinking ideas, experiences, and research at the world's longest-running critical thinking conference!

The full Guest Presentation program is online now. Some Guest Presenters will also lead live Q&A sessions, which are listed on the conference Daily Schedule .

The Critical Thinking: Going Deeper Podcast Reaches Its 20th Episode - June 6, 2023

In Critical Thinking: Going Deeper , Drs. Linda Elder and Gerald Nosich go beyond the fundamentals to explore deeper layers of critical thinking theory and how these more complex ideas can be applied to learning, teaching, work, and life. Today, the series released its 20th episode.

The full archive of the podcast is available exclusively to members of The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online!

New Research from Taiwan Utilizes Paul & Elder's Universal Intellectual Standards - March 29, 2023

New research from National Cheng Kung University's College of Medicine, published in BMC Medical Education, utilizes nine of the universal intellectual standards in assessing the reasoning of healthcare students. Researchers Yueh-Ren Ho, Bao-Yu Chen, and Chien-Ming Li have authored this paper, titled, "Thinking More Wisely: Using the Socratic Method to Develop Critical Thinking Skills Amongst Healthcare Students." Read the paper here .

Many Classic Articles Restored on CriticalThinking.Org - March 21, 2023

A number of article previews in our C riticalThinking.Org Library have been reverted to full articles, including the first nine articles under the "Fundamentals of Critical Thinking" section and the first 2-3 articles in all of the remaining sections.

All articles under the "About Critical Thinking" section continue to be offered in full, along with those mentioned above.

New Footage Appearing on YouTube Regularly - November 10, 2022

The Foundation for Critical Thinking YouTube channel is posting one or two new videos each week. Footage will include clips from the Critical Thinking: Going Deeper podcast , clips from our exclusive Community Online webinars , clips from conference sessions, and more!

Dr. Linda Elder Interview on The Propwatch Project with Serena Balani - July 14, 2022

Click here to view the interview on YouTube.

New Podcast with Drs. Linda Elder and Gerald Nosich in the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - March 30, 2022

Join Drs. Linda Elder and Gerald Nosich for their new podcast, Critical Thinking: Going Deeper , as they uncover ever-deeper layers of critical thinking theory and explore how these insights can be applied to everyday work, life, learning, and teaching!

View episodes here - only in the Center for Critical Thinking Community Online!

Dr. Gerald Nosich Interview on the Controversy & Clarity podcast with Damien O'Connell - March 25, 2022

Click here to hear the interview on anchor.fm.

Fourth Edition Release of Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning & Your Life - February 1, 2022

The latest edition of this seminal critical-thinking textbook, by Drs. Richard Paul and Linda Elder, is available now through Rowman & Littlefield. Electronic and print copies can be ordered here .

Dr. Linda Elder's Second Interview on the Beyond Perception podcast with Simon Rilling - March 5, 2022

Appreciation Video from Gladys Mangiduyos - December 2nd, 2021

An educator at Wesleyan University in the Philippines, Gladys Mangiduyos is a longtime member of the global critical thinking movement. She has been a champion for critical thinking at her institution for many years, and has created a new video expressing gratitude to critical thinking pedagogues who have helped advance ethical critical thinking in our world.

Watch a copy of the video here .

ThinkTech Hawaii's Interview with Dr. Brian Barnes: "Igniting Criticality and Creativity" - November 23, 2021

Click here to see the interview on YouTube.

Dr. Linda Elder Interview on the Beyond Perception podcast with Simon Rilling - November 9, 2021

Alison Morrow's Interview with Dr. Linda Elder - April 27, 2021

Forthcoming Book Announcement - January 21, 2021

Dr. Linda Elder is currently authoring a book with the working title, Critical Thinking Therapy . Release is expected in 2022. To read more on the topic of Critical Thinking Therapy, click here .

New Book Release by Dr. Gerald Nosich - January 15, 2021

Dr. Nosich's new book, Critical Writing: A Guide to Writing a Paper Using the Concepts and Processes of Critical Thinking , is available now in multiple formats. Orders can be placed with Rowman & Littlefield here .

New Publication Release - November 2020

Fact over Fake: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Media Bias and Political Propaganda  is available now in multiple formats. Orders can be placed with Rowman & Littlefield here .

This title entails extensive revision and expansion of the classic Thinker's Guide to Media Bias & Propaganda , which Drs. Elder and Paul co-authored in 2008. This new reelase includes discussion of the many changes to news distribution  over the last decade, including the rise of social media and growing influence of fake news and conspiracy theorists in the mainstream.

New Book Release by Dr. Linda Elder - December 2019

Dr. Elder's new book, Liberating the Mind: Overcoming Sociocentric Thought and Egocentric Tendencies , is available now in multiple formats. Orders can be placed with Rowman & Littlefield here .

Moneywise Guys Interview with Dr. Gerald Nosich - October 4, 2018

Click here to hear the hosts of the Moneywise Guys podcast interview Dr. Gerald Nosich.

Eighth Edition of The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts & Tools Released - September 2019

One of the most widely-distributed texts on critical thinking ever written , The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking has roughly doubled its content in the 8th edition, but still provides a highly portable overview of critical thinking principles and theory. Digital and paper copies are available from Rowman & Littlefield here .

The Foundation for Critical Thinking Launches The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online - August 2019

The world's largest collection of critical thinking resources, activities, and discussion has just come online. The subscription-based Center for Critical Thinking Community Online features an enormous library of publications, videos, and exercises on critical thinking, as well as a social media component and opportunities to interact with our Fellows and Scholars not available anywhere else.

Join us today !

Michael Frank of Life Lessons Interviews Dr. Gerald Nosich - August 30, 2018

Click here for a transcript of Michael Frank's interview with Dr. Gerald Nosich.

Critical Thinking for Everyone 's Dr. Brian Barnes and Dr. Patty Payette Interview Dr. Gerald Nosich - August 9, 2018 on Forward Radio

Click here to hear Dr. Barnes and Dr. Payette of Critical Thinking for Everyone interview Dr. Gerald Nosich.

Critical Thinking for Everyone 's Dr. Brian Barnes and Dr. Patty Payette Interview Dr. Linda Elder - July 26, 2018 on Forward Radio

Click here to hear Dr. Barnes and Dr. Payette of Critical Thinking for Everyone interview Dr. Linda Elder.

Think Bigger Think Better 's Paul Gibbons Interviews Dr. Linda Elder - December 15, 2017

Click here to listen to Paul Gibbons' interview with Dr. Linda Elder.

Report to Congress on Critical Thinking & Child Education - July 4, 2015

Article by Dr. Linda Elder.

"Essentials of Citizenship for a Complex, Interdependent World: Critical Thinking and Ethical Values" by Paula Fraser - September 23, 2013

In this editorial, Ms. Paula Frasier advocates for the Paul-Elder Framework for Critical Thinking in education.

Click here to read.

Entrepeneur Magazine Quotes Dr. Linda Elder in Article, "How to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills and Make Better Business Decisions” - April 29, 2013

Click here to read the article.

"Achieving Critical Mass" - November 25, 2010

Article in Times Higher Education by Dr. Linda Elder.

Dr. Richard Paul on Mark Deo's Radio Show - September 17, 2010

Click here to listen. Skip to 22:46 for the interview.

Dr. Linda Elder Interview on The Secular Budhhist - August 2010

Click here to listen.

"Race to the Top of the Bottom: A Failure of Insight" - August 31, 2010

Editorial by Dr. Linda Elder.

"Reason to Live" - February 18, 2010

"I Think Critically, Therefore I Am" - August 6, 2009

Article in TImes Higher Education by Dr. Linder Elder.

"Are You a Critical Thinker?" - March 12, 2009

Article in The Christian Science Monitor by Dr. Linda Elder.

"Teaching Kids to Think Critically in the Age of Standardized Testing"

Interview with Dr. Linda Elder on West Marin Community Radio (KWMR).

"Re-Thinking the SAT: Rhetoric or Substance?" - October 2, 2002

Editorial by Dr. Richard Paul in Education Week .

An Interview with Linda Elder About Using Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools - April 2002

Interview by Michael F. Shaughnessy of Eastern New Mexico University.

An Interview with Linda Elder: About Critical Thinking and Gifted Education - 2002

Interview by Michael F. Shaughnessy of Eastern New Mexico University and Randy Seevers of the University of Houston,

"Collaborative Learning: Collaborative Mislearning" - March 19, 1997

Editorial by Dr. Linda Elder in Education Week .

"The New Standards: The Case for Intellectual Discipline in the Classroom" - March 11, 1997

Editorial by Dr. Linda Elder in the Community College Times .

"The Practical Impractical (K-12)" - May 29, 1996

Editorial by Dr. Richard Paul published in Education Week .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole

Critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.

By Charlie Warzel

Mr. Warzel is an Opinion writer at large.

For an academic, Michael Caulfield has an odd request: Stop overthinking what you see online.

Mr. Caulfield, a digital literacy expert at Washington State University Vancouver, knows all too well that at this very moment, more people are fighting for the opportunity to lie to you than at perhaps any other point in human history.

Misinformation rides the greased algorithmic rails of powerful social media platforms and travels at velocities and in volumes that make it nearly impossible to stop. That alone makes information warfare an unfair fight for the average internet user. But Mr. Caulfield argues that the deck is stacked even further against us. That the way we’re taught from a young age to evaluate and think critically about information is fundamentally flawed and out of step with the chaos of the current internet.

“We’re taught that, in order to protect ourselves from bad information, we need to deeply engage with the stuff that washes up in front of us,” Mr. Caulfield told me recently. He suggested that the dominant mode of media literacy (if kids get taught any at all) is that “you’ll get imperfect information and then use reasoning to fix that somehow. But in reality, that strategy can completely backfire.”

In other words: Resist the lure of rabbit holes, in part, by reimagining media literacy for the internet hellscape we occupy.

It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information. Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford, and Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and look elsewhere , a concept called lateral reading .

