what's said is accurate.
We have brains that engage in parallel processing. The first answer reached at is assumed to be true--we aren't usually aware of the parallel processing.
We have brains that (mis)generalize over past events. We forget usually forget facts that we don't think are important, but often that's because they don't confirm what we already think or want to think; we remember slights that we think are important. We forget things, period (but with a bias). We like to think we don't forget relevant or important things.
Our memories are flexible. We can start to remember things that we don't actually remember; we can revise memories. Invariably, more people remember voting for a popular president than actually voted for him. Even here, I've had people say that X never happened, and I've tracked down threads reporting not only what "never happened" but with extensive comments made by the people saying X never happened.
We substitute information. If a doctor has a stylish waiting room that's well maintained we take that as evidence of being a good doctor. If a receptionist or bank teller donates to the right cause, we think the receptionist is more competent and virtuous. If a good actor speaks, we assume that the actor, adept at repeating another's words, is qualified to judge GMOs or vaccinations.
In grading, if a good student makes a mistake we assume it's an accident; if a bad student makes the same mistake, it's a sign of incompetence. This often serves to reinforce group boundaries. This is called the "halo effect." It's a kind of attribution error, assuming that some practice reflects not circumstances and incidental things but a deep truth about a person.
We value the next 5 minutes more than 2020-2025. Present trivial advantage is worth much more than larger future advantage.
Critical thinking is evaluating an argument, a claim, a premise, facts, given the facts we know, awareness of facts we might know, and with full awareness of our innate biases. It assumes knowledge of the most common fallacies as well as our own flaws. Parroting adult's critical stances is commonplace among children. Learning the mechanisms and processes to shred others' (disliked) ideas and claims becomes fairly common among teenagers and undergrads.
Slow, conscious consideration of our thinking gives parallel processing time to produce a second answer. "I pick A ... No, on second thought, that's wrong. I'll go with choice B."
My practice of critical thinking is most important when it's applied to what I think and say. It's natural to criticize others I disagree with; no special skill or kudos for that. But breaking the assumption that I'm always right takes training and awareness, and is an on-going process.
As an undergrad I was taught enough critical thinking to defend myself against others. To examine my views just enough to be able to get up, make a claim, and recognize how others might attack it. But that's still not a search for truth but to defend my own ego. It wasn't under grad school where I was taught by some dedicated professor to worry about truth--it's better for an enemy to demolish my argument if he's right than for me to succeed and defend my views if they're wrong. (She was a sociopathic b****, but that doesn't mean she was wrong.)
A lot of people don't like to accept that their perceptions are, simply put, often wrong. "How dare you challenge my perceptions!" At the same time, competing perceptions are usually denigrated as hopeless misguided.
= new reply since forum marked as read