Abstract
The essay you are about to read provides the notion of critical thinking in society and discusses why we are still attracted to false information and not thinking critically enough. The importance of that is based on, for example, the rise of fake news and other unreliable information in media. Additionally, the problematic concept of “facts” is included. In the conclusion, the solution of education is emphasised. Keywords
Critical thinking; media; society; facts; objectivity
Introduction
The aim of this essay is to investigate why we are still attracted to false information and why we are not thinking critically enough. People tend to fall for fake news, for instance because of political motivations (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Another factor is the “(in)ability to differentiate between truth and falsehood” in relation to reasoning (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). In addition, scienctific reasoning and critical thinking seem to be similar (Dowd et al., 2018). Important to mention is that “it is not easy to distinguish real news from fake news on social media” (Machete & Turpin, 2020). In addition, heuristics, and the notion of believing versus sharing, are important components of the phenomenon of falling for fake news (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). According to Kellner and Share (2007) “many in the US are not informed enough about media literacy to even consider it”. Media literacy is an essential concept of critical thinking and the ability to separate false from true information. Regarding political identity, which is a dominant factor in media, emotions seem to be “only partially related” (Wischnewski & Krämer, 2021). The evolutionary background of human beings results in often being irrational and only sometimes being logical (Geher, 2019). Why humans are often gullible has to do with cognitive functioning that makes us be more attractive to “juicier details of a story – the original myth – while forgetting the piddling little fact that it’s been proven false” (Robson, 2016).It is still unknown why exactly we have not grown out of poor critical thinking and for example naivety and wishful thinking. One could look for answers in the fields of psychology, evolutionary biology, philosophy, neuro(bio)logy, history, or even psychiatry. Furthermore, it is unknown whether we are even able to fully grow out of it. Why is it that human beings fall into historical ‘mistakes’, circulating in ignorant repetition of history? Is the lack of critique perhaps beneficial, and is there perhaps an evolutionary component? These questions need to be addressed for the purpose of understanding our current status as (un)critical human beings in society and where this status comes from. Perhaps the answers will also be useful for future understanding.
First, I shall introduce the notion of what critical thinking means in regard to facts and media; second, I will discuss how it is related to society. Finally, the previously mentioned question about why we are still attracted to false information and not thinking critically enough will be addressed with concluding arguments.Elaboration I think that a critical mind is something to be proud of. We live in critical times, where a great number of our surroundings are being questioned by critical thinkers. Nevertheless, it is not evident to have a critical mind, not even in these centuries we live in. The vast majority of people still like to live their lives with the mentality of ‘just do what you are told’. Fortunately, this is not so poor as compared to a couple of centuries ago, but still not as good as you would expect it to be in modern times. The internet has been present in our homes for 20 years now, media provides us an abundance of information, people are more open and honest, and still it seems like we are not so critical as I would hope for. The questions ‘is this right what I’m reading?’ or ‘can I do better?’ are not enough integrated in our thinking. Our cognitive abilities seem to be mainly to do and think as you have been told by your parents, friends and teachers, and believing it from a young age (Jaswal, 2010). On a reasonable level, we can think for ourselves and question our environment, but it is in decline. An example of this is how many people, highly or lowly educated, believe any given ‘fact’ from media that seems to be trustworthy, and therefore reliable. Especially when it is provided by official media like a website from an institute. Clearly, not many people will doubt this information, since it is official. With science, people will not doubt it quickly, but perhaps do not frequently take it too seriously either in their daily lives. The speculative reason for this could be that science is too separated from the average person’s frame of meaning. On the contrary, science does deal with facts in daily life, and hence would be interesting and valuable to many persons. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how the population would benefit directly from scientific research regarding medicine. The notion of proof and facts is an important component of the critical approach of public science communication. Though, due to the immense spread of false medical information – and the accessorial idea that the truth is commonly somewhere in between two opinions (despite expertise) – it remains unclear what facts are. This will be discussed in the next section.FactsIn 2010, director of studies in philosophy Marianne Talbot (University of Oxford) expresses the following in The Nature of Arguments: “Facts are what make sentences true or false. They are not themselves true or false. They just exist or don’t exist.” We must take into consideration that facts from the outside world, outside your perception, exist per definition. Whether we consider them as facts, as plausible facts, or as possible facts, is something else. The world is to be observed, subjectively and intersubjectively. When there is a (general) consensus, which will evolve into universal values and perceptions on truths, then it becomes objective within human affairs and concepts. The objective facts in nature are objective per definition (Midgley, 2001). To make them part of scientific objectivity as defined by human beings, they must undergo a process of observation, testing, reflection, reasoning, argumentation, agreement and universalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020).A table to sit at is a table because it is identified and defined as such. For most people on this planet, it would not be a topic for debate whether a table exists or not. Everyone can observe, touch, measure and test the table. For many other phenomena in the world or in the universe, we disagree more. Whether consciousness is produced by our brains, a multiverse exists, God exists, how long it took in evolutionary terms to evolve to the primates we are, whether our DNA is identical to those of chimpanzees, what the best economic decisions are, or whether depression is a disease or not.A general defined and informed fact typically contains several layers:
- The actual fact.
- How it is interpreted.
- The converted version of the interpretation.
- How it is presented, including context.
Consequentially, facts are copied and spread across the media by many websites, television programs and newspapers. Often there are adjusted details and different contexts implemented by each medium, according to the individual (whether or not political) policies. Thus, facts are often coloured. Media evidently play a crucial role in factual information. Because where would we otherwise gain that information from?
MediaWith information by newspapers, people are possibly somewhat more sceptical, but even information that is spread on forums and YouTube that is not grounded in any way, is still accepted. Even though scepticism is present with people reading newspapers, because of ‘fake news’ for example, they take too much for granted. Fake news is still believed. Misinformation is spread through every kind of medium, often in a way that looks very reliable, grounded and professional but it is not. It is becoming a threat to society (Lazer et al., 2018). Especially when internet users actively contribute to spreading misinformation via social media (Bichanan, 2020). Additionally, when it is related to medical issues such as dealing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which affects human beings, then it becomes even more problematic. With additional urge to combat the spread of false information (Orso, 2020; Pierri, 2022; The Lancet Reumathology, 2021; World Health Organization, 2021).An interesting aspect of judging websites is that certain sites are designed very professionally, with decent graphics and lay-out, may not contain factually true information, and thus is to be dismissed, while other more poorly designed websites may contain prime peer-reviewed information. Although the majority of renowned websites with splendid information are well designed, we cannot rely on lay-out appearance. We live in times where especially the youth is sensitive to sensation, to appearance, to feeling, to impression. To make it clear to them that nonrecreational judging based on actual content, is more important than the impression, is a true challenge. It is evident that influencers on YouTube have big influence on the thinking of youth, but also on adults. What these influencers express may not frequently be according to truthfulness and knowledge, but based on rather subjective or narrow intersubjective ideas. The social network platforms – where influencers are active – play a central role in spreading information (Pagan, Mei, Li, & Dörfler, 2021). Political speech is also visible on social media (De Gregorio, & Goanta, 2022). Even Donald Trump, QAnon and Islamic State use social media to spread their dismissible ideas.Next to political and ideological spread, news is also spread on social media. Not only by renowned newspapers, but also by gossip platforms, conspiracy thinkers, and amateur journalists. Consequentially, which websites can we use for gathering news, for example? According to Reuters, Reuters themselves are among the most trusted news sites, next to “BBC News, CNN, and the New York Times” (Reuters Staff, 2019). Why are these news providing websites to