critical thinking iq test

01453XBP: $174.08

68

2

2

5

372

9

12

27

152

4

5

11

40

1

1

3

849

20

28

61

2,304

55

77

165

240

6

8

17

1,374

33

46

98

229

5

8

15

295

7

10

21

The contents of these bundles were determined by The Critical Thinking Co. ™ and have not been reviewed by, nor are they endorsed, sponsored or approved by either the author or publisher of the tests. While the contents of these bundles will help prepare students to master most of the skills tested, they do not reflect the actual test items on any given test.

Otis-Lennon School Ability Test®,OLSAT®, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children®, WISC®, and WPPSI™ are trademarks, in the US and /or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s), or their licensors, which do not endorse these products.

Critical thinking skills are more important than IQ for making good decisions in life

A new article in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity examines the utility of IQ in navigating existence, and how another mental ability may put it in the shade.

21 July 2017

By Alex Fradera

To lead a good life, we need to make good decisions: manage our health and financial affairs, invest in appropriate relationships, and avoid serious lapses like falling for online scams. What equips us to do this? One candidate is IQ: after all, people who score higher on intelligence tests tend to go on to do better academically and in their careers. But many of us know intellectual titans who still make grave errors of judgment in their lives. Book-smart doesn't necessarily make you life-smart, and  a new article  in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity examines the utility of IQ in navigating existence, and how another mental ability may put it in the shade.

Whereas IQ is – crudely speaking – a measure of the mental horsepower we have for handling abstract content, some researchers say that "critical thinking" – the ability to make judgments dispassionately without jumping to false conclusions – is a separate ability. To find out if critical thinking ability might be important for real-life outcomes, perhaps even more than IQ, Heather Butler of California State University and her colleagues asked 244 participants – a mix of students and adults recruited online – to complete tests, of their IQ and critical thinking skills.

The intelligence test was fairly standard and covered memory, visual processing and quantitative reasoning. The critical thinking assessment involved participants evaluating courses of action in hypothetical scenarios and also considering the relevance of contextual information that could have a bearing on the decisions.

For example, a typical critical thinking question might require participants to explain whether they would want preschool to be mandatory for all children if research had shown that kids who attend preschool are more likely to excel at school (note this specific question wasn't used in the test). Successful critical thinking would include recognising that correlation is not causation and reflecting on other possible explanations, and rating as valuable further information such as the income disparity between parents who send their children to preschool and other parents.

As per previous research, critical thinking correlated with IQ moderately (.38), suggesting some overlap but that each test was measuring something distinct.

The researchers were especially interested in how these measures correlated with scores on an inventory of real-world outcomes, on which participants indicated whether they had experienced events ranging from the mildly bad (e.g. fined late fees for a video rental) to the more severe (e.g. acquiring a sexually transmitted disease). The avoidance of these kinds of experiences gives an indirect measure of wise, effective decision making, and the data showed higher IQ individuals did do better. However, high critical thinking was even more strongly associated with these real-world outcomes (even after factoring out IQ). So it's possible to have a modest IQ and navigate life wisely, or to have a high IQ and make clangers that leave your peers shaking their heads. It's a question of critical thinking.

And that's something that can be worked on. Critical thinking isn't about mental resources so much as a way of looking at the world and a tool-kit to use at the relevant moments. But unfortunately, as a society, we don't give enough attention to how to foster these skills.   Some researchers  are very pessimistic about the benefits of formal education for critical thinking, and although  a recent meta-analysis  has since suggested that attending college produces improvements in critical thinking, it could not identify where the skills were coming from. It should be possible to design better ways to impart and hone these skills, skills critical for the decisions that make up the stuff of our lives.

Ultimate Critical Thinking Test & foundations of critical thinking

Aditya Shukla  |  February 5, 2024 February 5, 2024  |  Disclaimer: Links to some products earn us a commission

Home » Cognition » Ultimate Critical Thinking Test & foundations of critical thinking

Yes, critical thinking is hard to define and a constant victim of debate. Educators and experts have attempted to define it in separate contexts. I’ll give some examples.

But first, do you want to know if you can think critically? Take the test below.

Critical thinking test

Bloom’s taxonomy, philosophy & logic, system 1 and system 2 thinking, common sense, relevant information processing, mental sets & past experience, cognitive abilities.

Instruction: Give precise answers in the form of single words or numbers.

Format: 9 questions

Critical thinking

The ultimate test of critical thinking

Test your critical thinking as defined in psychology using only common sense and logic. No subject matter knowledge needed.

1. Emily’s father has three daughters. The first two are named Monday and Tuesday. What is the third daughter’s name?

You could've been right in the Addam's Family universe 🙂 It's Emily, the first detail!

Yaaaaaassss, correct!

2. If you are running a race and you pass the person in second place, what place are you in?

OOoooo, you missed a key detail, didn't you? - there is still one person ahead of you!

Correct, now overtake the first one!

3. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Are you sure? Think again, the intuitive answer is not the right answer! . . . . . Correct Answer: The ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs $1.05. This makes the total $1.10.

Correct! You could override your intuition!

The ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs $1.05. This makes the total $1.10.

4. What weighs more, a kilogram of iron or a kilogram of feathers?

Oooops! Our intuitive brain associates iron with high density solids making our perception heavier. Feathers are associated with being light for their size. Both are declared to be a kilogram, a measure of weight (heaviness), so they are equal!

Correct, they are the same, a kilogram each!

5. Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk Silk. What do cows drink?

Did you think "milk"? The word silk primed your brain to find a response related to a cow, which activated the concept of milk because milk is more related to cow + silk than water!

Water, yaaas!

Bonus <3 for you for saying "liquid", technically not wrong!

6. If you were born 14 years ago, how old would you be?

Ooops, think - born 14 years ago. That means you are 14!

7. There is a patch of lily pads in a pond. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire pond, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the pond?

Wrong, visualize the days going on fast 1 by 1. When will it be half the size? . . . . . . . Correct Answer: 47 days. Since the patch doubles in size each day, if it covers the entire pond on the 48th day, it would cover half the pond on the 47th day.

Correct! It is 47 days, not 24! Since the patch doubles in size each day, if it covers the entire pond on the 48th day, it would cover half the pond the day before!

8. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?

Wrong. Try thinking again, the intuitive answer is wrong. Try visualizing a room of 100 machines working simultaneously. . . . . . . Correct Answer: It would still take 5 minutes. Each machine can make a widget in 5 minutes, regardless of the number of machines.

Correct! You could think critically.

The time doesn't change. Each machine can make a widget in 5 minutes, regardless of the number of machines.

9. If there are three apples and you take away two, how many do you have?

You took 2! I'm sure you once studied the other type of questions that ask for how many remained instead of how many you gained.

Good, you focused on the wording!

Your score is

The average score is 57%

Restart quiz Exit

Help me run this site with a donation :)

Rate the questions 🙂

Thank you for taking it, critical thinking usually just comes down to reflecting on what you read and think and then re-analyzing it slowly!

Wasn’t that fun! Share it and test your friends 🙂 It’s not as easy as it appears. Many experts across all domains fail at this, often when they are tired or on autopilot.

Now, let’s look at the psychology of critical thinking. What exactly is it?

Foundations of critical thinking

The famous Bloom’s taxonomy, widely used as an educational guideline, has 6 layers of cognitive development that education must facilitate. The 4th and 5th layers approximate critical thinking. They are “analyzing” and “evaluate.” Both layers are also commonly put under the umbrella of Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) because they are effortful ways to process information. Evaluation is mostly about passing judgment on information. Analyzing is mostly about computing and comparing ideas. Both are about taking some information and processing it in a way that simplifies a problem and lets one create a solution. But this isn’t enough. Maybe in its best version, it involves critical thinking. But its weaker version is just deliberate thinking, which may not be critical. For example, a teacher may ask students to evaluate patterns across different mammals near human civilization (like the females produce milk, many mammals are eaten, etc.). This involves deliberate thinking but doesn’t invoke critical thinking. To make this a critical thinking task, a teacher can ask students to estimate characteristics humans do not have but are typical of mammals. This would change the subject of the activities to talking about technology and controlling the environment instead of “fetching” details about mammals.

Philosophy looks at critical thinking mostly from the logical perspective, where rules govern the correctness of an idea or flow of thought. In logic, critical thinking is about the premise, assumptions, internal consistency, and inference. Logic looks at critical thinking by asking the question – If the premise is true, does your conclusion correctly originate from the premise? Are you assuming something? Let’s explore all of it.

• Premise: It is a statement of information. It may or may not be true. Critical thinking means questioning it’s true-ness.
• Assumption: It is information not explicitly given to you, but you’ve considered it as background information or context to help you process the problem and solution. Critical thinking means spotting assumptions.
• Internal consistency: It is the correctness of logic within a premise. Critical thinking is observing if an argument or idea is internally consistent. TOMM example: I was using AI to make a thumbnail for this article, and it gave me an image of a skyscraper office with a transparent glass room with 2 suns shining through the panes. Makes no sense on earth, right? The image isn’t internally consistent with the earth’s reality. Yes, this could be another planet. But I don’t have alien friends to DM me this image.
• Conclusion: It is derived from the premise as a logical statement or solution. Critical thinking means working out if your conclusion is correct as per the details in the premise.

In other cases, asking questions is treated as the first step to critical thinking. The common advice is to ask and verify things by asking How, Why, When, What, Where, and Who.

Related : The science of good observation skills

Cognitive psychologists look at critical thinking mostly from a system 1 (intuitive) and system 2 (analytical) thinking perspective. A popular way to understand critical thinking is to measure how people can suppress system 1 thinking, which is fast and automatic, and use system 2, which is slow and deliberate. In shifting from system 1 to system 2, a person re-evaluates the information and draws conclusions. A person might instinctively stereotype a stranger (System 1) based on looks but then use critical thinking to challenge and reassess these initial judgments (System 2).

System 1 thinking is intuitive + feeling. System 2 thinking is deliberate and analytical. When a question has a wrong answer using system 1, finding the right answer using system 2 is a test of critical thinking.

The famous cognitive reflection test (whose questions I’ve added to this quiz) pits system 1 against system 2, and it defines critical thinking as the ability to suppress system 1 thoughts and override them with system 2 thoughts.

Common sense cares more about having the right logic (not some logic), assumptions, and context. It is a simplified version of critical thinking. It is having an economical and contextually correct thought. I’ll show you how common sense is contextual.

During my early guitar-playing days, I watched videos of people playing very fast. They attracted many naysayers because it was unbelievably fast so they assumed the videos were sped up. So the guitarists started adding a clock in the background. A lot has happened since then. Almost 20 years later, guitarists’ skills have reached new heights. Many of the new young adults playing guitar who naturally believed guitarists have speed game wonder on Instagram comments – why is there a clock in every video? And some old-timer is always there to insult, “RIP Gen Z commenters, you lack common sense. DUH, it’s to show the video is not sped up.” Common sense comes from context and finding a simple connection between different things you observe.

Just thinking hard isn’t enough. Humans require context for thinking accurately. We fail miserably at logic when we treat it like logic, but rarely make mistakes when that logic is in a context. I explore that in depth here . Context always matters in the real world.

For example, let’s say A > B > C. (A is greater than B and B is greater than C)

D may or may not be greater than B. Is D smaller than A?

Compute that. Or, compute it with the context below.

A human (A) is larger than a monkey (B) which is larger than an amoeba (C). Sharks (D) may or may not be larger than a monkey (B). Are humans (A) larger than sharks (D)? The question can’t be answered with certainty because some humans could be smaller than a shark and some could be larger.