For instance, imagine you were to visit Stormfront, a white supremacist message board, to try to understand racist claims in order to debunk them. “Even if you see through the horrible rhetoric, at the end of the day you gave that place however many minutes of your time,” Mr. Caulfield said. “Even with good intentions, you run the risk of misunderstanding something, because Stormfront users are way better at propaganda than you. You won’t get less racist reading Stormfront critically, but you might be overloaded by information and overwhelmed.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic Literature Review

Paul machete.

Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa

Marita Turpin

With the large amount of news currently being published online, the ability to evaluate the credibility of online news has become essential. While there are many studies involving fake news and tools on how to detect it, there is a limited amount of work that focuses on the use of information literacy to assist people to critically access online information and news. Critical thinking, as a form of information literacy, provides a means to critically engage with online content, for example by looking for evidence to support claims and by evaluating the plausibility of arguments. The purpose of this study is to investigate the current state of knowledge on the use of critical thinking to identify fake news. A systematic literature review (SLR) has been performed to identify previous studies on evaluating the credibility of news, and in particular to see what has been done in terms of the use of critical thinking to evaluate online news. During the SLR’s sifting process, 22 relevant studies were identified. Although some of these studies referred to information literacy, only three explicitly dealt with critical thinking as a means to identify fake news. The studies on critical thinking noted critical thinking as an essential skill for identifying fake news. The recommendation of these studies was that information literacy be included in academic institutions, specifically to encourage critical thinking.

Introduction

The information age has brought a significant increase in available sources of information; this is in line with the unparalleled increase in internet availability and connection, in addition to the accessibility of technological devices [ 1 ]. People no longer rely on television and print media alone for obtaining news, but increasingly make use of social media and news apps. The variety of information sources that we have today has contributed to the spread of alternative facts [ 1 ]. With over 1.8 billion active users per month in 2016 [ 2 ], Facebook accounted for 20% of total traffic to reliable websites and up to 50% of all the traffic to fake news sites [ 3 ]. Twitter comes second to Facebook, with over 400 million active users per month [ 2 ]. Posts on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter spread rapidly due to how they attempt to grab the readers’ attention as quickly as possible, with little substantive information provided, and thus create a breeding ground for the dissemination of fake news [ 4 ].

While social media is a convenient way of accessing news and staying connected to friends and family, it is not easy to distinguish real news from fake news on social media [ 5 ]. Social media continues to contribute to the increasing distribution of user-generated information; this includes hoaxes, false claims, fabricated news and conspiracy theories, with primary sources being social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter [ 6 ]. This means that any person who is in possession of a device, which can connect to the internet, is potentially a consumer or distributor of fake news. While social media platforms and search engines do not encourage people to believe the information being circulated, they are complicit in people’s propensity to believe the information they come across on these platforms, without determining their validity [ 6 ]. The spread of fake news can cause a multitude of damages to the subject; varying from reputational damage of an individual, to having an effect on the perceived value of a company [ 7 ].

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of critical thinking methods to detect news stories that are untrue or otherwise help to develop a critical attitude to online news. This work was performed by means of a systematic literature review (SLR). The paper is presented as follows. The next section provides background information on fake news, its importance in the day-to-day lives of social media users and how information literacy and critical thinking can be used to identify fake news. Thereafter, the SLR research approach is discussed. Following this, the findings of the review are reported, first in terms of descriptive statistics and the in terms of a thematic analysis of the identified studies. The paper ends with the Conclusion and recommendations.

Background: Fake News, Information Literacy and Critical Thinking

This section discusses the history of fake news, the fake news that we know today and the role of information literacy can be used to help with the identification of fake news. It also provides a brief definition of critical thinking.

The History of Fake News

Although fake news has received increased attention recently, the term has been used by scholars for many years [ 4 ]. Fake news emerged from the tradition of yellow journalism of the 1890s, which can be described as a reliance on the familiar aspects of sensationalism—crime news, scandal and gossip, divorces and sex, and stress upon the reporting of disasters, sports sensationalism as well as possibly satirical news [ 5 ]. The emergence of online news in the early 2000s raised concerns, among them being that people who share similar ideologies may form “echo chambers” where they can filter out alternative ideas [ 2 ]. This emergence came about as news media transformed from one that was dominated by newspapers printed by authentic and trusted journalists to one where online news from an untrusted source is believed by many [ 5 ]. The term later grew to describe “satirical news shows”, “parody news shows” or “fake-news comedy shows” where a television show, or segment on a television show was dedicated to political satire [ 4 ]. Some of these include popular television shows such as The Daily Show (now with Trevor Noah), Saturday Night Live ’s “The Weekend Update” segment, and other similar shows such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert [ 4 ]. News stories in these shows were labelled “fake” not because of their content, but for parodying network news for the use of sarcasm, and using comedy as a tool to engage real public issues [ 4 ]. The term “Fake News” further became prominent during the course of the 2016 US presidential elections, as members of the opposing parties would post incorrect news headlines in order to sway the decision of voters [ 6 ].

Fake News Today

The term fake news has a more literal meaning today [ 4 ]. The Macquarie Dictionary named fake news the word of the year for 2016 [ 8 ]. In this dictionary, fake news is described it as a word that captures a fascinating evolution in the creation of deceiving content, also allowing people to believe what they see fit. There are many definitions for the phrase, however, a concise description of the term can be found in Paskin [ 4 ] who states that certain news articles originating from either social media or mainstream (online or offline) platforms, that are not factual, but are presented as such and are not satirical, are considered fake news. In some instances, editorials, reports, and exposés may be knowingly disseminating information with intent to deceive for the purposes of monetary or political benefit [ 4 ].

A distinction amongst three types of fake news can be made on a conceptual level, namely: serious fabrications, hoaxes and satire [ 3 ]. Serious fabrications are explained as news items written on false information, including celebrity gossip. Hoaxes refer to false information provided via social media, aiming to be syndicated by traditional news platforms. Lastly, satire refers to the use of humour in the news to imitate real news, but through irony and absurdity. Some examples of famous satirical news platforms in circulation in the modern day are The Onion and The Beaverton , when contrasted with real news publishers such as The New York Times [ 3 ].

Although there are many studies involving fake news and tools on how to detect it, there is a limited amount of academic work that focuses on the need to encourage information literacy so that people are able to critically access the information they have been presented, in order to make better informed decisions [ 9 ].

Stein-Smith [ 5 ] urges that information/media literacy has become a more critical skill since the appearance of the notion of fake news has become public conversation. Information literacy is no longer a nice-to-have proficiency but a requirement for interpreting news headlines and participation in public discussions. It is essential for academic institutions of higher learning to present information literacy courses that will empower students and staff members with the prerequisite tools to identify, select, understand and use trustworthy information [ 1 ]. Outside of its academic uses, information literacy is also a lifelong skill with multiple applications in everyday life [ 5 ]. The choices people make in their lives, and opinions they form need to be informed by the appropriate interpretation of correct, opportune, and significant information [ 5 ].

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking covers a broad range of skills that includes the following: verbal reasoning skills; argument analysis; thinking as hypothesis testing; dealing with likelihood and uncertainties; and decision making and problem solving skills [ 10 ]. For the purpose of this study, where we are concerned with the evaluation of the credibility of online news, the following definition will be used: critical thinking is “the ability to analyse and evaluate arguments according to their soundness and credibility, respond to arguments and reach conclusions through deduction from given information” [ 11 ]. In this study, we want to investigate how the skills mentioned by [ 11 ] can be used as part of information literacy, to better identify fake news.

The next section presents the research approach that was followed to perform the SLR.

Research Method

This section addresses the research question, the search terms that were applied to a database in relation to the research question, as well as the search criteria used on the search results. The following research question was addressed in this SLR:

• What is the role of critical thinking in identifying fake news, according to previous studies?

The research question was identified in accordance to the research topic. The intention of the research question is to determine if the identified studies in this review provide insights into the use of critical thinking to evaluate the credibility of online news and in particular to identify fake news.

Delimitations.

In the construction of this SLR, the following definitions of fake news and other related terms have been excluded, following the suggestion of [ 2 ]:

• Unintentional reporting mistakes;
• Rumours that do not originate from a particular news article;
• Conspiracy theories;
• Satire that is unlikely to be misconstrued as factual;
• False statements by politicians; and
• Reports that are slanted or misleading, but not outright false.

Search Terms.

The database tool used to extract sources to conduct the SLR was Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com ). The process for extracting the sources involved executing the search string on Google Scholar and the retrieval of the articles and their meta-data into a tool called Mendeley, which was used for reference management.

The search string used to retrieve the sources was defined below:

(“critical think*” OR “critically (NEAR/2) reason*” OR “critical (NEAR/2) thought*” OR “critical (NEAR/2) judge*” AND “fake news” AND (identify* OR analyse* OR find* OR describe* OR review).

To construct the search criteria, the following factors have been taken into consideration: the research topic guided the search string, as the key words were used to create the base search criteria. The second step was to construct the search string according to the search engine requirements on Google Scholar.

Selection Criteria.

The selection criteria outlined the rules applied in the SLR to identify sources, narrow down the search criteria and focus the study on a specific topic. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table  1 to show which filters were applied to remove irrelevant sources.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for paper selection

Source Selection.

The search criteria were applied on the online database and 91 papers were retrieved. The criteria in Table  1 were used on the search results in order to narrow down the results to appropriate papers only.

PRISMA Flowchart.

The selection criteria included four stages of filtering and this is depicted in Fig.  1 . In then Identification stage, the 91 search results from Google Scholar were returned and 3 sources were derived from the sources already identified from the search results, making a total of 94 available sources. In the screening stage, no duplicates were identified. After a thorough screening of the search results, which included looking at the availability of the article (free to use), 39 in total records were available – to which 55 articles were excluded. Of the 39 articles, nine were excluded based on their titles and abstract being irrelevant to the topic in the eligibility stage. A final list of 22 articles was included as part of this SLR. As preparation for the data analysis, a data extraction table was made that classified each article according to the following: article author; article title; theme (a short summary of the article); year; country; and type of publication. The data extraction table assisted in the analysis of findings as presented in the next section.

PRISMA flowchart

Analysis of Findings

Descriptive statistics.