be followed? This is due to rigorous fact-checking, honesty, fact-over-sensation-mentality, dialectics, argumentation, and detailed description. Influencers operate very differently and often not fact-checking at all. I am getting the impression that influencers rather ‘feel’ that something is right, and sincerely think that it is right, and that the information they spread are not stimulating analytical information acquisition, but rather “evokes emotion” (Rix, 2020). Before critical reflection, they can easily upload another video with eye- and ear-catching content that will easily lead to viewers having an idea about how things are, and as a consequence this is spread among friends. On the other hand, influencers can be used by professionals such as scientists or politicians to spread prime information instead. Professionals know how popular influencers are so every possible way to reach people – especially youth – is used entirely. The social media on which influencers are active can have an effect of irrationality on students (Lian et al., 2018). In October 2020, a Dutch Instagram influencer named Famke Louise was asked by Intensive Care physician (specialist) Diederik Gommers to take a look at the intensive care in real life, after Louise was promoting activity against COVID-19 measures and stating that she did not care. This was in line with other public figures who were also speaking out against the government measures in videos, and she received much criticism from media and average persons. After being inspired and confronted with the harsh reality of the intensive care, with patients suffering from COVID-19, she and Gommers decided to connect to viewers about the seriousness of COVID-19. This is an example of how intuitive, naive functioning of an influencer turns into something wise.Another example of how media consumers could be negatively affected would be the Russian population that receives information that may be appealing to sentiment and nationalistic standpoints. As is very visible during the invasion and war in Ukraine that commenced in February 2022, where the population of Russia is massively misled with the defining of that invasion as “special military operation” (Osborn & Nikolskaya, 2022). Demonizing the opponent (Ukraine) as neo-Nazis and drug-addicts (Roth, 2022). If the Russians that follow national propaganda would hear or read other critical, factual news outside the nation, chances are that they will not believe it. In media, those who want to impose their ideology onto the population will often make use of “language (particular keywords in the title, for example) that evokes a desired emotional state (frequently a negative emotion of anger, frustration or resentment)” (Maidenberg, 2019). In North Korea, a more extreme form of such language usage is observed, where the citizens are kept away from international disclosure and the propaganda machine is active 24/7. The dictator Kim Jong-un is praised every day as religious people will do with the divine. Criticism is not tolerated, at least not if it is against the system. In “Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in a History Course” (2017) associate professor of psychology Anne McLaughlin (NC State University) writes: “Given the national discussion of ‘Fake news’, it’s clear that critical thinking – and classes that teach critical thinking – are more important than ever.” “Fake news” automatically implies that news commonly is not real, it is more than just a label of “fake” that people can put on information that is not appreciated. Although we saw Donald Trump impulsively labelling information as “fake” when he presumably did not appreciate it, not because the information is actually untrue. The observation just made remains speculative. What is visibly accurate is the phenomenon of the president receiving criticism and as a consequence would often go into defence and endeavour to rebound it by basal, derogatory language. It is clearly observable that authoritarian leaders, or leaders that have tendencies towards authoritarianism, do not tolerate criticism or critique (The Oxford Review Encyclopaedia of Terms, n.d.). During the war between Russia and Ukraine, it is certain that Russian authorities are labelling truthful information as untrue. Even though the objective evidence, that is shared by international media, demonstrates the opposite. For example, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian Defence Ministry deny that there has been a massacre of civilians in Bucha, a city in Ukraine’s Kyiv Oblast (Rimi, 2022). On the contrary, several media publications, such as from the BBC, The Guardian and Reuters, can be found demonstrating evidence that the killings actually took place (BBC News, 2022; Reuters; Tondo, 2022). It is hard to deny that particular events happened when all international evidence, verified by officials and top-media, reveal that it did happen. It seems that even though there is evidently a truth, for some countries and leaders the truth is something else, or somewhere in the middle. When populations or parts of populations believe that truth is somewhere in between the opinion of a dictator