Answering the second version is easier for most because it allows people to imagine the problem in a context. The logical format is very easy to solve, but it is symbolic and much harder to imagine.

Worked-out problems are easy to think about, so practice can make perfect. Like problems in a math exam or algorithmic thinking. If you solve enough, you know how to solve similar new ones. It becomes easier to spot what you know and what you don’t know. But that is because the practice material is a set of well-defined problems. This is not the case in the real world. IRL problems are ill-defined. And most people, including whole organizations, have to first formulate the problem they need to solve. So, critical thinking begins first by identifying relevant information and ignoring irrelevant information. This is the classic idea of finding the signal in the noise.

Every scenario, question, or problem has relevant information called “the signal” and irrelevant information called “the noise.” A critical thinker’s job is to judge the scenario, and classify information as signal vs. noise, and then use the signal to think clearly. The irrelevant information can have a strong influence on us, so the thinker has to block it out. For example, in war scenarios, the weather conditions that suit a certain people can create an advantage against invaders. In this case, the weather condition is a part of the signal. The invader’s war funding status might be the noise. What good is the battle equipment budget in determining the outcome if it can’t even be used in a certain climate?

But, identifying the signal from the noise is not enough either.

Humans are not computers that reboot and start on a clean slate. We exclusively rely on memory and past learning. There is a carry-over effect from what we are used to. That means if we solve one type of problem for days, we will tend to solve another new problem the same way. In the same way, if we only know how to use a hammer, everything will feel like a nail.

But the story doesn’t end there either. I’m not being dramatic, but critical thinking has so much more to it. We come with a “ mental set [1] “. A mental set describes how our approach to a previous problem can shape our approach to the next (similar to priming, but this is more about learning than temporary influence). For example, if you’ve been working on statistical problems all day, you might initially approach a creative task by seeking patterns and data, even when this approach isn’t suitable. Recognizing and adjusting our mental set is a key aspect of critical thinking. We apply an approach from our previous task to another task. I’ll give you another example. If you are doing a sales job dealing with people and understanding social details like what people say, how they dress, etc., and then you immediately watch a TV show, your focus will go to the social details of the characters in it. This means the mental set from your job continued for your TV sesh.

Even experts who have solved problems a certain way for decades will fail to see a simpler solution that you can find with critical thinking. This is the infamous expert paradox called the Einstellung effect.

The brain didn’t come equipped with software. It came equipped with a few core abilities that let us build the DIY personal software to tackle new problems. They are commonly called “ executive functions ,” and 3 of them are most relevant for critical thinking.

• Attention: The information that gets prioritized by the brain. It’s deliberate (focus) and automatic (distraction).
• Cognitive flexibility: It manages our capacity to switch contexts, jump between ideas, and return to something we’ve thought about. It’s the executive person who juggles between different brain circuits and ideas.
• Inhibitory control: Our brain knows what flow of thought to stop or continue. Response inhibition is the capacity to stop an idea and revisit it, a very critical component of critical thinking.

Core cognitive functions are applied to details given in a situation and what you have learned. The whole thinking becomes thinking about thinking, called “ Meta-cognition .” So critical thinking is a metacognitive skill. It’s a slower process where speed is de-prioritized than detailed analysis. It’s effortful and mentally exhausting, so staying critical for hours and days is hard. This is exactly when being a practiced expert helps . The critical thinking elements in a particular skill set are repeated so many times that they are like a mental habit. There is a clear sign from a brain-imaging study [2] . As a skill is practiced more and more, it stops relying on executive functions and uses long-term memory. Conversely, new problems demand the use of executive functions – attention, memory, and decision-making – which are needed for critical thinking instead of long-term memory. This is why we observe it is easier to think critically about unfamiliar problems.

The biggest threats to critical thinking are cognitive biases. They are thinking tendencies that use very little information to draw conclusions at a fast rate. They are most activated when we mundanely move through life as we make fast decisions. Here are some examples and how you can counter them . But I’ll cover 3 cognitive bias threats I feel are the most significant.

• Belief bias: The belief bias is best summarized as “If it feels right, it must be right.” People will buy into any wrong logic if it superficially sounds believable. For example, if someone tells you fish belong in water, so eating fish and milk together is bad because their bodies are not adapted for milk, you might believe it. After all, the fish didn’t evolve in milk. So maybe it’s true. Critical thinking is asking – What does the fish’s habitat have anything to do with our body’s ability to digest the combination?
• Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias is as it sounds – we seek information that confirms what we know, and we ignore information that doesn’t fit into our preconceived notions. For example, if you google “Why is meat bad for health?” you’ll get answers confirming it’s bad. But if you google “Why is meat good for health?” you’ll still get answers confirming it is good.
• Anchoring: Anchoring is having some reference point that guides our estimations based on that anchor. For example, if the average coffee costs $5, we believe $6 is ok but $9 is too much. Our perception is anchored to $5. But if the anchor were $10, we’d be fine with $9.

Related: 7 Attention biases that are killing your observation skills

So, how do we combine these core ideas into the concept of critical thinking?

Ok. I’ll define it this way.

Critical thinking is a purposeful way to think about details and suppress past/immediate influences that may misdirect us. The tools to achieve this are: questioning assumptions, isolating details of a problem, and taking a step back from “what feels right”. It almost always requires challenging some details and/or challenging your own perception of a problem.

That sums up knowing what critical thinking is. Regarding improving it, I recommend a ground-up approach through everyday activities listed here. If you only solve critical thinking problems, you’ll benefit, but you’ll also succumb to the mental set problem.

P.S. The questions are from the cognitive reflections test, a test of critical thinking that does not require domain knowledge and some trick questions I found on Instagram. I do not know the source of some questions. But, each question is derived from 1 or more of the theories that explain critical thinking.

Was this useful?

Average rating 4.9 / 5. Vote count: 7

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Hey! Thank you for reading; hope you enjoyed the article. I run Cognition Today to paint a holistic picture of psychology. My content here is referenced and featured in NY Times, Forbes, CNET, Entrepreneur, Lifehacker, 10-15 books, academic courses, and research papers.

I’m a full-time psychology blogger, part-time Edtech and cyberpsychology consultant, guitar trainer, and also overtime impostor. I’ve studied at NIMHANS Bangalore (positive psychology), Savitribai Phule Pune University (clinical psychology), and IIM Ahmedabad (marketing psychology).

I’m based in Pune, India. Love sci-fi, horror media; Love rock, metal, synthwave, and pop music; can’t whistle; can play 2 guitars at a time.

Explore more

Top future-proof job skills Psychology Students need

How exercise makes your brain better: 7 mechanisms.

Email Address

Comments Cancel reply

What Is the Watson Glaser Test?

Who uses the watson glaser test and why, why is it so important to be a critical thinker, what is the watson glaser red model, how to pass a watson glaser test in 2024, how to prepare for a watson glaser critical appraisal in 2024, frequently asked questions, the watson glaser critical thinking appraisal.

Updated May 10, 2024

Modern employers have changed the way that they recruit new candidates. They are no longer looking for people who have the technical skills on paper that match the job description.

Instead, they are looking for candidates who can demonstrably prove that they have a wider range of transferrable skills.

One of those key skills is the ability to think critically .

Firms (particularly those in sectors such as law, finance, HR and marketing ) need to know that their employees can look beyond the surface of the information presented to them.

They want confidence that their staff members can understand, analyze and evaluate situations or work-related tasks. There is more on the importance of critical thinking later in this article.

This is where the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking test comes into play.

The Watson Glaser critical thinking test is a unique assessment that provides a detailed analysis of a participant’s ability to think critically.

The test lasts 30 minutes and applicants can expect to be tested on around 40 questions in five distinct areas :

Assumptions

Interpretation.

The questions are multiple-choice and may be phrased as true/false statements in a bid to see how well the participant has understood and interpreted the information provided.

Employers around the world use it during recruitment campaigns to help hiring managers effectively filter their prospective candidates .

The Watson Glaser test has been used for more than 85 years; employers trust the insights that the test can provide.

In today’s competitive jobs market where every candidate has brought the best of themselves, it can be increasingly difficult for employers to decide between applicants.

On paper, two candidates may appear identical, with a similar level of education, work experience, and even interests and skills.

But that does not necessarily mean both or either of them is right for the job.

There is much information available on creating an effective cover letter and resume, not to mention advice on making a good impression during an interview.

As a result, employers are increasingly turning to psychometric testing to look beyond the information that they have.

They want to find the right fit: someone who has the skills that they need now and in the future. And with recruitment costs rising each year, making the wrong hiring decision can be catastrophic.

This is where the Watson Glaser test can help.

It can provide hiring managers with the additional support and guidance they need to help them make an informed decision.

The Watson Glaser test is popular among firms working in professional services (such as law, banking and insurance) . It is used for recruitment for junior and senior positions and some of the world’s most recognized establishments are known for their use of the test.

The Bank of England, Deloitte, Hiscox, Linklaters and Hogan Lovells are just a few employers who enhance their recruitment processes through Watson Glaser testing.

Critical thinking is all about logic and rational thought. Finding out someone’s critical thinking skill level is about knowing whether they can assess whether they are being told the truth and how they can use inferences and assumptions to aid their decision-making.

If you are working in a high-pressure environment, having an instinctive ability to look beyond the information provided to the underlying patterns of cause-and-effect can be crucial to do your job well.

Although it is often thought of concerning law firms and finance teams, it is easy to see how critical thinking skills could be applied to a wide range of professions.

For example, HR professionals dealing with internal disputes may need to think critically. Or social workers and other health professionals may need to use critical thinking to assess whether someone is vulnerable and in need of help and support when that person does not or cannot say openly.

Practice Watson Glaser Test with TestHQ

Critical thinking is about questioning what you already know . It is about understanding how to find the facts and the truth about a situation or argument without being influenced by other people’s opinions .

It is also about looking at the bigger picture and seeing how decisions made now may have short-term benefits but long-term consequences.

For those working in senior managerial roles, this ability to think objectively can make a big difference to business success.

As part of the critical thinking assessment, the Watson Glaser Test focuses on the acronym, 'RED':

• R ecognize assumptions
• E valuate arguments
• D raw conclusions

Put simply, the RED model ensures you can understand how to move beyond subconscious bias in your thinking. It ensures that you can identify the truth and understand the differences between fact and opinion.

To recognize assumptions , you must understand yourself and others: what your thought patterns and past experiences have led you to conclude about the world.

Evaluating arguments requires you to genuinely consider the merits of all options in a situation, and not just choose the one you feel that you ‘ought’ to.

Finally, to draw an accurate and beneficial conclusion you must trust your decision-making and understanding of the situation.

Watson Glaser Practice Test Questions & Answers

As mentioned earlier, the Watson Glaser Test assesses five core elements. Here, they will be examined in more depth:

This part of the test is about your ability to draw conclusions based on facts . These facts may be directly provided or may be assumptions that you have previously made.

Within the assessment, you can expect to be provided with a selection of text. Along with the text will be a statement.

You may need to decide whether that statement is true, probably true, insufficient data (neither true nor false), probably false or false.

The test looks to see if your answer was based on a conclusion that could be inferred from the text provided or if it is based on an assumption you previously made.

Take a Watson Glaser Practice Test

Example Statement:

500 students recently attended a voluntary conference in New York. During the conference, two of the main topics discussed were issues relating to diversity and climate change. This is because these are the two issues that the students selected that are important to them.

Many people make decisions based on assumptions. But you need to be able to identify when assumptions are being made.

Within the Watson Glaser test , you will be provided with a written statement as well as an assumption.

You will be asked to declare whether that assumption was made in the text provided or not .

This is an important part of the test; it allows employers to understand if you have any expectations about whether things are true or not . For roles in law or finance, this is a vital skill.