Due to the limited number of relevant studies, the information search did not have a specified start date. Articles were included up to 31 August 2019. The majority of the papers found were published in 2017 (8 papers) and 2018 (9 papers). This is in line with the term “fake news” being announced the word of the year in the 2016 [ 8 ].

The selected papers were classified into themes. Figure  2 is a Venn diagram that represents the overlap of articles by themes across the review. Articles that fall under the “fake news” theme had the highest number of occurrences, with 11 in total. Three articles focused mainly on “Critical Thinking”, and “Information Literacy” was the main focus of four articles. Two articles combined all three topics of critical thinking, information literacy, and fake news.

Venn diagram depicting the overlap of articles by main focus

An analysis of the number of articles published per country indicate that the US had a dominating amount of articles published on this topic, a total of 17 articles - this represents 74% of the selected articles in this review. The remaining countries where articles were published are Australia, Germany, Ireland, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden - with each having one article published.

In terms of publication type, 15 of the articles were journal articles, four were reports, one was a thesis, one was a magazine article and one, a web page.

Discussion of Themes

The following emerged from a thematic analysis of the articles.

Fake News and Accountability.

With the influence that social media has on the drive of fake news [ 2 ], who then becomes responsible for the dissemination and intake of fake news by the general population? The immediate assumption is that in the digital age, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter should be able to curate information, or do some form of fact-checking when posts are uploaded onto their platforms [ 12 ], but that leans closely to infringing on freedom of speech. While different authors agree that there need to be measures in place for the minimisation of fake news being spread [ 12 , 13 ], where that accountability lies differs between the authors. Metaxas and Mustafaraj [ 13 ] aimed to develop algorithms or plug-ins that can assist in trust and postulated that consumers should be able to identify misinformation, thus making an informed decision on whether to share that information or not. Lazer et al. [ 12 ] on the other hand, believe the onus should be on the platform owners to put restrictions on the kind of data distributed. Considering that the work by Metaxas and Mustafaraj [ 13 ] was done seven years ago, one can conclude that the use of fact-checking algorithms/plug-ins has not been successful in curbing the propulsion of fake news.

Fake News and Student Research.

There were a total of four articles that had a focus on student research in relation to fake news. Harris, Paskin and Stein-Smith [ 4 , 5 , 14 ] all agree that students do not have the ability to discern between real and fake news. A Stanford History Education Group study reveals that students are not geared up for distinguishing real from fake news [ 4 ]. Most students are able to perform a simple Google search for information; however, they are unable to identify the author of an online source, or if the information is misleading [ 14 ]. Furthermore, students are not aware of the benefits of learning information literacy in school in equipping them with the skills required to accurately identify fake news [ 5 ]. At the Metropolitan Campus of Fairleigh Dickson University, librarians have undertaken the role of providing training on information literacy skills for identifying fake news [ 5 ].

Fake News and Social Media.

A number of authors [ 6 , 15 ] are in agreement that social media, the leading source of news, is the biggest driving force for fake news. It provides substantial advantage to broadcast manipulated information. It is an open platform of unfiltered editors and open to contributions from all. According to Nielsen and Graves as well as Janetzko, [ 6 , 15 ], people are unable to identify fake news correctly. They are likely to associate fake news with low quality journalism than false information designed to mislead. Two articles, [ 15 ] and [ 6 ] discussed the role of critical thinking when interacting on social media. Social media presents information to us that has been filtered according to what we already consume, thereby making it a challenge for consumers to think critically. The study by Nielsen and Graves [ 6 ] confirm that students’ failure to verify incorrect online sources requires urgent attention as this could indicate that students are a simple target for presenting manipulated information.

Fake News That Drive Politics.

Two studies mention the effect of social and the spread of fake news, and how it may have propelled Donald Trump to win the US election in 2016 [ 2 , 16 ]. Also, [ 8 ] and [ 2 ] mention how a story on the Pope supporting Trump in his presidential campaign, was widely shared (more than a million times) on Facebook in 2016. These articles also point out how in the information age, fact-checking has become relatively easy, but people are more likely to trust their intuition on news stories they consume, rather than checking the reliability of a story. The use of paid trolls and Russian bots to populate social media feeds with misinformation in an effort to swing the US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favour, is highlighted [ 16 ]. The creation of fake news, with the use of alarmist headlines (“click bait”), generates huge traffic into the original websites, which drives up advertising revenue [ 2 ]. This means content creators are compelled to create fake news, to drive ad revenue on their websites - even though they may not be believe in the fake news themselves [ 2 ].

Information Literacy.

Information literacy is when a person has access to information, and thus can process the parts they need, and create ways in which to best use the information [ 1 ]. Teaching students the importance of information literacy skills is key, not only for identifying fake news but also for navigating life aspects that require managing and scrutinising information, as discussed by [ 1 , 17 ], and [ 9 ]. Courtney [ 17 ] highlights how journalism students, above students from other disciplines, may need to have some form of information literacy incorporated into their syllabi to increase their awareness of fake news stories, creating a narrative of being objective and reliable news creators. Courtney assessed different universities that teach journalism and media-related studies, and established that students generally lack awareness on how useful library services are in offering services related to information literacy. Courtney [ 17 ] and Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] discuss how the use of library resources should be normalised to students. With millennials and generation Z having social media as their first point of contact, Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] urges universities, colleges and other academic research institutes to promote the use of more library resources than those from the internet, to encourage students to lean on reliable sources. Overall, this may prove difficult, therefore Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] proposes that by teaching information literacy skills and critical thinking, students can use these skills to apply in any situation or information source.

Referred to as “truth decay”, people have reached a point where they no longer need to agree with facts [ 18 ]. Due to political polarisation, the general public hold the opinion of being part of an oppressed group of people, and therefore will believe a political leader who appeals to that narrative [ 18 ]. There needs to be tangible action put into driving civil engagement, to encourage people to think critically, analyse information and not believe everything they read.

Critical Thinking.

Only three of the articles had critical thinking as a main theme. Bronstein et al. [ 19 ] discuss how certain dogmatic and religious beliefs create a tendency in individuals to belief any information given, without them having a need to interrogate the information further and then deciding ion its veracity. The article further elaborates how these individuals are also more likely to engage in conspiracy theories, and tend to rationalise absurd events. Bronstein et al.’s [ 19 ] study conclude that dogmatism and religious fundamentalism highly correlate with a belief in fake news. Their study [ 19 ] suggests the use of interventions that aim to increase open-minded thinking, and also increase analytical thinking as a way to help religious, curb belief in fake news. Howlett [ 20 ] describes critical thinking as evidence-based practice, which is taking the theories of the skills and concepts of critical thinking and converting those for use in everyday applications. Jackson [ 21 ] explains how the internet purposely prides itself in being a platform for “unreviewed content”, due to the idea that people may not see said content again, therefore it needs to be attention-grabbing for this moment, and not necessarily accurate. Jackson [ 21 ] expands that social media affected critical thinking in how it changed the view on published information, what is now seen as old forms of information media. This then presents a challenge to critical thinking in that a large portion of information found on the internet is not only unreliable, it may also be false. Jackson [ 21 ] posits that one of the biggest dangers to critical thinking may be that people have a sense of perceived power for being able to find the others they seek with a simple web search. People are no longer interested in evaluation the credibility of the information they receive and share, and thus leading to the propagation of fake news [ 21 ].

Discussion of Findings

The aggregated data in this review has provided insight into how fake news is perceived, the level of attention it is receiving and the shortcomings of people when identifying fake news. Since the increase in awareness of fake news in 2016, there has been an increase in academic focus on the subject, with most of the articles published between 2017 and 2018. Fifty percent of the articles released focused on the subject of fake news, with 18% reflecting on information literacy, and only 13% on critical thinking.

The thematic discussion grouped and synthesised the articles in this review according to the main themes of fake news, information literacy and critical thinking. The Fake news and accountability discussion raised the question of who becomes accountable for the spreading of fake news between social media and the user. The articles presented a conclusion that fact-checking algorithms are not successful in reducing the dissemination of fake news. The discussion also included a focus on fake news and student research , whereby a Stanford History Education Group study revealed that students are not well educated in thinking critically and identifying real from fake news [ 4 ]. The Fake news and social media discussion provided insight on social media is the leading source of news as well as a contributor to fake news. It provides a challenge for consumers who are not able to think critically about online news, or have basic information literacy skills that can aid in identifying fake news. Fake news that drive politics highlighted fake news’ role in politics, particularly the 2016 US presidential elections and the influence it had on the voters [ 22 ].

Information literacy related publications highlighted the need for educating the public on being able to identify fake news, as well as the benefits of having information literacy as a life skill [ 1 , 9 , 17 ]. It was shown that students are often misinformed about the potential benefits of library services. The authors suggested that university libraries should become more recognised and involved as role-players in providing and assisting with information literacy skills.

The articles that focused on critical thinking pointed out two areas where a lack of critical thinking prevented readers from discerning between accurate and false information. In the one case, it was shown that people’s confidence in their ability to find information online gave made them overly confident about the accuracy of that information [ 21 ]. In the other case, it was shown that dogmatism and religious fundamentalism, which led people to believe certain fake news, were associated with a lack of critical thinking and a questioning mind-set [ 21 ].

The articles that focused on information literacy and critical thinking were in agreement on the value of promoting and teaching these skills, in particular to the university students who were often the subjects of the studies performed.

This review identified 22 articles that were synthesised and used as evidence to determine the role of critical thinking in identifying fake news. The articles were classified according to year of publication, country of publication, type of publication and theme. Based on the descriptive statistics, fake news has been a growing trend in recent years, predominantly in the US since the presidential election in 2016. The research presented in most of the articles was aimed at the assessment of students’ ability to identify fake news. The various studies were consistent in their findings of research subjects’ lack of ability to distinguish between true and fake news.

Information literacy emerged as a new theme from the studies, with Rose-Wiles [ 9 ] advising academic institutions to teach information literacy and encourage students to think critically when accessing online news. The potential role of university libraries to assist in not only teaching information literacy, but also assisting student to evaluate the credibility of online information, was highlighted. The three articles that explicitly dealt with critical thinking, all found critical thinking to be lacking among their research subjects. They further indicated how this lack of critical thinking could be linked to people’s inability to identify fake news.