and verified scientific journalism, or between a virologist and a conspiracy theorist, then it becomes dangerous. The disconnection between scientific evidence and public opinion is a topic of debate right now. It has to do with value and ignorance. When people value their and other’s opinion more than valuing whether it is actually true, then they stay ignorant. Perhaps they sincerely feel that what they think is valid and it makes sense to them in such a way that no or few other options can be valid as well. There are those who know better but preserve themselves fixated on the subject or object they want to follow. Additionally, there are those who simply do not know better. They just have no idea that there exists more than opinion, or perhaps they have a vague idea in the back of their heads about something called science and education, and it plays no role in their functioning. These two categories are often surrounded by similar minded others. If no one ever point out to them “What you just read online might not be true, although it seems very reliable information” then how will they know better? Furthermore, experts in the field of science are contradicting each other from time to time, and can speak in a complex language that is typically not appealing to the average person. So I can imagine certain types of people having the idea of “Well, the truth is somewhere in between” and “If science cannot agree on certain things, why would I not just give my opinion instead”. If you have a talk-show with a virologist who has studied for years to gain knowledge and insight into the material, against someone at the other end of the table that only has read 30 minutes about the topic, then it is not an equal game. However, people at home cannot know who of the two has it right. Affirmatively, the virologist has a reputation of knowing exactly how viruses work, but the other persons point out things that also seem to be logical and appealing. What people in general are ought to understand is that one can point out things that seem very logical, plausible and feel right, but it does not mean in any way that they are valid. When you are dealing with healthcare, with science, with facts, with important things for society, then it must be about validation based on expertise. Not about what you feel is right, or think is right, according to logic or intuition. Even though your feelings can be very sincere/honest, and it seems like it is totally logical, righteous, good and justified, it might be the case that you are mistaken and a great deal of wishful thinking is also present. Certain people ‘want’ things to be true even though it might well be that it is not. I know that the COVID-19 pandemic is not pleasant, and that measures are awful, and that viruses are dangerous, but that does not mean it is negative, it does not exist or that one must go into conspiracy theories. Many things in life are not pleasant, but that does not mean that they are not true. Opinions are fine, as long as it is clear when one is posing an opinion or that one is posing a fact. The difficulty with for instance opinion makers is that they often rely on irony, humour, along with scientific findings, reasoning and conclusions. So, how does one know when it is opinion based, and when is it science based? Opinion makers are not only active on YouTube and blogs, but also in newspapers and in journals. Therefore, the line between the trustworthiness and interpretation based on different platform reputations is thin.It evidently must be about factual information when dealing with facts, not misleading and sensation, not about sincerely believing that the first information one reads somewhere on the internet is valid, not about feelings. Misleading and sensation either belong to organisations and societies that approach disclosure with a commercial motive, or to those that have totalitarian, ideological and oppressing motives. As mentioned before, the youth is very much fixated on sensation in general. (Foehr, 2006, p. 9; Khurana et al., 2019; Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017, pp. 114–115).As long as it triggers their impulsive intuition, then it will appeal to them. On the other hand, it is sometimes said – which has support by studies – that the youth is more critical than the older generations in current times (Adams, 2022; Brashier & Schacter, 2020; Moore & Hancock, 2022; Moyer, 2013). Old and young, as ‘everyone’ could agree, society needs to be critical in order not to repeat history in making mistakes over and over again. Throughout history, we can observe how the new generations are mainly fixated on the in that time current issues of society. The knowledge about what happened in the generations before is often in decline, and even though education provides teaching about history and traps to fall in, new generations will often not be interested and retain themselves in ignorance (Dillon, 2008; Trei, 2004; Wall, 2019). Although this may also be the case with older adults (Hertwig et al., 2021). Old and young, deliberate ignorance plays a role, “potentially as an emotion-regulation tool” (Engel & Hertwig, 2021; Hertwig et al., 2021).