We need to save money, so we’ll visit the local shops in the nearest town rather than the local supermarket

As a core part of critical thinking, 'deduction' is the ability to use logic and reasoning to come to an informed decision .

You will be presented with several facts, along with a variety of conclusions. You will be tasked with confirming whether those conclusions can be made from the information provided in that statement.

The answers are commonly in a ‘Yes, it follows/No, it does not follow’ form.

It is sometimes sunny on Wednesdays. All sunny days are fun. Therefore…

If you need to prepare for a number of different employment tests and want to outsmart the competition, choose a Premium Membership from TestHQ . You will get access to three PrepPacks of your choice, from a database that covers all the major test providers and employers and tailored profession packs.

Get a Premium Package Now

Critical thinking is also about interpreting the information correctly. It is about using the information provided to come to a valuable, informed decision .

Like the deduction questions, you will be provided with a written statement, which you must assume to be true.

You will also be provided with a suggested interpretation of that written statement. You must decide if that interpretation is correct based on the information provided, using a yes/no format.

A study of toddlers shows that their speech can change significantly between the ages of 10 months and three years old. At 1 year old, a child may learn their first word whereas at three years old they may know 200 words

Evaluation of Arguments

This final part requires you to identify whether an argument is strong or weak . You will be presented with a written statement and several arguments that can be used for or against it. You need to identify which is the strongest argument and which is the weakest based on the information provided.

Should all 18-year-olds go to college to study for a degree after they have graduated from high school?

There are no confirmed pass/fail scores for Watson Glaser tests; different sectors have different interpretations of what is a good score .

Law firms, for example, will require a pass mark of at least 75–80% because the ability to think critically is an essential aspect of working as a lawyer.

As a comparative test, you need to consider what the comparative ‘norm’ is for your chosen profession. Your score will be compared to other candidates taking the test and you need to score better than them.

It is important to try and score as highly as you possibly can. Your Watson Glaser test score can set you apart from other candidates; you need to impress the recruiters as much as possible.

Your best chance of achieving a high score is to practice as much as possible in advance.

Everyone will have their own preferred study methods, and what works for one person may not necessarily work for another.

However, there are some basic techniques everyone can use, which will enhance your study preparation ahead of the test:

Step 1 . Pay Attention to Online Practice Tests

There are numerous free online training aids available; these can be beneficial as a starting point to your preparation.

However, it should be noted that they are often not as detailed as the actual exam questions.

When researching for online test questions, make sure that any questions are specific to the Watson Glaser Test , not just critical thinking.

General critical thinking questions can help you improve your skills but will not familiarize you with this test. Therefore, make sure you practice any questions which follow the ‘rules’ and structure of a Watson Glaser Test .

Step 2 . Paid-for Preparation Packs Can Be Effective

If you are looking for something that mimics the complexity of a Watson Glaser test , you may wish to look at investing in a preparation pack.

There are plenty of options available from sites such as TestHQ . These are often far more comprehensive than free practice tests.

They may also include specific drills (which take you through each of the five stages of the test) as well as study guides, practice tests and suggestions of how to improve your score.

Psychologically, if you have purchased a preparation pack, you may be more inclined to increase your pre-test practice/study when compared to using free tools, due to having invested money.

Step 3 . Apply Critical Thinking to All Aspects of Your Daily Routine

The best way to improve your critical thinking score is to practice it every day.

It is not just about using your skills to pass an exam question; it is about being able to think critically in everyday scenarios.

Therefore, when you are reading the news or online articles, try to think whether you are being given facts or you are making deductions and assumptions from the information provided.

The more you practice your critical thinking in these scenarios, the more it will become second nature to you.

You could revert to the RED model: recognize the assumptions being made, by you and the author; evaluate the arguments and decide which, if any, are strong; and draw conclusions from the information provided and perhaps see if they differ from conclusions drawn using your external knowledge.

Prepare for Watson Glaser Test with TestHQ

Nine Top Tips for Ensuring Success in Your Watson Glaser Test

If you are getting ready to participate in a Watson Glaser test, you must be clear about what you are being asked to do.

Here are a few tips that can help you to improve your Watson Glaser test score.

1. Practice, Practice, Practice

Critical thinking is a skill that should become second nature to you. You should practice as much as possible, not just so that you can pass the test, but also to feel confident in using your skills in reality.

2. The Best Success Is Based on the Long-Term Study

To succeed in your Watson Glaser test , you need to spend time preparing.

Those who begin studying in the weeks and months beforehand will be far more successful than those who leave their study to the last minute.

3. Acquaint Yourself With the Test Format

The Watson Glaser test has a different type of question to other critical thinking tests.

Make sure that you are aware of what to expect from the test questions. The last thing you want is to be surprised on test day.

4. Read the Instructions Carefully

This is one of the simplest but most effective tips. Your critical thinking skills start with understanding what you are being asked to do. Take your time over the question.

Although you may only have 30 minutes to complete the test, it is still important that you do not rush through and submit the wrong answers. You do not get a higher score if you finish early, so use your time wisely.

5. Only Use the Information Provided in the Question

Remember, the purpose of the test is to see if you can come to a decision based on the provided written statement.

This means that you must ignore anything that you think you already know and focus only on the information given in the question.

6. Widen Your Non-Fictional Reading

Reading a variety of journals, newspapers and reports, and watching examples of debates and arguments will help you to improve your skills.

You will start to understand how the same basic facts can be presented in different ways and cause people to draw different conclusions.

From there, you can start to enhance your critical thinking skills to go beyond the perspective provided in any given situation.

7. Be Self-Aware

We all have our own biases and prejudices whether we know them or not. It is important to think about how your own opinions and life experiences may impact how you perceive and understand situations.

For example, someone who has grown up with a lot of money may have a different interpretation of what it is like to go without, compared to someone who has grown up in extreme poverty.

It is important to have this self-awareness as it is important for understanding other people; this is useful if you are working in sectors such as law.

8. Read the Explanations During Your Preparation

To make the most of practice tests, make sure you read the analysis explaining the answers, regardless of if you got the question right or wrong.

This is the crux of your study; it will explain the reasoning why a certain answer is correct, and this will help you understand how to choose the correct answers.

9. Practice Your Timings

You know that you will have five sections to complete in the test. You also know that you have 30 minutes to complete the test.

Therefore, make sure that your timings are in sync within your practice, so you can work your way through the test in its entirety.

Time yourself on how long each section takes you and put in extra work on your slowest.

What score do you need to pass the Watson Glaser test?

There is no standard benchmark score to pass the Watson Glaser test . Each business sector has its own perception of what constitutes a good score and every employer will set its own requirements.

It is wise to aim for a Watson Glaser test score of at least 75%. To score 75% or higher, you will need to correctly answer at least 30 of the 40 questions.

The employing organization will use your test results to compare your performance with other candidates within the selection pool. The higher you score in the Watson Glaser test , the better your chances of being hired.

Can you fail a Watson Glaser test?

It is not possible to fail a Watson Glaser test . However, your score may not be high enough to meet the benchmark set by the employing organization.

By aiming for a score of at least 75%, you stand a good chance of progressing to the next stage of the recruitment process.

Are Watson Glaser tests hard?

Many candidates find the Watson Glaser test hard. The test is designed to assess five different aspects of logical reasoning skills. Candidates must work under pressure, which adds another dimension of difficulty.

By practicing your critical thinking skills, you can improve your chances of achieving a high score on the Watson Glaser test .

How do I prepare for Watson Glaser?

To prepare for Watson Glaser , you will need to practice your critical thinking abilities. This can be achieved through a range of activities; for example, reading a variety of newspapers, journals and other literature.

Try applying the RED model to your reading – recognize the assumptions being made (both by you and the writer), evaluate the arguments and decide which of these (if any) are strong.

You should also practice drawing conclusions from the information available to you.

Online Watson Glaser practice assessments are a useful way to prepare for Watson Glaser. These practice tests will give you an idea of what to expect on the day, although the questions are not usually as detailed as those in the actual test.

You might also consider using a paid-for Watson Glaser preparation pack, such as the one available from TestHQ . Preparation packs provide a comprehensive test guide, including practice tests and recommendations on how to improve your test score.

How long does the Watson Glaser test take?

Candidates are allowed 30 minutes to complete the Watson Glaser test . The multiple-choice test questions are grouped into five distinct areas – assumptions, deduction, evaluation, inference and interpretation.

Which firms use the Watson Glaser test?

Companies all over the world use the Watson Glaser test as part of their recruitment campaigns.

It is a popular choice for professional service firms, including banking, law, and insurance. Firms using the Watson Glaser test include the Bank of England, Hiscox, Deloitte and Clifford Chance.

How many times can you take the Watson Glaser test?

Most employers will only allow you to take the Watson Glaser test once per application. However, you may take the Watson Glaser test more than once throughout your career.

What is the next step after passing the Watson Glaser test?

The next step after passing the Watson Glaser test will vary between employers. Some firms will ask you to attend a face-to-face interview after passing the Watson Glaser test, others will ask you to attend an assessment center. Speak to the hiring manager to find out the process for the firm you are applying for.

Start preparing in advance for the Watson Glaser test

The Watson Glaser test differs from other critical thinking tests. It has its own rules and formations, and the exam is incredibly competitive. If you are asked to participate in a Watson Glaser test it is because your prospective employer is looking for the ‘best of the best’. Your aim is not to simply pass the test; it is to achieve a higher score than anyone else taking that test .

Therefore, taking the time to prepare for the Watson Glaser test is vital for your chances of success. You need to be confident that you know what you are being asked to do, and that you can use your critical thinking skills to make informed decisions.

Your study is about more than helping you to pass a test; it is about providing you with the skills and capability to think critically about information in the ‘real world’ .

You might also be interested in these other Psychometric Success articles:

Or explore the Aptitude Tests / Test Types sections.

January 1, 2015

12 min read

Rational and Irrational Thought: The Thinking That IQ Tests Miss

Why smart people sometimes do dumb things

By Keith E. Stanovich

No doubt you know several folks with perfectly respectable IQs who repeatedly make poor decisions. The behavior of such people tells us that we are missing something important by treating intelligence as if it encompassed all cognitive abilities. I coined the term “dysrationalia” (analogous to “dyslexia”), meaning the inability to think and behave rationally despite having adequate intelligence, to draw attention to a large domain of cognitive life that intelligence tests fail to assess. Although most people recognize that IQ tests do not measure every important mental faculty, we behave as if they do. We have an implicit assumption that intelligence and rationality go together—or else why would we be so surprised when smart people do foolish things?

It is useful to get a handle on dysrationalia and its causes because we are beset by problems that require increasingly more accurate, rational responses. In the 21st century, shallow processing can lead physicians to choose less effective medical treatments, can cause people to fail to adequately assess risks in their environment, can lead to the misuse of information in legal proceedings, and can make parents resist vaccinating their children. Millions of dollars are spent on unneeded projects by government and private industry when decision makers are dysrationalic, billions are wasted on quack remedies, unnecessary surgery is performed and costly financial misjudgments are made.

IQ tests do not measure dysrationalia. But as I show in my 2010 book, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought , there are ways to measure dysrationalia and ways to correct it. Decades of research in cognitive psychology have suggested two causes of dysrationalia. One is a processing problem, the other a content problem. Much is known about both of them.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The Case of the Cognitive Miser The processing problem comes about because we tend to be cognitive misers. When approaching a problem, we can choose from any of several cognitive mechanisms. Some mechanisms have great computational power, letting us solve many problems with great accuracy, but they are slow, require much concentration and can interfere with other cognitive tasks. Others are comparatively low in computational power, but they are fast, require little concentration and do not interfere with other ongoing cognition. Humans are cognitive misers because our basic tendency is to default to the processing mechanisms that require less computational effort, even when they are less accurate.