This review has pointed out people’s general inability to identify fake news. It highlighted the importance of information literacy as well as critical thinking, as essential skills to evaluate the credibility of online information.

The limitations in this review include the use of students as the main participants in most of the research - this would indicate a need to shift the academic focus towards having the general public as participants. This is imperative because anyone who possesses a mobile device is potentially a contributor or distributor of fake news.

For future research, it is suggested that the value of the formal teaching of information literacy at universities be further investigated, as a means to assist students in assessing the credibility of online news. Given the very limited number of studies on the role of critical thinking to identify fake news, this is also an important area for further research.

Contributor Information

Marié Hattingh, Email: [email protected] .

Machdel Matthee, Email: [email protected] .

Hanlie Smuts, Email: [email protected] .

Ilias Pappas, Email: [email protected] .

Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Email: moc.liamg@ideviwdky .

Matti Mäntymäki, Email: [email protected] .

• Interactive Videos
• Overview & Comparison
• THINKING PRO - Curriculum Unit
• Benefits for School Admin
• Benefits for Teachers
• English Language Learners
• Foundation Giving
• Corporate Giving
• Individual Giving
• Partnerships

The Importance of Critical Thinking for News Media Literacy

With news available at the tap of a finger, keyboard, or remote, we are often exposed to a barrage of news media. Some of it is high quality, informational news, while other pieces may be riddled with biases, inaccuracies, and misinformation. That’s why it’s so important for students to learn to properly evaluate the news they’re consuming. Read on for an exploration of news media literacy and the importance of critical thinking in supporting it.

News Media Literacy

News media literacy is the ability to critically analyze, evaluate, and interpret the information presented in news media. It involves understanding how news is produced, identifying bias and misinformation, and being able to distinguish between fact and opinion. In our modern world, where information is instantly available and constantly changing, news media literacy has become an essential skill for individuals of all ages to navigate the media landscape and make informed decisions.

Students being taught news media literacy develop a variety of interrelated and crucial skills and knowledge. They learn to identify when news sources are presenting biased or misleading information and to seek out additional sources to confirm or refute claims. News literacy also helps students understand how news is produced and distributed, including the role of journalists, media organizations, and the impact of social media on the news cycle.

A study in the Journal of Media Literacy Education found that highly news literate teens were:

• More intrinsically motivated to consume news
• More skeptical
• More knowledgeable about current events

This is important because it can help prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation, both of which can have serious consequences, such as spreading false information about health, elections, or social issues. News media literacy skills can help students recognize harmful reporting or sharing, and take steps to stop their spread.

The difference news media literacy makes is not limited to the student alone, but can also impact their wider community. Authors Hobbs et al. explore this concept in their article “Learning to Engage: How Positive Attitudes about the News, Media Literacy, and Video Production Contribute to Adolescent Civic Engagement.” They found that “the best predictors of the intent to participate in civic engagement are having positive attitudes about news, current events, reporting, and journalism.”

Given its importance and wide-ranging impact, news media literacy is an essential part of education today. Here’s how teachers can use critical thinking to build up news literacy—and vice versa—in their students.

Critical Thinking Skills for News Literacy

Critical thinking is a key component of news media literacy, as it allows individuals to assess the accuracy and credibility of news sources, identify biases and misinformation, and make informed decisions. Critical thinking involves questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and considering multiple perspectives, which are all crucial skills for navigating our complex and constantly evolving media landscape. Let’s explore these critical thinking skills and their impact on news literacy in more depth.

Evaluating Sources and Evidence

One essential critical thinking skill that supports news literacy is the ability to evaluate sources. In today's world, where anyone can publish information online, it is important to be able to distinguish between credible sources and those that lack credibility. This means understanding the differences between primary and secondary sources, recognizing when a source is biased or unreliable, and evaluating the credentials of the author or publisher.

Being able to evaluate sources and evidence for credibility and accuracy allows students to identify fake news and other harmful media. Research on fake news and critical thinking highlights critical thinking as “an essential skill for identifying fake news.”

Analyzing Information

Another critical thinking skill that supports news literacy is the ability to analyze information. This involves breaking down complex information into its component parts, evaluating the evidence presented, and considering the implications of the information. For example, if a news article presents statistics about a particular issue, it is important to evaluate the methodology used to collect the data, the sample size, and the relevance of the statistics to the issue at hand.

Identifying and Evaluating Biases

Critical thinking also allows students to identify and evaluate biases. News sources may have biases based on political or social values, financial interests, or personal opinions. It is important to be able to recognize these biases and to evaluate how they may affect the presentation of information. By developing these critical thinking skills, students can become more discerning consumers of news media, and better equipped to make informed decisions based on the information presented.

How Practicing News Literacy Develops Critical Thinking

Becoming more news literate can also help develop critical thinking skills in turn. By engaging with news media and seeking out diverse perspectives on issues, individuals can develop their ability to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, and consider multiple perspectives. This can lead to a more nuanced understanding of complex issues and a greater appreciation for the diverse perspectives that exist in society.

This creates a powerful education win-win. News literacy and critical thinking effectively support each other and allow students to become informed and discerning consumers of media.

How THINKING PRO Helps Students Build News Literacy

Our THINKING PRO system is built around local news media and teaches students media literacy and critical thinking in a meaningful and impactful way. It walks students through a simple but effective process for analyzing news media, involving:

• Differentiating simple statements (answers to who, what, when, and where questions) and complex claims (answers to why and how questions)
• Evaluating evidence supporting each
• Differentiating evidence and opinion in complex claims

Our interactive learning videos allow students to hone these media literacy and critical thinking skills. With THINKING PRO, students will learn to:

• Identify various categories of claims that can be made within an informational text (e.g.: cause and effect, problem and solution, value judgments)
• Evaluate internal logic of informational text by:
• analyzing the consistency of information within the text and with one’s own background knowledge, and
• identifying conflicting information within the text.
• Synthesize information, as well as claims and their supporting evidence, across multiple passages of texts, and integrate it with one’s own understanding

Here at Thinking Habitats, we use thinking tools to empower young people to lead successful lives and contribute to the wellbeing of their communities. Our online platform has helped students improve their critical thinking, reading comprehension, and news media literacy, and has had significant individual and community impacts. Try THINKING PRO today , and join our students who feel more empowered in decision-making, more mindful with their news engagement, and more connected to their local community!

Hobbs, R., Donnelly, K., Friesem, J., & Moen, M. (2013). Learning to engage: How positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute to Adolescent Civic engagement. Educational Media International , 50 (4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.862364  

Machete, P., & Turpin, M. (2020). The use of critical thinking to identify fake news: A systematic literature review. Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45002-1_20  

Maksl, A., Ashley, S., & Craft, S. (2015). Measuring News Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education , 6 (3), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-6-3-3  

Research guides: Identifying bias: What is bias? . University of Wisconsin Green Bay. (n.d.). https://libguides.uwgb.edu/bias  

20 Questions To Help Students Think Critically About News

Misleading info is often based on partial truths & reframed to fit a purpose. Here are questions to help students think critically about news.

Help Students Think Critically About News With These 20 Questions

by Terry Heick

1. In the article, headline, or social share, ‘who’ is saying ‘what’? That is, what specific author and publication are making what kind of claim about what topic or ideas?

2. Is what’s being said fact or opinion?

3. Does this headline seem true? (This is especially critical for ‘fact-based’ headlines.) If so, by whose standards? Who would disagree with it and why? How can it be fact-checked? Is the author using ‘grey areas’ of ‘truth’ in a way that seems designed to cause a stir, cast doubt, influence thinking, or otherwise change the opinion of readers?

4. Is this headline entirely ‘true’/accurate or based instead on partially true information/data? Misleading information is often based on partial truths and then reframed to fit a particular purpose: to cause an emotion such as anger or fear that leads to an outcome of some kind: a ‘like,’ donation, purchase, signup, vote, etc.

5. Are there any embedded logical fallacies in the headline itself–especially straw man arguments, emotional appeals, or charged language intended to polarize, rally, or otherwise ‘engage’ readers?

6. Is the topic the headline is based on important? Worth understanding more deeply?

7. Who would this seem to benefit if accepted as ‘true’? Note, this doesn’t mean it’s ‘fake,’ but understanding who benefits from changing perceptions is an important ‘fake news’ detecting tool.

8. Is this information, angle, or ‘take’ new or something that’s been said before (and either fact-checked or debunked)?

9. Is the data (fact-based) or position (opinion-based) inherent in the headline shared by other credible publishers or does it stand in contrast to the ‘status quo’? If the latter, how does this affect the headline?

10. What background information would I need to be able to evaluate its credibility? Where can I get more information on the topics in the headline to better evaluate its credibility? What do I stand to gain or lose if I accept this as true?

11. Does the ‘news story’ accurately here represent the ‘big picture’ or is it something ‘cherry-picked’(in or out of context) designed to cause an emotional response in the reader?

For the second set of questions to think critically about news headlines, we’re turning to the News Literacy Project , a media standards project that created a set of questions to help students think critically about news headlines.

12. Gauge your emotional reaction. Is it strong? Are you angry? Are you intensely hoping that the information turns out to be true or false?

13. Reflect on how you encountered this. Was it promoted on a website? Did it show up in a social media feed? Was it sent to you by someone you know?

14. Consider the headline or message:

a. Does it use excessive punctuation or ALL CAPS for emphasis?

b. Does it make a claim about containing a secret or telling you something that ‘the media’ doesn’t want you to know?

c. Don’t stop at the headline. Keep exploring!

15. Is this information designed for easy sharing, like a meme?

16. Consider the source of information:

a. Is it a well-known source?

b. Is there a byline (an author’s name) attached to this piece?

c. Go to the website’s ‘About’ section. Does the site describe itself as a ‘fantasy news’ or ‘satirical news’ site?

17. Does the example you’re evaluating have a date on it?

18. Does the example cite a variety of sources, including official and expert sources? Does the information this example provides appear in reports from (other) news outlets?

