Thinking is like playing tennis, driving a car, giving a talk, dieting, or speaking a foreign language. It can be done well or badly. In the jargon of modern education, good thinkers are called critical thinkers. Critical thinkers have a mix of attitudes, skills, and habits that set them apart from sloppy thinkers. Are you a critical thinker? Test yourself by answering these questions. Award yourself a score on each item as high as five (5) or as low as one (1).

1. I am a successful problem-solver.
2. When I face a problem or mystery, I follow Occam’s razor; that is, I seek the simplest adequate solution or explanation instead of a needlessly complex one.
3. Before I make a decision, I first gather as many relevant facts as time permits, and I anticipate the likely consequences of each course of action.
4. I strive for informed beliefs, that is, beliefs based on solid evidence and sound arguments; I do not embrace beliefs simply because they are popular or consoling.
5. I appreciate the indispensable role of skepticism in an intelligent and responsible life. I refuse to embrace a claim or adopt a practice, however satisfying or intriguing, until I find reasonable grounds for it.
6. I can explain and defend my beliefs and practices capably.
7. My beliefs are coherent, that is, none of them contradicts others.
8. My practices are coherent, that is, none of them contradicts others.
9. My beliefs and practices are coherent, that is, none of the former contradicts any of the latter.
10. I use language with precision and clarity.
11. I am a good listener.
12. I strive to be objective and even-handed in my assessments. I do not exaggerate the benefits or harms of a belief, practice, argument, person, organization, lifestyle, movement, product, or service.
13. I know that my perceptions can be distorted by my beliefs, expectations, biases, and state of mind.
14. I know that my memory is selective and constructive and seldom provides a literal report of the past.
15. I am open-minded and flexible. I am willing to hear or read an elaboration or defense of a position that strikes me initially as weird, foolish, far-fetched, or immoral.
16. I am sensitive to human fallibility, that is, the fact that humans make mistakes. Accordingly, I have the courage to reevaluate a long-cherished belief or practice and to acknowledge that it may be mistaken.
17. I am sensitive to human fallibility, that is, the fact that humans make mistakes. Accordingly, I welcome constructive criticism.
18. I am sensitive to human fallibility, that is, the fact that humans make mistakes. Accordingly, I recognize that well-educated and well-trained persons, even experts, can be mistaken.
19. I successfully detect bias, special pleading, code words, propaganda, and exaggeration in what I hear or read.
20. I strive to be honest, fair, and objective. I scrupulously avoid lying, exaggerating, and treating speculation, gossip, or rumor as fact to influence or persuade others.
21. I am aware that many TV programs, films, and publications deviate from the historical record and contradict well-established scientific laws and theories.
22. I strive to stay intellectually alive. I regularly read books, newspapers, magazines, and other publications.
23. I strive to stay intellectually alive. I balance my reading, radio-listening, TV-viewing, and online media consumption so that I expose myself to a variety of views and perspectives.
24. I strive to stay intellectually alive. I participate regularly in serious, civil conversations about significant issues facing the human community locally, nationally, and globally.
25. I detect common fallacies in reasoning such as:
26. Stereotyping (assuming that all members of a group share the same strengths or weaknesses of one or a few members of the group that I observe);
27. Hasty generalization (jumping to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence);
28. Ad hominem (disqualifying a claim or argument based solely on its advocate or supporter);
29. The slippery slope (assuming that a modest change will necessarily trigger dire consequences);
30. The time fallacy, also called post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that because one event preceded another, the former caused the latter; confusing correlation with causation); and
31. The appeal to ignorance, or shifting the burden of proof (assuming the correctness of a claim or belief simply because it has not been disproven).
32. I strive to avoid the use of such fallacies in my own reasoning.

The highest score possible is 130 points. How did you do? If you are especially bold and brave, you might invite another person who knows you well to evaluate you on this same test, compare the two scores, and discuss any discrepancies.¹

[1] Versions of this essay appeared previously in The Vindicator, October 28, 1998; David Stewart and H. Gene Blocker, Fundamentals of Philosophy, Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, 2001; Thomas A. Shipka and Arthur J. Minton, Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2004; and Tom Shipka, Commentaries: 162 Essays on WYSU, CreateSpace, 2018. © Tom Shipka.