Are you a cognitive miser? Consider the following problem, taken from the work of Hector Levesque, a computer scientist at the University of Toronto. Try to answer it yourself before reading the solution:

1. Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

C) Cannot be determined

More than 80 percent of people choose C. But the correct answer is A. Here is how to think it through logically: Anne is the only person whose marital status is unknown. You need to consider both possibilities, either married or unmarried, to determine whether you have enough information to draw a conclusion. If Anne is married, the answer is A: she would be the married person who is looking at an unmarried person (George). If Anne is not married, the answer is still A: in this case, Jack is the married person, and he is looking at Anne, the unmarried person. This thought process is called fully disjunctive reasoning—reasoning that considers all possibilities. The fact that the problem does not reveal whether Anne is or is not married suggests to people that they do not have enough information, and they make the easiest inference (C) without thinking through all the possibilities.

Most people can carry out fully disjunctive reasoning when they are explicitly told that it is necessary (as when there is no option like “cannot be determined” available). But most do not automatically do so, and the tendency to do so is only weakly correlated with intelligence.

Here is another test of cognitive miserliness, as described by Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Shane Frederick:

2. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Many people give the first response that comes to mind—10 cents. But if they thought a little harder, they would realize that this cannot be right: the bat would then have to cost $1.10, for a total of $1.20. IQ is no guarantee against this error. Kahneman and Frederick found that large numbers of highly select university students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton and Harvard were cognitive misers, just like the rest of us, when given this and similar problems.

Another characteristic of cognitive misers is the “myside” bias—the tendency to reason from an egocentric perspective. In a 2008 study my colleague Richard West of James Madison University and I presented a group of subjects with the following thought problem:

3. Imagine that the U.S. Department of Transportation has found that a particular German car is eight times more likely than a typical family car to kill occupants of another car in a crash. The federal government is considering resticting sale and use of this German car. Please answer the following two questions: Do you think sales of the German car should be banned in the U.S.? Do you think the German car should be banned from being driven on American streets?

Then we presented a different group of subjects with the thought problem stated a different way—more in line with the true data from the Department of Transportation at the time, which had found an increased risk of fatalities not in a German car but in an American one:

Imagine that the Department of Transportation has found that the Ford Explorer is eight times more likely than a typical family car to kill occupants of another car in a crash. The German government is considering restricting sale or use of the Ford Explorer. Please answer the following two questions: Do you think sales of the Ford Explorer should be banned in Germany? Do you think the Ford Explorer should be banned from being driven on German streets?

Among the American subjects we tested, we found considerable support for banning the car when it was a German car being banned for American use: 78.4 percent thought car sales should be banned, and 73.7 percent thought the car should be kept off the streets. But for the subjects for whom the question was stated as whether an American car should be banned in Germany, there was a statistically significant difference: only 51.4 percent thought car sales should be banned, and just 39.2 percent thought the car should be kept off German streets, even though the car in question was presented as having exactly the same poor safety record.

This study illustrates our tendency to evaluate a situation from our own perspective. We weigh evidence and make moral judgments with a myside bias that often leads to dysrationalia that is independent of measured intelligence. The same is true for other tendencies of the cognitive miser that have been much studied, such as attribute substitution and conjunction errors; they are at best only slightly related to intelligence and are poorly captured by conventional intelligence tests.

The Mindware Gap The second source of dysrationalia is a content problem. We need to acquire specific knowledge to think and act rationally. Harvard cognitive scientist David Perkins coined the term “mindware” to refer to the rules, data, procedures, strategies and other cognitive tools (knowledge of probability, logic and scientific inference) that must be retrieved from memory to think rationally. The absence of this knowledge creates a mindware gap—again, something that is not tested on typical intelligence tests.

One aspect of mindware is probabilistic thinking, which can be measured. Try to answer the following problem before you read on:

4. Imagine that XYZ viral syndrome is a serious condition that affects one person in 1,000. Imagine also that the test to diagnose the disease always indicates correctly that a person who has the XYZ virus actually has it. Finally, suppose that this test occasionally misidentifies a healthy individual as having XYZ. The test has a false-positive rate of 5 percent, meaning that the test wrongly indicates that the XYZ virus is present in 5 percent of the cases where the person does not have the virus.

Next we choose a person at random and administer the test, and the person tests positive for XYZ syndrome. Assuming we know nothing else about that individual's medical history, what is the probability (expressed as a percentage ranging from zero to 100) that the individual really has XYZ?

The most common answer is 95 percent. But that is wrong. People tend to ignore the first part of the setup, which states that only one person in 1,000 will actually have XYZ syndrome. If the other 999 (who do not have the disease) are tested, the 5 percent false-positive rate means that approximately 50 of them (0.05 times 999) will be told they have XYZ. Thus, for every 51 patients who test positive for XYZ, only one will actually have it. Because of the relatively low base rate of the disease and the relatively high false-positive rate, most people who test positive for XYZ syndrome will not have it. The answer to the question, then, is that the probability a person who tests positive for XYZ syndrome actually has it is one in 51, or approximately 2 percent.

A second aspect of mindware, the ability to think scientifically, is also missing from standard IQ tests, but it, too, can be readily measured:

5. An experiment is conducted to test the efficacy of a new medical treatment. Picture a 2 x 2 matrix that summarizes the results as follows:

As you can see, 200 patients were given the experimental treatment and improved; 75 were given the treatment and did not improve; 50 were not given the treatment and improved; and 15 were not given the treatment and did not improve. Before reading ahead, answer this question with a yes or no: Was the treatment effective?

Most people will say yes. They focus on the large number of patients (200) in whom treatment led to improvement and on the fact that of those who received treatment, more patients improved (200) than failed to improve (75). Because the probability of improvement (200 out of 275 treated, or 200/275 = 0.727) seems high, people tend to believe the treatment works. But this reflects an error in scientific thinking: an inability to consider the control group, something that (disturbingly) even physicians are often guilty of. In the control group, improvement occurred even when the treatment was not given. The probability of improvement with no treatment (50 out of 65 not treated, or 50/65 = 0.769) is even higher than the probability of improvement with treatment, meaning that the treatment being tested can be judged to be completely ineffective.

Another mindware problem relates to hypothesis testing. This, too, is rarely tested on IQ tests, even though it can be reliably measured, as Peter C. Wason of University College London showed. Try to solve the following puzzle, called the four-card selection task, before reading ahead:  

6. As seen in the diagram, four cards are sitting on a table. Each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other. Two cards are letter-side up, and two of the cards are number-side up. The rule to be tested is this: for these four cards, if a card has a vowel on its letter side, it has an even number on its number side. Your task is to decide which card or cards must be turned over to find out whether the rule is true or false. Indicate which cards must be turned over.

Most people get the answer wrong, and it has been devilishly hard to figure out why. About half of them say you should pick A and 8: a vowel to see if there is an even number on its reverse side and an even number to see if there is a vowel on its reverse. Another 20 percent choose to turn over the A card only, and another 20 percent turn over other incorrect combinations. That means that 90 percent of people get it wrong.

Let's see where people tend to run into trouble. They are okay with the letter cards: most people correctly choose A. The difficulty is in the number cards: most people mistakenly choose 8. Why is it wrong to choose 8? Read the rule again: it says that a vowel must have an even number on the back, but it says nothing about whether an even number must have a vowel on the back or what kind of number a consonant must have. (It is because the rule says nothing about consonants, by the way, that there is no need to see what is on the back of the K.) So finding a consonant on the back of the 8 would say nothing about whether the rule is true or false. In contrast, the 5 card, which most people do not choose, is essential. The 5 card might have a vowel on the back. And if it does, the rule would be shown to be false because that would mean that not all vowels have even numbers on the back. In short, to show that the rule is not false, the 5 card must be turned over.

When asked to prove something true or false, people tend to focus on confirming the rule rather than falsifying it. This is why they turn over the 8 card, to confirm the rule by observing a vowel on the other side, and the A card, to find the confirming even number. But if they thought scientifically, they would look for a way to falsify the rule—a thought pattern that would immediately suggest the relevance of the 5 card (which might contain a disconfirming vowel on the back). Seeking falsifying evidence is a crucial component of scientific thinking. But for most people, this bit of mindware must be taught until it becomes second nature.

Dysrationalia and Intelligence The modern period of intelligence research was inaugurated by Charles Spearman in a famous paper published in 1904 in the American Journal of Psychology . Spearman found that performance on one cognitive task tends to correlate with peformance on other cognitive tasks. He termed this correlation the positive manifold, the belief that all cognitive skills will show substantial correlations with one another. This belief has dominated the field ever since.

Yet as research in my lab and elsewhere has shown, rational thinking can be surprisingly dissociated from intelligence. Individuals with high IQs are no less likely to be cognitive misers than those with lower IQs. In a Levesque problem, for instance (the “Jack is looking at Anne, who is looking at George” problem discussed earlier), high IQ is no guarantee against the tendency to take the easy way out. No matter what their IQ, most people need to be told that fully disjunctive reasoning will be necessary to solve the puzzle, or else they won't bother to use it. Maggie Toplak of York University in Toronto, West and I have shown that high-IQ people are only slightly more likely to spontaneously adopt disjunctive reasoning in situations that do not explicitly demand it.

For the second source of dysrationalia, mindware deficits, we would expect to see some correlation with intelligence because gaps in mindware often arise from lack of education, and education tends to be reflected in IQ scores. But the knowledge and thinking styles relevant to dysrationalia are often not picked up until rather late in life. It is quite possible for intelligent people to go through school and never be taught probabilistic thinking, scientific reasoning, and other strategies measured by the XYZ virus puzzle and the four-card selection task described earlier.

When rational thinking is correlated with intelligence, the correlation is usually quite modest. Avoidance of cognitive miserliness has a correlation with IQ in the range of 0.20 to 0.30 (on the scale of correlation coefficients that runs from 0 to 1.0). Sufficient mindware has a similar modest correlation, in the range of 0.25 to 0.35. These correlations allow for substantial discrepancies between intelligence and rationality. Intelligence is thus no inoculation against any of the sources of dysrationalia I have discussed.

Cutting Intelligence Down to Size The idea that IQ tests do not measure all the key human faculties is not new; critics of intelligence tests have been making that point for years. Robert J. Sternberg of Cornell University and Howard Gardner of Harvard talk about practical intelligence, creative intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and the like. Yet appending the word “intelligence” to all these other mental, physical and social entities promotes the very assumption the critics want to attack. If you inflate the concept of intelligence, you will inflate its close associates as well. And after 100 years of testing, it is a simple historical fact that the closest associate of the term “intelligence” is “the IQ test part of intelligence.” This is why my strategy for cutting intelligence down to size is different from that of most other IQ-test critics. We are missing something by treating intelligence as if it encompassed all cognitive abilities.

My goal in proposing the term “dysrationalia” is to separate intelligence from rationality, a trait that IQ tests do not measure. The concept of dysrationalia, and the empirical evidence indicating that the condition is not rare, should help create a conceptual space in which we value abilities at least as important as those currently measured on IQ tests—abilities to form rational beliefs and to take rational action.

Critical Thinking

By Dr Roy van den Brink-Budgen

Updated in March 2022

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking always appears in lists of ‘21st century competencies’ along with creative thinking, problem-solving, and others. This is important because it is seen as a very significant set of competencies for education, employment and for being a usefully engaged citizen.

There are various definitions developed in the critical thinking literature. One critical thinking definition that is often quoted is that by Robert Ennis : ‘ Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused upon deciding what to believe or do ’.