19. Does the example hyperlink to other quality sources?

20. Can you confirm, using a reverse image search, that any images in your example are authentic (i.e., haven’t been altered or taken from another context)?

21. If you searched for this example on a fact-checking site such as snopes.com, factcheck.org, or politifact.com, is there a fact-check that labels it as less than true?

• It is easy to clone an existing website and create fake tweets to fool people
• Bots are extremely active on social media and are designed to dominate conversations and spread propaganda.
• Fake news and other misinformation often use a real image from an unrelated event.
• Debunk examples of misinformation whenever you see them. It’s good for democracy!

You can download the full ‘checkology’ pdf here and find more resources at checkology.org

TeachThought is an organization dedicated to innovation in education through the growth of outstanding teachers.

• Our Mission

News Literacy: Critical-Thinking Skills for the 21st Century

Three methods for teaching critical thinking skills and smart media consumption habits to a generation growing up in a climate of information overload.

Every teacher I've worked with over the last five years recalls two kinds of digital experiences with students.

The first I think of as digital native moments , when a student uses a piece of technology with almost eerie intuitiveness. As digital natives, today's teens have grown up with these tools and have assimilated their logic. Young people just seem to understand when to click and drag or copy and paste, and how to move, merge and mix digital elements.

The second I call digital naiveté moments , when a student trusts a source of information that is obviously unreliable. Even though they know how easy it is to create and distribute information online, many young people believe -- sometimes passionately -- the most dubious rumors , tempting hoaxes (including convincingly staged encounters designed to look raw and unplanned ) and implausible theories .

How can these coexist? How can students be so technologically savvy while also displaying their lack of basic skills for navigating the digital world?

What to Believe?

Understanding this extends beyond customary generational finger wagging. While it's tempting to blame students themselves for failing to think critically, we should remember that the digital revolution represents one of the most radical changes in human history.

Students today face a greater challenge in evaluating information than their parents or grandparents did at their age. The cumulative amount of information that exists on the planet, from the beginning of recorded history to the present, is, by realistic estimates , doubling every two years. And even though digital natives have grown up in the information age, many of the adults and institutions in their lives are still grappling with its implications. In other words, it's likely that the kind of credulity we see in young people reflects our own collective uncertainty about what we encounter on the digital frontier. Finally, the skills that students need to effectively sort fact from fiction are often missing from school curricula.

This isn't to suggest any shortcoming on the part of today's teachers. Without the classroom time, quality teaching materials and professional development opportunities in the emerging field of news literacy , teachers cannot reasonably be expected to guide their students to achieve these new skills.

News literacy is a relatively new field in media studies that focuses on defining and teaching the skills that citizens need to evaluate the credibility of the information they encounter, and on examining the role that credible information plays in a representative democracy.

It's also a subject that most students find inherently engaging and relevant. In fact, a recent study found that 84 percent of young people between the ages of 15 and 25 say they would benefit from learning these skills.

3 Exercises in News Literacy

But the question for teachers remains: "How can I integrate news literacy into my classroom amid so many other priorities, standards and goals?" I'd like to share three accessible ideas for how to do so.

Reinvent Current Events

Have students collect examples of information that they feel is timely and important. Then lead a discussion about who produced the content and for what purpose. Is it intended to inform? Persuade? Entertain? Sell? Create small groups and assign each a key characteristic of credibility to study:

• Quality sourcing
• Verification
• Word choice
• Documentation

Then have each team lead an assessment of its assigned attribute. Consider writing a group letter to the reporter, creator or editor about items that are either exemplary or problematic.

Explore the Power of Information

Pose an "essential question for the day" that explores the power and impact of information (e.g., "What changes would we see in the U.S. if the First Amendment protections of speech and press were repealed?"). Then use such websites as the Committee to Protect Journalists or Reporters Without Borders to examine press freedoms around the world. Track the number of journalists jailed, kidnapped or killed in 2014, and investigate the circumstances surrounding these incidents.

Fact-Checking Challenge

Display a different example of dubious information each week or month and challenge your students to research its accuracy using non-partisan fact-checking resources and advanced web searching . Give prizes or extra credit to those who get it right, or work collaboratively to seek answers as a class.

The Practice of Critical Thinking

Not only can these ideas be adapted to explore a range of relevant issues in a variety of academic subjects and grade levels, they also embody the principles of 21st century learning and are aligned with Common Core State Standards .

News literacy education has the potential to engage students and ignite their critical thinking. More importantly, it can empower them to make better-informed choices in their lives as they move beyond the classroom and into the world.

For more information about the News Literacy Project, including our free online professional development session this spring, visit our website .

The news and critical thinking: Why is it important?

Every day, we’re bombarded with a huge amount of news and information from all around the world. Whether it’s through websites, social media or TV, it’s never been easier to access the news.

Think about how many bits of news you’ve seen on your social feeds today. Do you know how much of it you can really trust?

What is media literacy and why is it important?

Media literacy is the ability to spot different types of media and to understand the messages they are communicating. It involves questioning what you’re watching, listening to or reading, so that you can make better judgements about the messages you’re being presented with.

Media includes all the different ways a message is communicated – from the news we read online to the ads we see on TV. The media we consume can inform, educate, entertain or convince us. It influences the way we see and think about ourselves and the world around us.

If we have good media literacy, it can stop us from getting stressed out by the confusing or negative things we see in the media. It can also help us focus on all the useful media that helps us to learn, connect and relax.

How can I improve my media literacy?

Question the credibility of the news source.

Whether you read the news from social media or a website, it’s important to know who is publishing the content. A credible or trustworthy news provider will make sure their reporting is impartial and free of errors.

Check out a news provider’s ‘About Us’ section on their website to learn more about their mission, values and approach to reporting. For example, as a not-for-profit, The Conversation ’s mission is ‘to provide access to quality explanatory journalism’ through articles written by ‘academics and journalists working together’. Factors like these will influence the way a story is reported.

Also consider who owns the media company, and if that is impacting the stories being produced. In Australia many publications share a parent company, meaning they may look and feel different, but they’re bound to similar publishing guidelines and rules. Check out a high level overview of Australian media organisations here .

Find news from a variety of sources

Get a balanced picture of news stories by consuming different news sources. This will give you a range of different perspectives on an issue. Media sites are often funded by advertisers, which means their reporting is driven by clicks (how people engage with the content). This causes them to report their stories in certain ways. If a news site is funded by an organisation with a particular political view, it can lead to reporting that promotes their way of thinking.

Read a mix of local publications and international news providers such as Reuters . This will help you to develop a well-informed opinion on a story.

Think about the purpose of the article

Why was the story produced? Was it to:

inform you about something that happened (news report)?

change your mind or behaviour (opinion piece)?

sell you something and promote a brand (branded content)?

A news provider might produce many different types of articles and videos, and should label them to make their purpose clear to the reader.

When it comes to the news, start with reports that contain facts, statistics from a trustworthy source (like from the government or an academic institution) and quotes from experts. Once you have the background details on a story, you’ll be able to make your own conclusions about an opinion piece written in response to it. This is especially important because prejudice against a person or group is common in mainstream media coverage.

Spot misinformation or fake news

Although social media has helped us become better connected, it has also driven the viral spread of fake news, or ‘misinformation’. Fake news is created using false or inaccurate information, with the intention of deceiving the reader. It works by grabbing a reader’s attention with a sensational or wild claim in the hope they’ll then click through and share it.

Social media feeds are based on an algorithm or system of rules that sorts posts based on the type of content you normally interact with and how popular the content is. The more people who interact with the content, the quicker the fake news spreads and the more money the site makes from advertisers who pay to put up their ads on the site. Here are a few signs the story you’re reading could be fake news:

No evidence: It contains no evidence for its claims and is often based on one person’s side of the story.

Sensational headline and images: It uses an outrageous headline and images to lure you in (e.g. ‘Celebrity kills off dad in latest prank’). The stories may also include many bizarre claims.

Not reported anywhere else: If you can’t find the story through any other news source, it’s reasonable to question its credibility.

Contains errors: The article contains spelling and grammatical mistakes or incorrect dates.

Unusual URL: For example, the site URL ends in “.com.co” or “.lo”.

Talk to your family and friends about the news you’re reading

Discussing news stories with other people will challenge and broaden your own perspective. Be open to talking with and listening to people whose views differ from yours.

If the conversation starts to become difficult or makes you feel uncomfortable, ask someone neutral to join the discussion. Or you can always stop the conversation and simply agree to disagree. There’s no point arguing with someone who doesn’t want to listen to anyone else’s perspective. Get some tips on discussing politics with family and friends .

Switch off and take a break

News has a 24-hour cycle – its output is never-ending. It can therefore be overwhelming and exhausting, especially as some media outlets tend to report mostly negative stories (because they get an emotional reaction). Get some tips on coping with disturbing videos and images here .

Turn off the news and do something you enjoy to clear your mind . Challenge yourself to a tech-free hour and spend it going for a walk or reading a book. You could do something that will refresh your mind and body, like shooting some hoops or dancing to your favourite music.

Whatever you decide to do, remember that it’s important to take a break from the news every once in a while. Taking time out helps you to think critically about and not be overwhelmed by the news. It’ll also help you with all the other tips in this article!

What can I do now?

Learn how to spot fake news by playing Bad News Game , a quick online game where you try to build a fake news empire.

Watch the CrashCourse series on media literacy for a deeper dive into the topic.

Get some tips on dealing with bad world news.

The State of Critical Thinking 2021

Introduction.

Social media’s rise has been nothing short of meteoric. In 2005, Facebook had around 5 million active users . As of 2020, more than 2.7 billion use the platform actively. Social media has inserted itself into almost every facet of human life. People use it to maintain relationships with family and friends, to share information on the tiniest aspects of daily life, such as the length of the grass in their lawn, and to get informed about what’s going on in the world.  