SocietyBeing critical in society is more important in current times. As I already stated, our surroundings are being questioned by critical thinkers. More questioned than two hundred years ago and this critical thinking is more integrated in our society – especially in education – than in older times. Yet, why are so many people still so programmed to accept easily? We all know what kind of society one acquires when people take things for granted. We just have to look at the countries like North Korea, Russia, United States, Hungary, Turkey, Brazil and China, where in my opinion many people follow the leader blindly and are less (or even not) interested in other visions, standpoints or arguments (which are all three strong correlated and overlapping). Or societies in Europe and the U.S., where in my opinion the illusion of happiness dominates the general way of being. Superficial utilitarianism (ethical discipline that explores the moral values of an action, with the focus on general purpose in relation with happiness and well-being) is figuratively almost getting into the DNA of many of the populations. Wishful thinking in all the societies that I mentioned, that kills the face of reality (or the most plausible reality). When it is not necessary to be rational and to reflect on a problematic or non-problematic situation because wishful thinking ‘solves’ anything, even if there is “evidence to the contrary”, the result is self-deception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). The pretension of happiness, prestige, being ‘good’, or the vitality of a dictatorship can lead to hypocrisy.Hypocrisy is an essential component of an anti-critical attitude. To pretend to be good, divine, artistic or intellectual, while having hidden shortcomings does not easily allow (self)criticism in totality. Perhaps the only criticism on the point that is in favour of interest and prestigious activity. Musicians and painting artists are known for having psychological and social difficulties. This even leads to more creativity. The public image remains concentrated on the abilities as an artist. Hence, the personal flaws are often hidden. Nevertheless, why would they be scared to demonstrate their shortcomings? As if it would take anything away from the greatness of the art. One could speculate that in older times, hypocrisy was more present in society, where shortcoming were taboo. In present times, we are more open and realise that admitting your flaws, is not taking anything away from other qualities we have. Actually, being open about them brings solutions as well. When one suffers from depression, it most preferable to go to a psychiatrist, without feeling social pressure. To be critical on own personality is still a social obstacle. Or, it only limits itself to private critical reflection on the own personality in order to achieve prestigious results. Improving certain elements in order to gain more skills and status. However, it is not being critical in totality, as mentioned before. In totality means that one must be able to criticise particular elements of personality or activity that for some is preferred to be kept hidden in taboo. It would be a great, honest step to fully acknowledge flaws in totality. On the contrary, one could argue that denial of certain flaws and focus on wishful thinking could be beneficial to the achievement of goals. To ignore certain things that are not preferable can be a tool to motivation. Why we have not grown out of easy acceptance and wishful thinking has several reasons. Firstly, our evolutionary background informs us why it is functional to follow a leader, group behaviour, group identity, an idea with confidence, and prophecy. In times when we inhabited the savanna, chasing preys, it would be too distractive to question whether to go left or right, faster or slower. It would be much more effective as a predator to be confident to obtain your prey eventually, in the way that one is doing. This generates motivation. Doubt would be distractive. Times were also very uncertain. The perils of other animals such as lions, or diseases were commonly present, and we did not know what natural phenomena in nature were, how they came to be. Thunder, earthquakes, floods and shooting stars must have been very intimidating. Wishful thinking of things (eventually) going to be all right seems a logical mindset, looking at it evolutionary or historically. Next to evolution, child development is an important topic to discuss in order to define our wishful thinking character. We are raised with, and ‘being’ as a child, wanting things to be true and belief in given outcome (Bernard, Clément, & Mercier, 2015, pp. 2–3; Eichelberger, 2007; Wente et al., 2020; Wolle, McLaughlin, & Heiphetz, 2021).