The significance of what constitutes ‘reasonable and reflective thinking’ is often seen as needing some unpacking and a further definition seeks to provide more detail. This is from Peter Facione : ‘ Critical thinking is ‘purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. ’

What are critical thinking skills?

Looking at the content of this expanded definition, it can be seen that critical thinking is, at one level, a set of skills focused on judging the significance of claims and reasoning:

• What might/does this claim (evidence, example) mean?
• How should I assess its significance?
• What more do I need to know?
• How can I explain it?
• How else can it be interpreted?
• What is being argued for here?
• What reasons are being used?
• What is being assumed (taken-for granted)?
• Is this a well-reasoned argument?
• What would make it strong(er) or weak(er)?

These skills of analysis, inference, interpretation, and evaluation are illustrated by critical thinking examples below. It is important to remember that the skills can be applied both to judgements made by others as well as to those that we make ourselves. This point provides a link to another feature of critical thinking. This is that in addition to the skills of thinking themselves, the critical thinker should also be ‘disposed’ to use them. These dispositions include being open- and fair-minded, being willing to reconsider, being trustful of reason, and being focused in inquiry.

What is a critical thinking test?

Critical thinking tests assess the level of a person’s critical thinking skills. Critical thinking tests vary in terms of which skills and sub-skills they include, but most assess skills of analysis, inference, and evaluation. Most use the multiple-choice question method. There are exceptions in one form or the other. The Ennis-Weir test, assesses only evaluation. It’s a free-writing test in which the test-taker evaluates, paragraph by paragraph, a given reasoned case. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) measures dispositions to use critical thinking skills.

How do you prepare for a critical thinking test?

Given that virtually all of the tests assess the level of someone’s critical thinking skills, you need to determine what the specific skills measured will be. Once you know what skills the critical thinking test includes, you need to do three things:

• be clear as to what is involved in each of the skills;
• be clear as to how they are assessed;
• practise until the skills are sufficiently developed.

The first and second of these things to do are explained in more detail below.

>> If you like you can also take a free critical thinking test right away.

Critical thinking examples and example questions

Inference is one of the most prominent of critical thinking examples . This is because it is very much concerned with the logical relationship between claims (as reasons) and what is drawn/inferred from them (as conclusions). There are two types of inference, and critical thinking tests will normally assess both of these.

The first type is deduction . In this, conclusions either logically follow or don’t (can’t) follow. Here is an example.

If international aid works in improving the economies of the poorest countries, then these economies will have significantly improved by now. However, the economies of the poorest countries haven’t improved significantly, so international aid doesn’t work in this way.

The accompanying question would be to decide whether the conclusion follows or not. In other words, does it follow from what comes before that ‘international aid doesn’t work in this way’? The best approach in questions like this is to turn the various statements into A, B, and so on (and their negatives – not-A, not-B, and so on). Doing this with the first sentence of the above passage we have ‘If A (‘international aid…countries’) then B (‘these economies…by now’)’. The second sentence can be given as ‘not-A (the economies…significantly’), so not-B (‘international…way’). In this way, we have the simple form of ‘If A, then B. Not-B, so not-A’. In this argument, the conclusion does follow (and, therefore, so too would other examples of arguments which have this structure.) What about the next one?

If the police are going to be able to reduce organised crime, then they need to infiltrate the various gangs that commit the crime. The police aren’t going to be able to reduce organised crime, so they haven’t been able to infiltrate these gangs.

The structure of this argument is ‘if A, then B. Not-A, so not-B’. The conclusion in this argument does not have to follow logically: though there is a given link between A and B, there could be other reasons why A isn’t the case (such as a lack of police resources). However, consider a revised version of the same content, such that ‘If A, then B. Not-B, so not-A’ and you will see that the conclusion does follow.

The second type of inference is induction . In this, we are not looking to see if the conclusion must logically follow, given the structure (as with deduction), but does it, at most, probably follow? Look at the next example.

The country’s economic data for the past 12 months show that the predicted economic growth of 2.8 per cent was too optimistic. It is likely, therefore, that the predicted economic growth for the next 12 months will again be incorrect.

As can be seen, this is a simple argument (A, so B). If we were asked whether the conclusion follows from the one reason given, then we cannot say with any certainty that it does or does not. We could judge the reason to be relevant to the conclusion, but certainly not adequate (unlike with the first of the deductive arguments above). One test (Watson-Glaser) offers the category of ‘insufficient data’ as an option here in response to the question of whether a given inference follows, and this would certainly fit here. If a further reason was added, does this make the inference more justifiable?

The country’s economic data for the past 12 months show that the predicted economic growth of 2.8 per cent was too optimistic. Predictions of economic growth over the past ten years have also been too optimistic. It is likely, therefore, that the predicted economic growth for the next 12 months will again be incorrect.

As before, it is certainly relevant to the conclusion and, given the longer timescale of the evidence, one would judge that it makes the argument stronger. But it still hasn’t got the certainty of a deductive argument. But one could say that, given the new evidence, there is a higher degree of probability that the conclusion can be correctly drawn.

Analysis of arguments

In the above section on inference, we have seen how claims are used as reasons to support conclusions drawn from them. One of the skills of critical thinking is to understand how an argument is structured (in other words to be able to say which part is doing what). The argument on economic data could have been written differently.

It is likely that the predicted economic growth for the next 12 months will again be incorrect. The country’s economic data for the past 12 months show that the predicted economic growth of 2.8 per cent was too optimistic. Predictions of economic growth over the past ten years have also been too optimistic.

This time the conclusion is given first, followed by the two reasons. This is not uncommon (and certainly not a problem). It could also be given between the two reasons.

The country’s economic data for the past 12 months show that the predicted economic growth of 2.8 per cent was too optimistic. It is likely that the predicted economic growth for the next 12 months will again be incorrect. Predictions of economic growth over the past ten years have also been too optimistic.

In questions that involve looking at the analysis of arguments, we need to be clear as to what is being argued for and what reasons are given in support of this.

Assumptions

A further aspect of analysis and inference is what are termed assumptions. These are taken-for-granted beliefs which form part of an argument without being made explicit. They form part of the argument by being an implicit reason. This can be illustrated by looking again at the first version of the argument on economic growth.

As we saw, the conclusion of this argument was drawn from a relevant (but not adequate) reason. But if we look at the hidden part of the argument, we find a further reason that the author must accept though they haven’t stated it. This is that ‘The country’s economic performance during the past 12 months is a good guide to what will be its economic performance for the next 12 months.’ If the author did not accept this claim, then their conclusion does not fit with the given reason. When we strengthened the argument by adding in a second reason (‘Predictions of economic growth over the past ten years have also been too optimistic.’), the argument now required a further but similar assumption:

The evidence of predictions of economic growth over the past ten years is a good guide to economic performance over the next 12 months.

In looking for what is assumed in an argument, we have to be sure that we’re looking for what the author must believe to be true, even though they haven’t stated it.

This skill takes us back to inductive reasoning, since we are looking here at the issue of the strength of reasoning. There are various ways in which this skill of evaluation is assessed in critical thinking tests. One way is to evaluate proposed conclusions for a given passage. Here is an example.

Though the demand for gold continues to be very high (with economic uncertainty being a major cause of this, thereby leading to very high prices for it), there is evidence that the supply might begin to be limited. Though some new gold deposits are still being found, large reserves are increasingly rare, with the majority of production still happening in older mines that have been in use for decades.

Are either of these conclusions able to be drawn from this passage? (A) The price of gold will continue to rise over the next decade. (B) The price of gold can be an indication of the degree of economic certainty. (A) NO: The passage gives information on both the present high price and high demand for gold. It also gives information on why future supply might be limited. Though this latter point might lead to the price currently being high, we cannot conclude that the price ‘will continue to rise over the next decade’ since there are other factors (including those that might cause the price to fall) that would need to be considered. (B) YES: Since the passage gives the information that economic uncertainty is ‘a major cause’ of the very high demand for gold which in turn has led to ‘very high prices for it’, it follows that the price ‘can be an indication of the degree of economic certainty’. It should be noted that this is a weaker version than ‘The price of gold is an indication of the degree of economic certainty’ which would be too strong to be safely inferred. Another way is to be asked to evaluate given responses to a question for their strength or weakness. Here is an example.

Should people who neglect their health be denied free health care? YES: Doing this would mean that people looked after their own health.

Does this create a strong or a weak argument? It creates a weak argument, since not all health problems are linked to people’s behaviour (for example, accidents and health problems associated with genetic factors).

NO: Many people might not have the necessary information about preventable causes of ill-health.

Does this create a strong or a weak argument? It creates a strong argument, since it gives a very relevant reason which highlights the problem of the significance of the word ‘neglect’. If people don’t know how their behaviour links to possible ill-health, then they can’t be said to be neglecting their health. As can be seen in these examples, assessments of the skill of evaluation focus on an understanding of the relationship between what is being argued for and what is being used in doing this. You can apply these skills not only to the above question-categories but also to those questions that ask for what would strengthen or weaken an argument.

Practising your critical thinking skills

In the above list of ‘How do you prepare for a critical thinking test?’ the third item was to ‘practise until skills are sufficiently developed’. So how do you do this? Quite simply, you should take the skills already detailed and seek to use them in as many contexts as you can. This will include checking news items for the status of opinions given in them, using the skills to interrogate any evidence that you come across, applying the skills to your own reasoning when you’re producing a case for something (in the same way that you would apply them to others’ reasoning), considering possible explanations for evidence (beyond that which might already be given), and working out what assumptions are being made in any reasoning that you look at.

>> Try our extensive Critical Thinking Practice Package for great assessment preparation.

What critical thinking tests exist?

One of the most well-used (and so most well-known) tests for critical thinking assessment is Watson-Glaser. This assesses your skills in inference (including both deduction and induction), finding assumptions, and evaluation. Given that it is so extensively used you can read more in a more elaborate article on the Watson Glaser test . All three of GRE (Verbal Reasoning), GMAT, and SAT tests include critical thinking questions. The GMAT test has the biggest number of critical thinking question-types of the three, and includes not only the main areas that we have looked at, but also questions on definitions and analogies. The Cornell Conditional-Reasoning Test also includes questions on definition (‘What does this term mean as used here?’) and also credibility (which is applying the skill of asking questions about the possible significance of evidence, when applied to who says what scenarios). The Ennis-Weir test, as discussed above, is a test of skills of evaluation only. There are various tests that fit with specific professions such as the Bar Course Aptitude Test [BCAT] (in the UK) for aspiring barristers. The UK BioMedical Admissions Test [BMAT] for those wishing to study medicine, biomedical sciences, and dentistry has half of its questions as critical thinking ones.

About the author; Dr Roy van den Brink-Budgen

Dr Roy van den Brink-Budgen (ifthen.co.uk) is highly authoritative in the field of critical thinking. His experience is regarded unrivalled in many ways. He authors innovative resources, including many articles and books on the subject and also effectively links creative and critical thinking. He is both an author of critical thinking assessment materials as well a teacher, and is active across the globe.

Let someone else know about this article

If you think reading this article would benefit someone you know, you can easily share it through the medium of your choice.

Share article:

Critical thinking skills are more important than IQ

Did you know that critical thinking skills are more important than IQ? To lead a good life, we need to make good decisions: manage our health and financial affairs , invest in appropriate relationships, and avoid serious lapses like falling for online scams. What equips us to do this? One candidate is IQ: after all, people who score higher on intelligence tests tend to go on to do better academically and in their careers . But many of us know intellectual titans who still make grave errors of judgment in their lives. Book-smarts doesn’t necessarily make you life-smart, and a new article in the journal Thinking Skills and Creativity examines the utility of IQ in navigating existence, and how another mental ability may put it in the shade.