Simply put, the adoption of social media is one of the most widespread and rapid changes in communications in human history. It shouldn’t be surprising, therefore, that it has come along with a number of drawbacks and challenges — not least of all to the way we think. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated our use of social media, of course, making us far more likely to be on Twitter or Facebook. The pandemic has also exacerbated some of the challenges that come with social media, particularly around critical thinking and disinformation.  

For these reasons, in our annual survey on the state of critical thinking, the Reboot Foundation asked people about their use of and views on social media, particularly as it related to their mental health. In the survey, our research team also asked questions about reasoning, media literacy, and critical thinking. Our goal was to take the temperature of popular opinion about social media and to gauge what, if anything, people think should be done to change their relationship with it.

Overall Findings

As social media use rises due to the pandemic, people are increasingly concerned about its impact on mental health.  

Over 60 percent of respondents said their social media use had gone up since the onset of COVID-19 lockdowns, while around half of respondents said they spend more than two hours a day on social media. 

It is not surprising that people reported using social media more during the pandemic. Afterall, people have been asked to physically disconnect from family, friends, and coworkers. But the survey also showed that the public is deeply concerned about the mental health ramifications of rampant social media use. More than half said their social media use intensified feelings of anxiety and hindered their ability to concentrate. 

Despite the general acknowledgment that social media is contributing to symptoms of poor mental health, a significant percentage of people aren’t willing to stop scrolling or to put down their screens. 

There is a disconnect between how people see the impact of social media on society and how they view it on an individual level. Despite their concern about social media’s impact on public mental health, most individuals seem ambivalent about the role of social media in their own lives. To put it bluntly, everyone seems to think their own relationship to social media is healthier than the average. 

This was clear in the survey.  Over 70 percent of users said they would not give up their social media accounts for less than $10,000.  Even more surprising, more than 40 percent said they would give up their TV, car, or pet before they disabled their social media pages. 

But despite being open to giving up Fido for Facebook, only about a third of respondents reported taking steps to limit their social media use, like turning off phones periodically or limiting content on their feeds.

When it comes to the impact of social media on political discourse, the public is similarly ambivalent. While many found social media damaging to their political reasoning, others thought they benefited from being exposed to new ideas online.

A related area of concern with social media is its impact on public discourse. In the survey, the public shows a lot of concern here as well, but, again, on an individual level people seem to view their own use of social media relatively positively. 

While social media has contributed to polarization , exacerbated political biases , and even helped foster radicalism and violence , the survey found that individual users often think social media has helped expose them to alternative viewpoints, become better informed, and even articulate their own political views better.  

Slight majorities indicated that social media had a positive effect on their ability to assess sources of information and articulate their views clearly to others. And some 30 percent deemed social media “somewhat helpful” to their thinking about public issues. 

These results suggest that efforts to improve public discourse online must be cognizant of social media’s real and perceived benefits, and focus on ways to preserve and amplify those benefits, while remediating the problems.

Support for critical thinking skills remains nearly universal, with equally strong support for the teaching of critical thinking at all levels of education. 

In the survey, 95 percent affirmed that critical thinking skills are important in today’s world, and an equal number said they believed those skills should be taught in K-12 schools. Another 85 percent of our respondents said critical thinking skills are generally lacking in the public. “Changing societal norms” was the most commonly cited reason for the lack of critical thinking skills.

When it comes to addressing some of the problems with social media, the good news is that support for critical thinking, in all sectors of society, is high, and people recognize these skills are lacking in the general population. Survey respondents also generally support dedicated critical thinking education, beginning at a young age. Coupled with the public’s understandable attachment to social media, this continued support for critical thinking suggests that the best avenue for addressing the problems with social media is better education at all levels of the society.  

The survey was conducted through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) from March 3 to March 14, 2021.

Participants were recruited using methods that ensure high data quality. Only those with a 95 percent or higher approval rating on the service were permitted to participate, and they were compensated at a fair rate equal to at least $15 an hour. Furthermore, in order to prevent inattentive or overhasty answers, the team included an “attention check” question that filtered out respondents who were not answering thoughtfully. 

Participants completed three sets of questions: first, a survey module on their social media use and opinions; second, a module on critical thinking; and last, a set of demographic questions. Questions with unordered (i.e., categorical) response sets had responses presented in a randomized order to each participant, in order to reduce question ordering effects.

Forty-four percent of our sample self-reported as female, 55 percent as male, and 1 percent as non-binary. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78, with a modal age of 35. Sixty-six percent of participants had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. All participants were located in the United States. We sampled about equally from each US state to ensure a balanced geographic distribution.

To maintain consistency with the prior survey and to explore relationships across time, many of the questions remained the same from the 2018 and 2020 versions of the survey. In some cases, following best practices in questionnaire design, we revamped questions to improve clarity and increase the validity and reliability of the responses.

The survey was completed by 1,010 respondents. Its margin of error is 3 percent. The complete set of questions for each survey is available upon request.

Detailed Findings and Discussion

Social media use is up due to the pandemic, and people are concerned about its impact on mental health.

Unsurprisingly, COVID-19 lockdowns seem to have boosted people’s general social media use. Over 60 percent of respondents said their social media usage went up since COVID-19 lockdowns began in March 2020. Of those, around 36 percent said their usage had increased by an hour or more. 

As other surveys have found, social media usage can end up taking up a large portion of people’s day. Around half of the respondents to Reboot’s survey said they spent more than 2 hours a day on social media, with 12 percent indicating they spend more than 4 hours a day on social media. 

These estimates are in line with research that indicates Americans spent an average of 82 minutes a day on social media in 2020, up from 75 minutes in 2019.

None of this is particularly surprising. During a year when in-person social contact was dramatically constrained by COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, stromectol , people took to social media more than ever before to keep up-to-date with family and friends, as well as to pass the time at home. 

There is some evidence that this newfound reliance on social media may have prevented growth in social media use from stalling, as well as helped deflect some negative attention around social media. 

Before the pandemic new user numbers were actually stagnant or even in decline in the United States. And during the worldwide political upheaval since the rise of right-wing populism around 2016, social media has taken much of the blame for extremism and a generally toxic political discourse. It will be interesting to see if negative social media sentiment rebounds and usage dips in a post-pandemic environment, or, whether, conversely, a year plus of using social media more has changed people’s habits in the long run.

The Reboot survey also asked participants to evaluate the impact of social media on their own mental health. Of course, self-reports of mental health outcomes have limitations. These results aren’t close to as reliable as a diagnosis by a medical professional. Still, they can help understand public sentiment on the issue, especially as social media and the problems around it become more prominent, both in public discourse and in social science research.

The most striking results came on questions about specific mental-health impacts. Participants were asked whether they thought their social media use intensified any of the following feelings or conditions: anxiety, depression, difficulty concentrating, loneliness, or low self-esteem. 

For each of these conditions, more than 50 percent of respondents indicated those feelings were at least “somewhat” intensified by social media, while at least 20 percent for each option indicated they were “very” or “extremely” intensified. People seemed to have the most trouble with anxiety and difficulty concentrating, with nearly 60 percent in both cases reporting some negative effects from social media usage.

A substantial number of those surveyed also expressed general concern about social media’s mental health impacts. Around 20 percent described their social media use as somewhere on the range of “unhealthy.” Given people’s natural proclivity against admitting to unhealthy behavior, that number is significant. That said, more than half described their use as “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely healthy.” 

Meanwhile, when asked to evaluate the overall impact of social media on their mental health, around a third of respondents said social media had a “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” negative impact. Overall, the survey paints a picture of a majority of users who feel they are able to use social media without doing serious harm to their mental health, but nonetheless do experience negative impacts. There is also a significant minority that is more concerned about the impact of social media usage on their mental health.

Participants expressed even more concern when asked about the impact of social media on the public at large, instead of on their own personal lives. Over 80 percent reported a “moderate” level of concern or greater, with over 50 percent indicating they were “very” or “extremely” concerned. 

Despite the general acknowledgement that social media is contributing to symptoms of poor mental health, a significant percentage of people still aren’t willing to stop scrolling or to put down their screens.  

Social media addiction — and technology addiction more broadly — are also areas where further research is needed. Although survey participants reported concern about their own social media use, they were generally more concerned about the impact on society. This suggests that despite high levels of concern about social media overuse and addiction generally, many people might not see the problem as significant enough in their own lives to take action on an individual level. 

Indeed, the survey found mixed results when it came to participants taking steps to limit social media use in participants’ personal lives. Only about a third or less of respondents reported that they had taken concrete steps to limit their social media use, like deleting or suspending social media accounts, turning off their phones, or limiting content on their feeds. 

Moreover, when asked hypothetically how much money at minimum they would require to delete all their social media accounts permanently, over 70 percent said it would take $10,000 or more, with 20 percent saying it would take at least $1 million. Similarly, 42 percent said they’d give up their TV, pet, or car before giving up their social media accounts.

The survey’s results parallel a growing, but still inconclusive, body of social science research into the effects of social media on mental health. A number of studies suggest links between adolescent anxiety and depression, especially among girls, and social media use. (1)   Other research has explicitly focused on social media addiction and its connections to mental health disorders. (2)   More specifically, researchers have linked depression to social media behaviors like comparing oneself to others who seem better off and worrying about being tagged in unflattering pictures.

But the research is by no means settled, especially since many of social media’s most addictive features, like “like” buttons and feeds with sophisticated algorithms based on user data ,  have only become widespread over the last decade or so. A number of methodological issues complicate research in this area: studies to date tend to focus too much on self-reports; social media companies themselves control the bulk of the data ; negative mental health outcomes tend to be complicated and multi-factor. Good data that can support solid, statistically significant conclusions remains, therefore, hard to come by. 

Moreover, other studies have found little or no reason to conclude that social media has a negative impact on mental health, (3)  including adolescent mental health. Some researchers have even gone so far as to compare current levels of concern about social media and mental health to prior “ technology panics .” (4)   For example, widespread concern about links between real-world violence and violent video games in the 1990s hasn’t been borne out by research. 

It is important to study the issue with care, then, and to remain aware of positive impacts social media can have. More research needs to be done, among different population types, before any definitive conclusions can be ventured. 