Conclusion One of the reasons why people are still attracted to false information is the factor of ‘sensation’ over facts that seems to be in our field of interest, based on our psychological functioning (Robson, 2016). Furthermore, it seems that our evolutionary background results in often being irrational, with moments being logical (Geher, 2019). Perhaps the psychological functioning of finding sensation more interesting than fact has the same evolutionary basis. It seems that we inhabit modern societies where we need to be critical and rational, while our evolutionary background is holding us back. It is important to keep considering the fact that we are primates living in modern societies. This means that we have limitations, even though we endeavor to improve ourselves. What is holding us back, is how we are not able to be critical enough to separate fact from fiction. If it is possible to be fully critical as human beings, in the sense that we question everything, and never fall for fake news, is not known. It is the case that one person is more critical than another. A professor in philosophy, a journalist, or a scientist is definitely more aware of being critical and will less likely fall for fake news than the average person. This is because their profession relies on critical thinking. And perhaps intelligence plays a role as well (Butler, 2017; Halpern & Dunn, 2021; Hendrickson, 2008). This needs to be studied further in the future. As with many problems in society, education is the solution. When children are taught to question things, to be taught ‘how’ to think instead of ‘what’ to think, not to take things for granted easily, then one prepares them for dealing with the complex world we live in. Critical thinking should not be taught as a side class, but it should be integrated across the curriculum (Ennis, 2018; Maiorana, 1992; Valenzuela, 2022). Proper education, with a high understanding and knowledge, will solve a big part of problems. The importance lays in “being a well-informed citizen of the world” (Hearn, 2015). Whether somewhere a culture exists of being naive and not to be interested in education or autodidactism, then an intervention is necessary. Being realistic, there are countries in the world where such useful initiatives will not have a great effect since corruption, wishful thinking and oppression is controlling society. Governments just want their population to stay like that in order to maintain control. Nevertheless, we must do the best we can to provide humans knowledge and prime thinking. For evolution I did not find very strong evidence, although there seem to be speculative arguments for evolutionary background playing a role in how we are with critical thinking. Since our evolutionary background is in fact one of the most important components of how our brains function, how we are as human beings, perhaps it also has a basis in critical thinking (Evolution and the brain, 2007; Parker, 2021; Verendeev & Sherwood, 2017). The question remains whether we are able to develop more, or that we are (partly) trapped in biology. Or perchance there is a combination possible, or already exists, of being biologically determined and making progress. As with many things, a mixture is plausible or wanted. At least, what we could do is within our possibilities and known limitations, we seek for the best possible way to improve and deal with the situation we are in.Naivity is evidently related to ignorance, as mentioned before. Ignorance makes that you have a certain simplicity in thinking due to the lack of knowledge (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Though, ignorance does not exclude life experience, which naivety is characterised by (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (n.d.). Wishful thinking may support ignorance and vice versa.A future challenge is to ascertain through further investigation whether we need to develop more critically – and to what extent – as media users and in general as human beings. Since our biological and psychological limitations that prevent ourselves from being critical to a certain extent, the question remains whether we are able to make the developments we aim for.
References Adams, B. (2022, May 2). Aging and fake news: It’s not the story you think it is. University of Florida News (UF News).
https://news.ufl.edu/2022/05/aging-adults-fake-news/BBC News (2022, April 11). Bucha killings: Satellite image of bodies site contradicts Russian claims.https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238
Bernard, S., Clément, F., & Mercier, H. (2015). Wishful thinking in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 267–74
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.018
Brashier, N. M., & Schacter, D. L. (2020). Aging in an Era of Fake News. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 316–323.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915872
Buchanan, T. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLoS ONE, 15(10), e0239666.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666
Butler, H. A. (2017, October 3). Why Do Smart People Do Foolish Things? Scientific American.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-smart-people-do-foolish-things/
Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). Ignorance. In Cambridge Dictionary.
Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ignorance
De Gregorio, G., & Goanta, C. (2022). The Influencer Republic: Monetizing Political Speech on Social Media. German Law Journal, 23(2), 204–225.https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.15
Dillon, S. (2008, February 27). Survey Finds Teenagers Ignorant on Basic History and Literature Questions. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/27history.html
Dowd, J. E., Thompson, Jr., R. J., Schiff, L. A., & Reynolds, J. A. (2018). Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 17(1), 4.https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-03-0052
Eichelberger, A. H. (2007). Measuring Wishful Thinking: The Development and Validation of a New Scale [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland]. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/7191/umi-umd-4576.pdf;sequence=%201
Engel, C., & Hertwig, R. (2021). Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing not to Know. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350459621_Deliberate_Ignorance_Choosing_not_to_Know
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision. Topoi, 37, 165–184.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Evolution and the brain (2007). Nature, 447, 753.
https://doi.org/10.1038/447753a
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media Multitasking among American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors and Pairings. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527858.pdf
Geher, G. (2019, November 26). Are Humans Rational? Psychology Today.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201911/are-humans-rational
Halpern, D. F., & Dunn, D. S. (2021). Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), 22.https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020022
Hearn, C. (2015, July 20) A.C. Grayling: The Unconsidered Life. Spectator Tribune.https://spectatortribune.com/a-c-grayling-the-unconsidered-life/
Hendrickson, N. (2008). Critical Thinking in Intelligence Analysis. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21(4), 679–693.https://doi.org/10.1080/08850600802254749
Hertwig, R., Woike, J. K., & Schupp, J. (2021). Age differences in deliberate ignorance. Psychology and Aging, 36(4), 407–414.https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000603
Jaswal, V. (2010, October 14). Young Children Are Especially Trusting of Things They’re Told. Association for Psychological Science.https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/young-children-are-especially-trusting-of-things-theyre-told.html
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1, 59–69.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0004-2
Khurana, A., Bleakley, A., Ellithorpe, M., Hennessy, M. H., Jamieson, P. E., & Weitz, I. (2019). Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity Can Increase Exposure to Risky Media and Moderate Its Effects on Adolescent Risk Behaviors. Prevention Science, 20(2).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-0984-z
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., . . . Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
Lian, S.-L., Sun, X.-J., Zhou, Z.-K., Fan, C.-Y., Niu, G.-F., & Liu, Q.-Q. (2018). Social networking site addiction and undergraduate students’ irrational procrastination: The mediating role of social networking site fatigue and the moderating role of effortful control. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0208162.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208162
Machete, P., & Turpin, M. (2020). The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic Literature Review. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12067.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45002-1_20
Maidenberg, E. (2017, June 27). Why We Believe What We’re Told. Psychology Today.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/belief-and-the-brain/201706/why-we-believe-what-we-re-told
Maiorana, V. P. ( 1992). Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: Building the Analytical Classroom. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED347511
McLaughlin, A. C., & McGill, A. E. (2017). Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in a History Course. Science & Education, 26, 93–105.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9878-2
Midgley, M. (2001). Being Objective. Nature, 410, 753.https://www.nature.com/articles/35071193
Moore, R. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2022). A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Scientific Reports, 12.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08437-0
Moyer, M. W. (2013, May 1). Why Older Adults Are Too Trusting: Activity in a key brain area drops with age. Scientific American.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-older-adults-are-too-trusting/#
Orso, D., Federici, N., Copetti, R., Vetrugno, L., & Bove, T. (2020). Infodemic and the spread of fake news in the COVID-19-era. European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 27(5), 327–328.https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000713
Osborn, A., & Nikolskaya, P. (2022, February 24). Russia’s Putin authorises ‘special military operation’agianst Ukraine. Reuter.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-authorises-military-operations-donbass-domestic-media-2022-02-24/
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (n.d.). Naivety. In Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries.
Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/naivety
Pagan, N., Mei, W., Li, C., & Dörfler, F. (2021). A meritocratic network formation model fort he rise of social media influencers. Nature Communications, 12, 6865.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27089-8
Parker, A. (2021, July 22). Evolutionary Thinking: a New Perspective on How Our Brains Control Behavior Takes Evolution into Account. UC Davis Center for Neuroscience.https://neuroscience.ucdavis.edu/news/cortex-itself-inherently-limited
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The Psychology of Fake News. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388-402.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Pierri, F., Perry, B. L., DeVerna, M. R., Yang, K.-C., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., & Bryden, J. (2022). Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. Scientific Reports, 12, 5966.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10070-w
Rimi, A. (2022, April 5). Russian foreign minister Lavrov says slaughter in Bucha is a ‘fake attack’. Independent.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lavrov-bucha-fake-ukraine-russia-b2050463.html
Reuters (2022, April 7). Germany has satellite image indication of Russian involvement in Bucha killings -security source.https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-intercepted-calls-with-russians-discussing-bucha-killings-der-spiegel-2022-04-07/
Rix, W. (2020, May 14). Measuring Influencer Emotion: Moving Beyond the Reach Economy. Talking Influence.https://talkinginfluence.com/2020/05/14/measuring-influencer-emotion/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20studies%20from%202019,on%20a%20deeper%20neurological%20level.
Robson, D. (2016, March 24). Why are people so incredibly gullible? BBC Future.https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160323-why-are-people-so-incredibly-gullible
Roth, A. (2022, February 22). ‘It’s not rational’: Putin’s bizarre speech wrecks his once pragmatic image. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/its-not-rational-putins-bizarre-speech-wrecks-his-once-pragmatic-image
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016, November 7). Self-Deception.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/#DefIss
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020, October 30). Scientific Objectivity.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/#UndeValuExpeRegr
The Lancet Rheumatology (2021). Going viral: misinformation in the time of COVID-19. The Lancet Rheumatology, 3(6), E393.https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00154-5
The Oxford Review Encyclopaedia of Terms (n.d.). Authoritarian leadership: Definition and explanation.https://oxford-review.com/oxford-review-encyclopaedia-terms/authoritarian-leadership/
Tondo, L. (2022, April 24). Dozens of Bucha civilians were killed by metal darts from Russian artillery. The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/24/dozens-bucha-civilians-killed-flechettes-metal-darts-russian-artillery
Trei, L. (2004, March 31). 'Growing historical ignorance' among teens a myth, scholar says. Stanford University.https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/march31/history-331.html
University of Oxford (2010, October 22). The Nature of Arguments [Video]. YouTube.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kBlQj5uiOXc
Valenzuela, J. (2022, March 3). Boosting Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/boosting-critical-thinking-across-curriculum
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged In: How Media Attract and Affect. New haven and london: Youth Yale University Press.https://drupal.yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Media/9780300228090_UPDF.pdf
Verendeev, A., & Sherwood, C. C. (2017). Human Brain Evolution. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 41–45.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.02.003
Wall, H. D. (2019, January 27). Ignorance about the Holocaust is growing. CNN.https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/27/opinions/holocaust-education-importance-wall/index.html
Wente, A. O., Goddu, M. K., Garcia, T., Posner, E., Flecha, M. F., & Gopnik, A. (2020). Young Children Are Wishful Thinkers: The Development of Wishful Thinking in 3- to 10-Year-Old Children. Child Development, 91(4), 1166–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13299
Willingham, D. (2020, November 17). How to teach critical thinking. Impact.https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/how-to-teach-critical-thinking/
Wischnewski, M., & Krämer, N. (2021). The Role of Emotions and Identity-Protection Cognition When Processing (Mis)Information. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1).https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000029
Wolle, R. G., McLaughlin, A., & Heiphetz, L. (2021). The Role of Theory of Mind and Wishful Thinking in Children’s Moralizing Concepts of the Abrahamic God. Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(3), 398–417.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2021.1888731
World Health Organisation (2021, April 27). Fighting misinformation in the time of COVID-19, one click at a time.
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/fighting-misinformation-in-the-time-of-covid-19-one-click-at-a-time
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my gratitude to Rob den Heijer, Marais van den Berg, Carl Powell, Andrew Lord, Scribbr, and Springer Nature for offering advice.
Add comment
Comments