Whereas IQ is – crudely speaking – a measure of the mental horsepower we have for handling abstract content, some researchers say that “critical thinking” – the ability to make judgments dispassionately without jumping to false conclusions – is a separate ability. To find out if critical thinking ability might be important for real-life outcomes, perhaps even more than IQ, Heather Butler of California State University and her colleagues asked 244 participants – a mix of students and adults recruited online – to complete tests, of their IQ and critical thinking skills.

The intelligence test was fairly standard and covered memory, visual processing and quantitative reasoning. The critical thinking assessment involved participants evaluating courses of action in hypothetical scenarios and also considering the relevance of contextual information that could have a bearing on the decisions. To read more from Alex Fradera,  click here .

FIND THE COURAGE TO CULTIVATE CHANGE.

Lincoln Park Therapy Group uses a strength-based approach to support overall wellness, healthy relationships and a balanced life. Please visit our blog to read articles, access resources and learn tips and tools to help you overcome a broad variety of psychological, social, and emotional challenges.

LET'S CULTIVATE CHANGE

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
• PMC10672018

Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An Integrative Review

Associated data.

This research did not involve collection of original data, and hence there are no new data to make available.

A review of the research shows that critical thinking is a more inclusive construct than intelligence, going beyond what general cognitive ability can account for. For instance, critical thinking can more completely account for many everyday outcomes, such as how thinkers reject false conspiracy theories, paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, psychological misconceptions, and other unsubstantiated claims. Deficiencies in the components of critical thinking (in specific reasoning skills, dispositions, and relevant knowledge) contribute to unsubstantiated belief endorsement in ways that go beyond what standardized intelligence tests test. Specifically, people who endorse unsubstantiated claims less tend to show better critical thinking skills, possess more relevant knowledge, and are more disposed to think critically. They tend to be more scientifically skeptical and possess a more rational–analytic cognitive style, while those who accept unsubstantiated claims more tend to be more cynical and adopt a more intuitive–experiential cognitive style. These findings suggest that for a fuller understanding of unsubstantiated beliefs, researchers and instructors should also assess specific reasoning skills, relevant knowledge, and dispositions which go beyond what intelligence tests test.

1. Introduction

Why do some people believe implausible claims, such as the QAnon conspiracy theory, that a cabal of liberals is kidnapping and trafficking many thousands of children each year, despite the lack of any credible supporting evidence? Are believers less intelligent than non-believers? Do they lack knowledge of such matters? Are they more gullible or less skeptical than non-believers? Or, more generally, are they failing to think critically?

Understanding the factors contributing to acceptance of unsubstantiated claims is important, not only to the development of theories of intelligence and critical thinking but also because many unsubstantiated beliefs are false, and some are even dangerous. Endorsing them can have a negative impact on an individual and society at large. For example, false beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic, such as believing that 5G cell towers induced the spread of the COVID-19 virus, led some British citizens to set fire to 5G towers ( Jolley and Paterson 2020 ). Other believers in COVID-19 conspiracy theories endangered their own and their children’s lives when they refused to socially distance and be vaccinated with highly effective vaccines, despite the admonitions of scientific experts ( Bierwiaczonek et al. 2020 ). Further endangering the population at large, those who believe the false conspiracy theory that human-caused global warming is a hoax likely fail to respond adaptively to this serious global threat ( van der Linden 2015 ). Parents, who uncritically accept pseudoscientific claims, such as the false belief that facilitated communication is an effective treatment for childhood autism, may forego more effective treatments ( Lilienfeld 2007 ). Moreover, people in various parts of the world still persecute other people whom they believe are witches possessing supernatural powers. Likewise, many people still believe in demonic possession, which has been associated with mental disorders ( Nie and Olson 2016 ). Compounding the problems created by these various unsubstantiated beliefs, numerous studies now show that when someone accepts one of these types of unfounded claims, they tend to accept others as well; see Bensley et al. ( 2022 ) for a review.

Studying the factors that contribute to unfounded beliefs is important not only because of their real-world consequences but also because this can facilitate a better understanding of unfounded beliefs and how they are related to critical thinking and intelligence. This article focuses on important ways in which critical thinking and intelligence differ, especially in terms of how a comprehensive model of CT differs from the view of intelligence as general cognitive ability. I argue that this model of CT more fully accounts for how people can accurately decide if a claim is unsubstantiated than can views of intelligence, emphasizing general cognitive ability. In addition to general cognitive ability, thinking critically about unsubstantiated claims involves deployment of specific reasoning skills, dispositions related to CT, and specific knowledge, which go beyond the contribution of general cognitive ability.

Accordingly, this article begins with an examination of the constructs of critical thinking and intelligence. Then, it discusses theories proposing that to understand thinking in the real world requires going beyond general cognitive ability. Specifically, the focus is on factors related to critical thinking, such as specific reasoning skills, dispositions, metacognition, and relevant knowledge. I review research showing that that this alternative multidimensional view of CT can better account for individual differences in the tendency to endorse multiple types of unsubstantiated claims than can general cognitive ability alone.

2. Defining Critical Thinking and Intelligence

Critical thinking is an almost universally valued educational objective in the US and in many other countries which seek to improve it. In contrast, intelligence, although much valued, has often been viewed as a more stable characteristic and less amenable to improvement through specific short-term interventions, such as traditional instruction or more recently through practice on computer-implemented training programs. According to Wechsler’s influential definition, intelligence is a person’s “aggregate or global capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment” ( Wechsler 1944, p. 3 ).

Consistent with this definition, intelligence has long been associated with general cognitive or intellectual ability and the potential to learn and reason well. Intelligence (IQ) tests measure general cognitive abilities, such as knowledge of words, memory skills, analogical reasoning, speed of processing, and the ability to solve verbal and spatial problems. General intelligence or “g” is a composite of these abilities statistically derived from various cognitive subtests on IQ tests which are positively intercorrelated. There is considerable overlap between g and the concept of fluid intelligence (Gf) in the prominent Cattell–Horn–Carroll model ( McGrew 2009 ), which refers to “the ability to solve novel problems, the solution of which does not depend on previously acquired skills and knowledge,” and crystalized intelligence (Gc), which refers to experience, existing skills, and general knowledge ( Conway and Kovacs 2018, pp. 50–51 ). Although g or general intelligence is based on a higher order factor, inclusive of fluid and crystallized intelligence, it is technically not the same as general cognitive ability, a commonly used, related term. However, in this article, I use “general cognitive ability” and “cognitive ability” because they are the imprecise terms frequently used in the research reviewed.

Although IQ scores have been found to predict performance in basic real-world domains, such as academic performance and job success ( Gottfredson 2004 ), an enduring question for intelligence researchers has been whether g and intelligence tests predict the ability to adapt well in other real-world situations, which concerns the second part of Wechsler’s definition. So, in addition to the search for the underlying structure of intelligence, researchers have been perennially concerned with how general abilities associated with intelligence can be applied to help a person adapt to real-world situations. The issue is largely a question of how cognitive ability and intelligence can help people solve real-world problems and cope adaptively and succeed in dealing with various environmental demands ( Sternberg 2019 ).

Based on broad conceptual definitions of intelligence and critical thinking, both intelligence and CT should aid adaptive functioning in the real world, presumably because they both involve rational approaches. Their common association with rationality gives each term a positive connotation. However, complicating the definition of each of these is the fact that rationality also continues to have a variety of meanings. In this article, in agreement with Stanovich et al. ( 2018 ), rationality is defined in the normative sense, used in cognitive science, as the distance between a person’s response and some normative standard of optimal behavior. As such, degree of rationality falls on a continuous scale, not a categorical one.

Despite disagreements surrounding the conceptual definitions of intelligence, critical thinking, and rationality, a commonality in these terms is they are value-laden and normative. In the case of intelligence, people are judged based on norms from standardized intelligence tests, especially in academic settings. Although scores on CT tests seldom are, nor could be, used to judge individuals in this way, the normative and value-laden basis of CT is apparent in people’s informal judgements. They often judge others who have made poor decisions to be irrational or to have failed to think critically.

This value-laden aspect of CT is also apparent in formal definitions of CT. Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) defined critical thinking as “the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed.” The positive conception of CT as helping a person adapt well to one’s environment is clearly implied in “desirable outcome”.

Robert Ennis ( 1987 ) has offered a simpler, yet useful definition of critical thinking that also has normative implications. According to Ennis, “critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” ( Ennis 1987, p. 102 ). This definition implies that CT helps people know what to believe (a goal of epistemic rationality) and how to act (a goal of instrumental rationality). This is conveyed by associating “critical thinking” with the positive terms, “reasonable” and “reflective”. Dictionaries commonly define “reasonable” as “rational”, “logical”, “intelligent”, and “good”, all terms with positive connotations.

For critical thinkers, being reasonable involves using logical rules, standards of evidence, and other criteria that must be met for a product of thinking to be considered good. Critical thinkers use these to evaluate how strongly reasons or evidence supports one claim versus another, drawing conclusions which are supported by the highest quality evidence ( Bensley 2018 ). If no high-quality evidence is available for consideration, it would be unreasonable to draw a strong conclusion. Unfortunately, people’s beliefs are too often based on acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. This is a failure of CT, but is it also a failure of intelligence?

3. Does Critical Thinking “Go Beyond” What Is Meant by Intelligence?

Despite the conceptual overlap in intelligence and CT at a general level, one way that CT can be distinguished from the common view of intelligence as general cognitive ability is in terms of what each can account for. Although intelligence tests, especially measures of general cognitive ability, have reliably predicted academic and job performance, they may not be sufficient to predict other everyday outcomes for which CT measures have made successful predictions and have added to the variance accounted for in performance. For instance, replicating a study by Butler ( 2012 ), Butler et al. ( 2017 ) obtained a negative correlation ( r = −0.33) between scores on the Halpern Critical Thinking Appraisal (HCTA) and a measure of 134 negative, real-world outcomes, not expected to befall critical thinkers, such as engaging in unprotected sex or posting a message on social media which the person regretted. They found that higher HCTA scores not only predicted better life decisions, but also predicted better performance beyond a measure of general cognitive ability. These results suggest that CT can account for real-world outcomes and goes beyond general cognitive ability to account for additional variance.

Some theorists maintain that standardized intelligence tests do not capture the variety of abilities that people need to adapt well in the real world. For example, Gardner ( 1999 ), has proposed that additional forms of intelligence are needed, such as spatial, musical, and interpersonal intelligences in addition to linguistic and logical–mathematical intelligences, more typically associated with general cognitive ability and academic success. In other theorizing, Sternberg ( 1988 ) has proposed three additional types of intelligence: analytical, practical, and creative intelligence, to more fully capture the variety of intelligent abilities on which people differ. Critical thinking is considered part of analytical skills which involve evaluating the quality and applicability of ideas, products, and options ( Sternberg 2022 ). Regarding adaptive intelligence, Sternberg ( 2019 ) has emphasized how adaptive aspects of intelligence are needed to solve real-world problems both at the individual and species levels. According to Sternberg, core components of intelligence have evolved in humans, but intelligence takes different forms in different cultures, with each culture valuing its own skills for adaptation. Thus, the construct of intelligence must go beyond core cognitive ability to encompass the specific abilities needed for adaptive behavior in specific cultures and settings.