Still, given the significant changes to social life brought about social media, especially among young people and especially during the pandemic, it would also be a mistake to ignore these concerns. The internet and social media clearly foster radically new kinds of social interaction and communication, while enabling new kinds of manipulation and addiction. That doesn’t mean an outright panic is justified, but it does mean social media’s social impact — both negative and positive — is well-worth concern and study. 

When it comes to the impact of social media on political discourse, the public is ambivalent. While many found social media damaging to their political reasoning; others thought the way it had exposed them to new ideas was beneficial.

In addition to mental health impacts, commentators and researchers have long been concerned about the impact of social media on our political discourse. More specifically, social media has been implicated in the rise of racist and authoritarian ideas and conspiracy theories , initially on less mainstream forums like 4chan , but later on mainstream social media like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter. It has contributed heavily to shocking democratic outcomes , including Brexit and Donald Trump’s election in 2016. (5)   It’s also contributed to violence around the world , from countries with authoritarian governments like the Philippines to democracies like the United States, where social media activity fueled the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Furthermore, social media is typically cited, with good reason, as a cause of polarization and dysfunction in democratic discourse. (6)   Social media enables structures that tend to decrease the quality and increase the intensity of debate : these include filter bubbles that expose users to only viewpoints they already agree with; Twitter dynamics that fuel pile-on and extremism; and algorithms that prioritize sensationalistic and personalized content that keeps users scrolling.

That said, it would perhaps be overhasty to deem that social media’s impact on public discourse has been all negative. In fact, somewhat surprisingly, the respondents to our survey viewed social media’s impact on their own thinking on current events and politics in neutral or even slightly positive ways. 

A plurality of 30 percent indicated that social media had been “somewhat helpful,” when asked whether it was helpful or damaging to their thinking about contemporary issues. Only around 5 percent indicated it had been “very” or “extremely damaging,” although nearly 20 percent thought it had been somewhat damaging. 

Although it might be taken for granted that social media has been polarizing, respondents’ opinion was split, with 27 percent saying they had become less tolerant due to social media, and 43 percent saying social media had made them more tolerant of different views. Around the same number (46 percent) indicated social media had “somewhat increased” the diversity of the news they consumed. (Again, it is worth keeping in mind that self-reports tend to be more flattering than the actuality.)

In the survey, significant numbers thought social media had positive impacts on their media literacy skills. Thirty-eight percent indicated they engage more deeply with social and political issues due to social media, as opposed to 27 percent saying they engage less deeply. And slight majorities said social media affected their ability to assess sources of information at least “somewhat positively” (51 percent) and made them better able to express their views clearly to others (55 percent).

These mixed opinions reflect the ambiguous place social media holds in our public discourse. People seem to be generally wary of the pitfalls of social media, especially around political content, but are unlikely to completely condemn it, especially when evaluating its impact on them personally. 

Other recent research has come to similar conclusions. A Pew survey found that people were optimistic about the role social media can play in building social movements, even while they worried about the distractions it can cause. Another Pew survey , meanwhile, found that 55 percent of Americans describe themselves as feeling “worn out” by political posts and discussions, while 70 percent found it “stressful and frustrating” to discuss politics with those they disagree with on social media. 

Given these attitudes, it seems clear that we can neither dismiss the problems associated with social media, nor expect people to simply give up their social media accounts. What is needed is a concerted effort to give people the cognitive tools to manage the dangers of social media addiction; to engage productively with valuable information and opinion they find online; and, perhaps most importantly, to recognize and avoid low-quality information and opinion that is not worth engaging with. 

Each year, Reboot takes stock of the public’s attitude towards critical thinking and specific critical thinking practices. This year, as expected, general support for critical thinking remains high. Ninety-five percent of respondents affirm that critical thinking skills are important in today’s world, and, similar to previous years, 85 percent believe that they are generally lacking in the public.

Interestingly, when asked for the main reason for the lack of critical thinking skills, “changing societal norms” took the blame much more than in past years, with almost a third of respondents choosing it. Modern technology (21 percent) and the education system (24 percent), were the other significant targets of blame.

There were some changes over time, as the chart below shows. But none of the shifts were very large, except for a shift in the idea that students have always lacked critical thinking due to the “same reason they always lacked these skills.” That grew by more than 5 percentage points. 

The education system, in general, is not highly regarded when it comes to teaching critical thinking, with only a quarter of respondents saying they received an “extremely” or “very” strong background in critical thinking from their schools. About the same number (26 percent) described the background provided as “not strong at all,” with another 23 percent calling it only “slightly strong.” More than half the participants indicated that they did not study critical thinking in school.

When people reflect on their critical thinking development after high school, the results are not much better. Only half of the respondents said their critical thinking skills had improved since high school, with around 16 percent saying their critical thinking skills had actually deteriorated.

There are some positive signs that education in critical thinking and relative fields like civics and media literacy is becoming a priority. Organizations like NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education) and Media Literacy Now are developing curricula and programs to improve media literacy across grade level and in continuing education. The Department of Education and National Endowment for the Humanities have also recently spearheaded an initiative to reinvigorate civics education. The Reboot Foundation has also developed materials for critical thinking , media literacy , and civics education. But overall, as the survey responses’ confirm, there remains a significant discrepancy between how highly critical thinking skills are valued and how few resources are put to use to advance them. 

As behavioral psychologists like Daniel Kahneman have noted , the human brain is a product of evolution that has developed to cope with certain conditions and respond to certain stimuli. (10)    

Although the brain has become very sophisticated, this evolutionary process has also left us with certain biases and shortcuts in reasoning that can lead to error, especially in highly complex, information-rich modern societies. By changing the environment in which we reason, social media — and the internet in general — can exacerbate these biases and distort our thought processes in a number of different ways.

For instance, algorithms prioritize “high-engagement,” sensationalized content that can create emotional, irrational responses. Depending on how their feeds are curated, people may end up being exposed only or predominantly to ideas that confirm what they already think, missing out on the challenges to prejudice and preconceptions that are essential to good reasoning. Finally, a flattened-out environment without the depth and texture of face-to-face conversations can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings, and cause hostility and conflict. 

The distorted thinking that results from the social media environment can have widespread negative social consequences, both in terms of public mental health and public discourse, as the survey respondents recognized. 

Critical thinking education, including education in civics and media literacy, is the natural and needed companion to social media. People better trained in good reasoning practices like evaluating sources, weighing opposing views, and formulating logically sound arguments, will also be better able to navigate online life more carefully and thoughtfully. They will be less susceptible to the confirmation bias, groupthink, and ad hominem argumentation that are so widespread in these environments.

Interestingly, many of these critical thinking practices are also relevant to addressing the negative effects of social media on mental health . Adherents of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), for example, have emphasized the extent to which anxiety and depression can be caused and exacerbated by negative thinking patterns . To the extent that social media can reinforce or help foster these thinking patterns, it may be contributing to what has been described as a “ mental health crisis ,” especially among adolescents and young adults. CBT, like critical thinking, involves identifying these distortions and developing the habits of mind to resist them. Better integrating these critical thinking practices into our education system will help young people develop the tools they need to navigate the online world in a healthy and productive way.

This does not require a radical overhaul of the curriculum. Instead, what’s needed is a recommitment to the principles of education in the liberal arts and sciences, which already emphasize many of these practices. Too often students are, instead, subjected to a testing-oriented curriculum that gives them a narrow view of thinking and education. 

Teaching in these areas gets too bogged down in finding right answers, and applying rote processes to fixed and unrealistic problems. There is not enough open-ended questioning and real-world reasoning and interpretation. Students don’t spend enough time talking about the first principles and logic behind the disciplines they are studying. And they don’t develop skills in articulating their own viewpoints persuasively and cogently, in both writing and speech.

In short, what’s needed is ideas for integrating critical thinking into the curriculum. Reboot has contributed to this mission with its Teachers’ Guide , which offers teachers ideas to inject critical thinking into existing lesson plans. These efforts do not just add needed skills to students’ education; they should also help with motivation and the love of learning, since critical thinking is a creative, open-ended process that builds on students’ own interests and opinions. 

The overall goal is a population — and society as a whole — that values patient engagement and reasoned argument over sensationalism and gut responses, and one that is able to use technology mindfully and productively.

To download the PDF of this survey,

(please click here)

(1)*    Haidt, J., & Allen, N. (2020). Scrutinizing the effects of digital technology on mental health. Nature   578 , 226-227. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00296-x (2)* Robinson, A., Bonnette, A., Howard, K., Ceballos, N., Dailey, S., Lu, Y., & Grimes, T. (2019). Social comparisons, social media addiction, and social interaction: An examination of specific social media behaviors related to major depressive disorder in a millennial population. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 24 (1).  https://doi.org/10.1111/jabr.12158

(3)*   Orben, A., & Przybylski, A.K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use.  Nature Human Behaviour   3 ,  173–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1

(4)*  Orben, A. (2020). The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (5), 1143-1157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620919372

(5)*  Hall, R. Tinati and W. Jennings (2018). “From Brexit to Trump: Social Media’s Role in Democracy,” Computer , 51 (1), 18–27, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.1151005

(6)*  Tucker, J.A., Guess, A. and Barbera, P. and Vaccari, C., Siegel, A. and Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Hewlett Foundation . http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139

(7)*  Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133  

(8)*  Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator (Summer), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32  

(9)*  Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental psychology , 37 (5), 620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620  

(10)*  Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

please click here.

Privacy Overview

More From Forbes

13 Easy Steps To Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills

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

With the sheer volume of information that we’re bombarded with on a daily basis – and with the pervasiveness of fake news and social media bubbles – the ability to look at evidence, evaluate the trustworthiness of a source, and think critically is becoming more important than ever. This is why, for me, critical thinking is one of the most vital skills to cultivate for future success.

Critical thinking isn’t about being constantly negative or critical of everything. It’s about objectivity and having an open, inquisitive mind. To think critically is to analyze issues based on hard evidence (as opposed to personal opinions, biases, etc.) in order to build a thorough understanding of what’s really going on. And from this place of thorough understanding, you can make better decisions and solve problems more effectively.