Two other theories propose that other components be added to intelligent and rational thinking. Ackerman ( 2022 ) has emphasized the importance of acquiring domain-specific knowledge for engaging in intelligent functioning in the wide variety of tasks found in everyday life. Ackerman has argued that declarative, procedural, and tacit knowledge, as well as non-ability variables, are needed to better predict job performance and performance of other everyday activities. Taking another approach, Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) have proposed that critical thinking is essentially the adaptive application of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Elsewhere, Butler and Halpern ( 2019 ) have argued that dispositions such as open-mindedness are another aspect of CT and that domain-specific knowledge and specific CT skills are needed to solve real-world problems.

Examples are readily available for how CT goes beyond what IQ tests test to include specific rules for reasoning and relevant knowledge needed to execute real-world tasks. Take the example of scientific reasoning, which can be viewed as a specialized form of CT. Drawing a well-reasoned inductive conclusion about a theory or analyzing the quality of a research study both require that a thinker possess relevant specialized knowledge related to the question and specific reasoning skills for reasoning about scientific methodology. In contrast, IQ tests are deliberately designed to be nonspecialized in assessing Gc, broadly sampling vocabulary and general knowledge in order to be fair and unbiased ( Stanovich 2009 ). Specialized knowledge and reasoning skills are also needed in non-academic domains. Jurors must possess specialized knowledge to understand expert, forensic testimony and specific reasoning skills to interpret the law and make well-reasoned judgments about a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Besides lacking specific reasoning skills and domain-relevant knowledge, people may fail to think critically because they are not disposed to use their reasoning skills to examine such claims and want to preserve their favored beliefs. Critical thinking dispositions are attitudes or traits that make it more likely that a person will think critically. Theorists have proposed numerous CT dispositions (e.g., Bensley 2018 ; Butler and Halpern 2019 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Ennis 1987 ). Some commonly identified CT dispositions especially relevant to this discussion are open-mindedness, skepticism, intellectual engagement, and the tendency to take a reflective, rational–analytic approach. Critical thinking dispositions are clearly value-laden and prescriptive. A good thinker should be open-minded, skeptical, reflective, intellectually engaged, and value a rational–analytic approach to inquiry. Conversely, corresponding negative dispositions, such as “close-mindedness” and “gullibility”, could obstruct CT.

Without the appropriate disposition, individuals will not use their reasoning skills to think critically about questions. For example, the brilliant mystery writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was trained as a physician and created the hyper-reasonable detective Sherlock Holmes, was not disposed to think critically about some unsubstantiated claims. Conan Doyle was no doubt highly intelligent in cognitive ability terms, but he was not sufficiently skeptical (disposed to think critically) about spiritualism. He believed that he was talking to his dearly departed son though a medium, despite the warnings of his magician friend, Harry Houdini, who told him that mediums used trickery in their seances. Perhaps influenced by his Irish father’s belief in the “wee folk”, Conan Doyle also believed that fairies inhabited the English countryside, based on children’s photos, despite the advice of experts who said the photos could be faked. Nevertheless, he was skeptical of a new theory of tuberculosis proposed by Koch when he reported on it, despite his wife suffering from the disease. So, in professional capacities, Conan Doyle used his CT skills, but in certain other domains for which he was motivated to accept unsubstantiated claims, he failed to think critically, insufficiently disposed to skeptically challenge certain implausible claims.

This example makes two important points. Conan Doyle’s superior intelligence was not enough for him to reject implausible claims about the world. In general, motivated reasoning can lead people, even those considered highly intelligent, to accept claims with no good evidentiary support. The second important point is that we would not be able to adequately explain cases like this one, considering only the person’s intelligence or even their reasoning skills, without also considering the person’s disposition. General cognitive ability alone is not sufficient, and CT dispositions should also be considered.

Supporting this conclusion, Stanovich and West ( 1997 ) examined the influence of dispositions beyond the contribution of cognitive ability on a CT task. They gave college students an argument evaluation test in which participants first rated their agreement with several claims about real social and political issues made by a fictitious person. Then, they gave them evidence against each claim and finally asked them to rate the quality of a counterargument made by the same fictitious person. Participants’ ratings of the counterarguments were compared to the median ratings of expert judges on the quality of the rebuttals. Stanovich and West also administered a new measure of rational disposition called the Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) scale and the SAT as a proxy for cognitive ability. The AOT was a composite of items from several other scales that would be expected to measure CT disposition. They found that both SAT and AOT scores were significant predictors of higher argument analysis scores. Even after partialing out cognitive ability, actively open-minded thinking was significant. These results suggest that general cognitive ability alone was not sufficient to account for thinking critically about real-world issues and that CT disposition was needed to go beyond it.

Further examining the roles of CT dispositions and cognitive ability on reasoning, Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) studied myside bias, a bias in reasoning closely related to one-sided thinking and confirmation bias. A critical thinker would be expected to not show myside bias and instead fairly evaluate evidence on all sides of a question. Stanovich and West ( 2007 ) found that college students often showed myside bias when asked their opinions about real-world policy issues, such as those concerning the health risks of smoking and drinking alcohol. For example, compared to non-smokers, smokers judged the health risks of smoking to be lower. When they divided participants into higher versus lower cognitive ability groups based on SAT scores, the two groups showed little difference on myside bias. Moreover, on the hazards of drinking issue, participants who drank less had higher scores on the CT disposition measure.

Other research supports the need for both reasoning ability and CT disposition in predicting outcomes in the real world. Ren et al. ( 2020 ) found that CT disposition, as measured by a Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory, and a CT skill measure together contributed a significant amount of the variance in predicting academic performance beyond the contribution of cognitive ability alone, as measured by a test of fluid intelligence. Further supporting the claim that CT requires both cognitive ability and CT disposition, Ku and Ho ( 2010 ) found that a CT disposition measure significantly predicted scores on a CT test beyond the significant contribution of verbal intelligence in high school and college students from Hong Kong.

The contribution of dispositions to thinking is related to another way that CT goes beyond the application of general cognitive ability, i.e., by way of the motivation for reasoning. Assuming that all reasoning is motivated ( Kunda 1990 ), then CT is motivated, too, which is implicit within the Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) and Ennis ( 1987 ) definitions. Critical thinking is motivated in the sense of being purposeful and directed towards the goal of arriving at an accurate conclusion. For instance, corresponding to pursuit of the goal of accurate reasoning, the CT disposition of “truth-seeking” guides a person towards reaching the CT goal of arriving at an accurate conclusion.

Also, according to Kunda ( 1990 ), a second type of motivated reasoning can lead to faulty conclusions, often by directing a person towards the goal of maintaining favored beliefs and preconceptions, as in illusory correlation, belief perseverance, and confirmation bias. Corresponding to this second type, negative dispositions, such as close-mindedness and self-serving motives, can incline thinkers towards faulty conclusions. This is especially relevant in the present discussion because poorer reasoning, thinking errors, and the inappropriate use of heuristics are related to the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, all of which are CT failures. The term “thinking errors” is a generic term referring to logical fallacies, informal reasoning fallacies, argumentation errors, and inappropriate uses of cognitive heuristics ( Bensley 2018 ). Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts, commonly used to simplify judgment tasks and reduce mental effort. Yet, when used inappropriately, heuristics often result in biased judgments.

Stanovich ( 2009 ) has argued that IQ tests do not test people’s use of heuristics, but heuristics have been found to be negatively correlated with CT performance ( West et al. 2008 ). In this same study, they found that college students’ cognitive ability, as measured by performance on the SAT, was not correlated with thinking biases associated with use of heuristics. Although Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that susceptibility to biases, such as the conjunction fallacy, framing effect, base-rate neglect, affect bias, and myside bias were all uncorrelated with cognitive ability (using SAT as a proxy), other types of thinking errors were correlated with SAT.

Likewise, two types of knowledge are related to the two forms of motivated reasoning. For instance, inaccurate knowledge, such as misconceptions, can derail reasoning from moving towards a correct conclusion, as in when a person reasons from false premises. In contrast, reasoning from accurate knowledge is more likely to produce an accurate conclusion. Taking into account inaccurate knowledge and thinking errors is important to understanding the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims because these are also related to negative dispositions, such as close-mindedness and cynicism, none of which are measured by intelligence tests.

Critical thinking questions are often situated in real-world examples or in simulations of them which are designed to detect thinking errors and bias. As described in Halpern and Butler ( 2018 ), an item like one on the “Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment” (HCTA) provides respondents with a mock newspaper story about research showing that first-graders who attended preschool were better able to learn how to read. Then the question asks if preschool should be made mandatory. A correct response to this item requires recognizing that correlation does not imply causation, that is, avoiding a common reasoning error people make in thinking about research implications in everyday life. Another CT skills test, “Analyzing Psychological Statements” (APS) assesses the ability to recognize thinking errors and apply argumentation skills and psychology to evaluate psychology-related examples and simulations of real-life situations ( Bensley 2021 ). For instance, besides identifying thinking errors in brief samples of thinking, questions ask respondents to distinguish arguments from non-arguments, find assumptions in arguments, evaluate kinds of evidence, and draw a conclusion from a brief psychological argument. An important implication of the studies just reviewed is that efforts to understand CT can be further informed by assessing thinking errors and biases, which, as the next discussion shows, are related to individual differences in thinking dispositions and cognitive style.

4. Dual-Process Theory Measures and Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Dual-process theory (DPT) and measures associated with it have been widely used in the study of the endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs, especially as they relate to cognitive style. According to a cognitive style version of DPT, people have two modes of processing, a fast intuitive–experiential (I-E) style of processing and a slower, reflective, rational–analytic (R-A) style of processing. The intuitive cognitive style is associated with reliance on hunches, feelings, personal experience, and cognitive heuristics which simplify processing, while the R-A cognitive style is a reflective, rational–analytic style associated with more elaborate and effortful processing ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Epstein 2008 ). As such, the rational–analytic cognitive style is consistent with CT dispositions, such as those promoting the effortful analysis of evidence, objective truth, and logical consistency. In fact, CT is sometimes referred to as “critical-analytic” thinking ( Byrnes and Dunbar 2014 ) and has been associated with analytical intelligence Sternberg ( 1988 ) and with rational thinking, as discussed before.

People use both modes of processing, but they show individual differences in which mode they tend to rely upon, although the intuitive–experiential mode is the default ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Morgan 2016 ; Pacini and Epstein 1999 ), and they accept unsubstantiated claims differentially based on their predominate cognitive style ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Epstein 2008 ). Specifically, individuals who rely more on an I-E cognitive style tend to endorse unsubstantiated claims more strongly, while individuals who rely more on a R-A cognitive style tend to endorse those claims less. Note, however, that other theorists view the two processes and cognitive styles somewhat differently, (e.g., Kahneman 2011 ; Stanovich et al. 2018 ).

Researchers have often assessed the contribution of these two cognitive styles to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, using variants of three measures: the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) of Frederick ( 2005 ), the Rational–Experiential Inventory of Epstein and his colleagues ( Pacini and Epstein 1999 ), and the related Need for Cognition scale of Cacioppo and Petty ( 1982 ). The CRT is a performance-based test which asks participants to solve problems that appear to require simple mathematical calculations, but which actually require more reflection. People typically do poorly on the CRT, which is thought to indicate reliance on an intuitive cognitive style, while better performance is thought to indicate reliance on the slower, more deliberate, and reflective cognitive style. The positive correlation of the CRT with numeracy scores suggests it also has a cognitive skill component ( Patel et al. 2019 ). The Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI) of Pacini and Epstein ( 1999 ) contains one scale designed to measure an intuitive–experiential cognitive style and a second scale intended to measure a rational–analytic (R-A) style. The R-A scale was adapted from the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale of Cacioppo and Petty ( 1982 ), another scale associated with rational–analytic thinking and expected to be negatively correlated with unsubstantiated beliefs. The NFC was found to be related to open-mindedness and intellectual engagement, two CT dispositions ( Cacioppo et al. 1996 ).