To put it another way, critical thinking means arriving at your own carefully considered conclusions instead of taking information at face value. Here are 13 ways you can cultivate this precious skill:

1. Always vet new information with a cautious eye. Whether it’s an article someone has shared online or data that’s related to your job, always vet the information you're presented with. Good questions to ask here include, "Is this information complete and up to date?” “What evidence is being presented to support the argument?” and “Whose voice is missing here?”

2. Look at where the information has come from. Is the source trustworthy? What is their motivation for presenting this information? For example, are they trying to sell you something or get you to take a certain action (like vote for them)?

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

3. Consider more than one point of view. Everyone has their own opinions and motivations – even highly intelligent people making reasonable-sounding arguments have personal opinions and biases that shape their thinking. So, when someone presents you with information, consider whether there are other sides to the story.

4. Practice active listening. Listen carefully to what others are telling you, and try to build a clear picture of their perspective. Empathy is a really useful skill here since putting yourself in another person's shoes can help you understand where they're coming from and what they might want. Try to listen without judgment – remember, critical thinking is about keeping an open mind.

5. Gather additional information where needed. Whenever you identify gaps in the information or data, do your own research to fill those gaps. The next few steps will help you do this objectively…

6. Ask lots of open-ended questions. Curiosity is a key trait of critical thinkers, so channel your inner child and ask lots of "who," "what," and "why" questions.

7. Find your own reputable sources of information, such as established news sites, nonprofit organizations, and education institutes. Try to avoid anonymous sources or sources with an ax to grind or a product to sell. Also, be sure to check when the information was published. An older source may be unintentionally offering up wrong information just because events have moved on since it was published; corroborate the info with a more recent source.

8. Try not to get your news from social media. And if you do see something on social media that grabs your interest, check the accuracy of the story (via reputable sources of information, as above) before you share it.

9. Learn to spot fake news. It's not always easy to spot false or misleading content, but a good rule of thumb is to look at the language, emotion, and tone of the piece. Is it using emotionally charged language, for instance, and trying to get you to feel a certain way? Also, look at the sources of facts, figures, images, and quotes. A legit news story will clearly state its sources.

10. Learn to spot biased information. Like fake news, biased information may seek to appeal more to your emotions than logic and/or present a limited view of the topic. So ask yourself, “Is there more to this topic than what’s being presented here?” Do your own reading around the topic to establish the full picture.

11. Question your own biases, too. Everyone has biases, and there’s no point pretending otherwise. The trick is to think objectively about your likes and dislikes, preferences, and beliefs, and consider how these might affect your thinking.

12. Form your own opinions. Remember, critical thinking is about thinking independently. So once you’ve assessed all the information, form your own conclusions about it.

13. Continue to work on your critical thinking skills. I recommend looking at online learning platforms such as Udemy and Coursera for courses on general critical thinking skills, as well as courses on specific subjects like cognitive biases.

Read more about critical thinking and other essential skills in my new book, Future Skills: The 20 Skills & Competencies Everyone Needs To Succeed In A Digital World . Written for anyone who wants to surf the wave of digital transformation – rather than be drowned by it – the book explores why these vital future skills matter and how to develop them.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

15 Things We Have Learned About Critical Thinking

Here are the key issues to consider in critical thinking..

Posted July 27, 2018

• What Is Cognition?
• Take our Mental Processing Test
• Find a therapist near me

Not long after the publication of my book, Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines , by Cambridge University Press, Psychology Today contacted me and asked me to write a blog on the subject. I never thought I would write a blog, but when presented with the opportunity to keep sharing my thoughts on critical thinking on a regular basis, I thought, why not ? Maybe my writing might help educators, maybe they might help students and maybe they might help people in their day-to-day decision-making . If it can help, then it’s worthwhile.

To recap, critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process, consisting of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when applied through purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment, increase the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

CT, if anything, has become more necessary , in this age of information bombardment and the new knowledge economy (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). It allows students to gain a better understanding of complex information (Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2012; 2014; Gambrill, 2006; Halpern, 2014); it allows them to achieve higher grades and become more employable, informed and active citizens (Barton & McCully, 2007; Holmes & Clizbe, 1997; National Academy of Sciences, 2005); it facilitates good decision-making and problem-solving in social and interpersonal contexts (Ku, 2009); and it decreases the effects of cognitive biases and heuristic -based thinking (Facione & Facione, 2001; McGuinness, 2013).

It’s now been just over a year since I started writing ‘Thoughts on Thinking’. As I consider my thinking and look over my writing during this period, I thought it would be worthwhile to collate and summarise some of the broader learning that has appeared in my writings. So, here’s what we’ve learned:

• We all know CT is important, but it may be the case that many educators, as well as students, don’t really know what researchers mean by "critical thinking" and/or simply haven’t researched it themselves.
• Just as many don’t really know what is meant by "critical thinking", there is also the problem of ensuring consistency across how it is defined/conceptualised, trained and measured , which is no easy task.
• Without adequate training in CT, it may be the case that mature students’ perceptions of how they approach CT do not match their actual ability - despite potentially enhanced autonomy, student responsibility and locus of control , it may be that an over- optimistic outlook on the benefits of experience (and its associated heuristic-based, intuitive judgment) takes centre-stage above and beyond actual ability.
• Social media is many things: entertainment, education , networking and much more. It is also, unfortunately, a vehicle for promoting faulty thinking. Being able to recognise persuasion techniques, illogical argumentation and fallacious reasoning , will allow you to better assess arguments presented to you, and help you to present better arguments.
• Values are unique to each and every individual. Though individuals can certainly share values, there is no guarantee that all of an individual’s values overlap with another’s. On the other hand, using the 'virtue' moniker implies that the individual is right based on some kind of ‘moral correctness’. Though there is nothing wrong with an individual presenting ideas and perspectives that they value, it is ill-conceived and dangerous to treat them as global virtues that everyone else should value too.
• CT is domain-g eneral, but explicit CT training is necessary if educators want to see CT improve and flourish across domains.
• A person with a strong willingness to conduct CT has the consistent internal willingness and motivation to engage problems and make decisions by using reflective judgment . Reflective judgment, the recognition of limited knowledge and how this uncertainty can affect decision-making processes, is an important aspect of critical thinking regarding ‘taking a step back’ and thinking about an argument or problem a little bit longer and considering the basis for the reasons and consequences of responding in a particular way.
• There is a need for general, secondary-school training in bias and statistics. We need to teach CT to the coming generations. When not critically thinking, people don’t listen, and fail to be open-minded and reflect upon the information presented to them; they project their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether or not they have evidence to support their claims.
• Be open-minded towards others. You don’t have to respect them (respect is earned, it’s not a right); but be courteous (sure, we may be in disagreement; but, hey, we’re still civilised people).
• A person said what they said, not how you interpret what they said. If you are unclear as to what has been said, ask for clarification. Asking for clarity is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of successful problem-solving.
• ‘Proof’ is the dirtiest word in critical thinking. Research and science do not prove things, they can only disprove. Be wary when you hear the word ‘prove’ or any of its variants thrown around; but also, be mindful that people feel safer when they are assured and words like ‘proven’ reinforce this feeling of assuredness.
• Creative thinking isn’t really useful or practical in critical thinking, depending on how you conceptualize it. Critical thinking and creative thinking are very different entities if you treat the latter as something similar to lateral thinking or ‘thinking outside the box’. However, if we conceptualize creative thinking as synthesizing information for the purpose of inferring a logical and feasible conclusion or solution, then it becomes complementary to critical thinking. But then, we are not resorting to creativity alone - all other avenues involving critical thinking must be considered. That is, we can think creatively by synthesizing information we have previously thought about critically (i.e. through analysis and evaluation ) for the purpose of inferring a logical and feasible conclusion or solution. Thus, given this caveat, we can infuse our critical thinking with creative thinking, but we must do so with caution.
• Changing people’s minds is not easy ; and it’s even more difficult when the person you’re working with believes they have critically thought about it. It may simply boil down to the person you’re trying to educate and their disposition towards critical thinking, but the person’s emotional investment in their stance also plays a significant role.
• There is no such thing as good or bad CT – you either thought critically or you didn’t. Those who try it in good faith are likely to want to do it ‘properly’; and so, much of whether or not an individual is thinking critically comes down to intellectual humility and intellectual integrity .
• Finally, there are some general tips that people find useful in applying their critical thinking:
• Save your critical thinking for things that matter - things you care about.
• Do it earlier in your day to avoid faulty thinking resulting from decision fatigue.
• Take a step back and think about a problem a little bit longer, considering the basis for the reasons and consequences of responding in a particular way.
• Play Devil’s Advocate in order to overcome bias and 'auto-pilot processing' through truly considering alternatives.
• Leave emotion at the door and remove your beliefs, attitudes, opinions and personal experiences from the equation - all of which are emotionally charged.

Barton, K., & McCully, A. (2007). Teaching controversial issues where controversial issues really matter. Teaching History, 127, 13–19.

Dwyer, C.P. (2017). Critical thinking: Conceptual perspectives and practical guidelines. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An evaluation of argument mapping as a method of enhancing critical thinking performance in e-learningenvironments. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 219–244.

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J. & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills & Creativity, 12, 43-52.

Eigenauer, J.D. (2017). Don’t reinvent the critical thinking wheel: What scholarly literature tells us about critical thinking instruction. Innovation Abstracts, 39, 2.

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2001). Analyzing explanations for seemingly irrational choices: Linking argument analysis and cognitive science. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15(2), 267–286.

Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence-based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 16(3), 338–357.

Halpern, D.F. (2014). Though and knowledge. UK: Psychology Press.

Holmes, J., & Clizbe, E. (1997). Facing the 21st century. Business Education Forum, 52(1), 33–35.

Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity,4(1), 70–76.

McGuinness, C. (2013). Teaching thinking: Learning how to think. Presented at the Psychological Society of Ireland and British Psychological Association’s Public Lecture Series. Galway, Ireland, 6th March.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005). National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine Rising above the gathering storm: Energising and employingAmerica for a brighter economic future. Committee on prospering in the global economy for the 21st century. Washington, DC.

Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.

• 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