The cognitive styles associated with DPT also relate to CT dispositions. Thinking critically requires that individuals be disposed to use their reasoning skills to reject unsubstantiated claims ( Bensley 2018 ) and that they be inclined to take a rational–analytic approach rather than relying on their intuitions and feelings. For instance, Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) found that students who endorsed more psychological misconceptions adopted a more intuitive cognitive style, were less disposed to take a rational–scientific approach to psychology, and scored lower on a psychological critical thinking skills test. Further supporting this connection, West et al. ( 2008 ) found that participants who tended to use cognitive heuristics more, thought to be related to intuitive processing and bias, scored lower on a critical thinking measure. As the Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) results suggest, in addition to assessing reasoning skills and dispositions, comprehensive CT assessment research should assess knowledge and unsubstantiated beliefs because these are related to failures of critical thinking.

5. Assessing Critical Thinking and Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Assessing endorsement of unsubstantiated claims provides another way to assess CT outcomes related to everyday thinking, which goes beyond what intelligence tests test ( Bensley and Lilienfeld 2020 ). From the perspective of the multi-dimensional model of CT, endorsement of unsubstantiated claims could result from deficiencies in a person’s CT reasoning skills, a lack of relevant knowledge, and in the engagement of inappropriate dispositions. Suppose an individual endorses an unsubstantiated claim, such as believing the conspiracy theory that human-caused global warming is a hoax. The person may lack the specific reasoning skills needed to critically evaluate the conspiracy. Lantian et al. ( 2020 ) found that scores on a CT skills test were negatively correlated with conspiracy theory beliefs. The person also must possess relevant scientific knowledge, such as knowing the facts that each year humans pump about 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which traps heat in the atmosphere. Or, the person may not be scientifically skeptical or too cynical or mistrustful of scientists or governmental officials.

Although endorsing unsubstantiated beliefs is clearly a failure of CT, problems arise in deciding which ones are unsubstantiated, especially when considering conspiracy theories. Typically, the claims which critical thinkers should reject as unsubstantiated are those which are not supported by objective evidence. But of the many conspiracies proposed, few are vigorously examined. Moreover, some conspiracy theories which authorities might initially deny turn out to be real, such as the MK-Ultra theory that the CIA was secretly conducting mind-control research on American citizens.

A way out of this quagmire is to define unsubstantiated beliefs on a continuum which depends on the quality of evidence. This has led to the definition of unsubstantiated claims as assertions which have not been supported by high-quality evidence ( Bensley 2023 ). Those which are supported have the kind of evidentiary support that critical thinkers are expected to value in drawing reasonable conclusions. Instead of insisting that a claim must be demonstrably false to be rejected, we adopt a more tentative acceptance or rejection of claims, based on how much good evidence supports them. Many claims are unsubstantiated because they have not yet been carefully examined and so totally lack support or they may be supported only by low quality evidence such as personal experience, anecdotes, or non-scientific authority. Other claims are more clearly unsubstantiated because they contradict the findings of high-quality research. A critical thinker should be highly skeptical of these.

Psychological misconceptions are one type of claim that can be more clearly unsubstantiated. Psychological misconceptions are commonsense psychological claims (folk theories) about the mind, brain, and behavior that are contradicted by the bulk of high-quality scientific research. Author developed the Test of Psychological Knowledge and Misconceptions (TOPKAM), a 40-item, forced-choice measure with each item posing a statement of a psychological misconception and the other response option stating the evidence-based alternative ( Bensley et al. 2014 ). They found that higher scores on the APS, the argument analysis test applying psychological concepts to analyze real-world examples, were associated with more correct answers on the TOPKAM. Other studies have found positive correlations between CT skills tests and other measures of psychological misconceptions ( McCutcheon et al. 1992 ; Kowalski and Taylor 2004 ). Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) also found that higher correct TOPKAM scores were positively correlated with scores on the Inventory of Thinking Dispositions in Psychology (ITDP) of Bensley ( 2021 ), a measure of the disposition to take a rational and scientific approach to psychology but were negatively correlated with an intuitive cognitive style.

Bensley et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a multidimensional study, assessing beginner psychology students starting a CT course on their endorsement of psychological misconceptions, recognition of thinking errors, CT dispositions, and metacognition, before and after CT instruction. Two classes received explicit instruction involving considerable practice in argument analysis and scientific reasoning skills, with one class receiving CT instruction focused more on recognizing psychological misconceptions and a second class focused more on recognizing various thinking errors. Bensley et al. assessed both classes before and after instruction on the TOPKAM and on the Test of Thinking Errors, a test of the ability to recognize in real-world examples 17 different types of thinking errors, such as confirmation bias, inappropriate use of the availability and representativeness heuristics, reasoning from ignorance/possibility, gambler’s fallacy, and hasty generalization ( Bensley et al. 2021 ). Correct TOPKAM and TOTE scores were positively correlated, and after CT instruction both were positively correlated with the APS, the CT test of argument analysis skills.

Bensley et al. found that after explicit instruction of CT skills, students improved significantly on both the TOPKAM and TOTE, but those focusing on recognizing misconceptions improved the most. Also, those students who improved the most on the TOTE scored higher on the REI rational–analytic scale and on the ITDP, while those improving the most on the TOTE scored higher on the ITDP. The students receiving explicit CT skill instruction in recognizing misconceptions also significantly improved the accuracy of their metacognitive monitoring in estimating their TOPKAM scores after instruction.

Given that before instruction neither class differed in GPA nor on the SAT, a proxy for general cognitive ability, CT instruction provided a good accounting for the improvement in recognition of thinking errors and misconceptions without recourse to intelligence. However, SAT scores were positively correlated with both TOTE scores and APS scores, suggesting that cognitive ability contributed to CT skill performance. These results replicated the earlier findings of Bensley and Spero ( 2014 ) showing that explicit CT instruction improved performance on both CT skills tests and metacognitive monitoring accuracy while controlling for SAT, which was positively correlated with the CT skills test performance.

Taken together, these findings suggest that cognitive ability contributes to performance on CT tasks but that CT instruction goes beyond it to further improve performance. As the results of Bensley et al. ( 2021 ) show, and as discussed next, thinking errors and bias from heuristics are CT failures that should also be assessed because they are related to endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs and cognitive style.

6. Dual-Processing Theory and Research on Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Consistent with DPT, numerous other studies have obtained significant positive correlations between intuitive cognitive style and paranormal belief, often using the REI intuitive–experiential scale and the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS) of Tobacyk ( 2004 ) (e.g., Genovese 2005 ; Irwin and Young 2002 ; Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Pennycook et al. 2015 ; Rogers et al. 2018 ; Saher and Lindeman 2005 ). Studies have also found positive correlations between superstitious belief and intuitive cognitive style (e.g., Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Maqsood et al. 2018 ). REI intuitive–experiential thinking style was also positively correlated with belief in complementary and alternative medicine ( Lindeman 2011 ), conspiracy theory belief ( Alper et al. 2020 ), and with endorsement of psychological misconceptions ( Bensley et al. 2014 ; Bensley et al. 2022 ).

Additional evidence for DPT has been found when REI R-A and NFC scores were negatively correlated with scores on measures of unsubstantiated beliefs, but studies correlating them with measures of paranormal belief and conspiracy theory belief have shown mixed results. Supporting a relationship, REI rational–analytic and NFC scores significantly and negatively predicted paranormal belief ( Lobato et al. 2014 ; Pennycook et al. 2012 ). Other studies have also obtained a negative correlation between NFC and paranormal belief ( Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Rogers et al. 2018 ; Stahl and van Prooijen 2018 ), but both Genovese ( 2005 ) and Pennycook et al. ( 2015 ) found that NFC was not significantly correlated with paranormal belief. Swami et al. ( 2014 ) found that although REI R-A scores were negatively correlated with conspiracy theory belief, NFC scores were not.

Researchers often refer to people who are doubtful of paranormal and other unfounded claims as “skeptics” and so have tested whether measures related to skepticism are associated with less endorsement of unsubstantiated claims. They typically view skepticism as a stance towards unsubstantiated claims taken by rational people who reject them, (e.g., Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Stahl and van Prooijen 2018 ), rather than as a disposition inclining a person to think critically about unsubstantiated beliefs ( Bensley 2018 ).

Fasce and Pico ( 2019 ) conducted one of the few studies using a measure related to skeptical disposition, the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS) of Sosu ( 2013 ), in relation to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims. They found that scores on the CTDS were negatively correlated with scores on the RPBS but not significantly correlated with either a measure of pseudoscience or of conspiracy theory belief. However, the CRT was negatively correlated with both RPBS and the pseudoscience measure. Because Fasce and Pico ( 2019 ) did not examine correlations with the Reflective Skepticism subscale of the CTDS, its contribution apart from full-scale CTDS was not found.

To more directly test skepticism as a disposition, we recently assessed college students on how well three new measures predicted endorsement of psychological misconceptions, paranormal claims, and conspiracy theories ( Bensley et al. 2022 ). The dispositional measures included a measure of general skeptical attitude; a second measure, the Scientific Skepticism Scale (SSS), which focused more on waiting to accept claims until high-quality scientific evidence supported them; and a third measure, the Cynicism Scale (CS), which focused on doubting the sincerity of the motives of scientists and people in general. We found that although the general skepticism scale did not predict any of the unsubstantiated belief measures, SSS scores were a significant negative predictor of both paranormal belief and conspiracy theory belief. REI R-A scores were a less consistent negative predictor, while REI I-E scores were more consistent positive predictors, and surprisingly CS scores were the most consistent positive predictors of the unsubstantiated beliefs.

Researchers commonly assume that people who accept implausible, unsubstantiated claims are gullible or not sufficiently skeptical. For instance, van Prooijen ( 2019 ) has argued that conspiracy theory believers are more gullible (less skeptical) than non-believers and tend to accept unsubstantiated claims more than less gullible people. van Prooijen ( 2019 ) reviewed several studies supporting the claim that people who are more gullible tend to endorse conspiracy theories more. However, he did not report any studies in which a gullible disposition was directly measured.

Recently, we directly tested the gullibility hypothesis in relation to scientific skepticism ( Bensley et al. 2023 ) using the Gullibility Scale of Teunisse et al. ( 2019 ) on which people skeptical of the paranormal had been shown to have lower scores. We found that Gullibility Scale and the Cynicism Scale scores were positively correlated, and both were significant positive predictors of unsubstantiated beliefs, in general, consistent with an intuitive–experiential cognitive style. In contrast, we found that scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test, the Scientific Skepticism Scale, and the REI rational–analytic scale were all positively intercorrelated and significant negative predictors of unsubstantiated beliefs, in general, consistent with a rational–analytic/reflective cognitive style. Scientific skepticism scores negatively predicted general endorsement of unsubstantiated claims beyond the REI R-A scale, but neither the CTDS nor the CTDS Reflective Skepticism subscale were significant. These results replicated findings from the Bensley et al. ( 2023 ) study and supported an elaborated dual-process model of unsubstantiated belief. The SSS was not only a substantial negative predictor, it was also negatively correlated with the Gullibility Scale, as expected.

These results suggest that both CT-related dispositions and CT skills are related to endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs. However, a measure of general cognitive ability or intelligence must be examined along with measures of CT and unsubstantiated beliefs to determine if CT goes beyond intelligence to predict unsubstantiated beliefs. In one of the few studies that also included a measure of cognitive ability, Stahl and van Prooijen ( 2018 ) found that dispositional characteristics helped account for acceptance of conspiracies and paranormal belief beyond cognitive ability. Using the Importance of Rationality Scale (IRS), a rational–analytic scale designed to measure skepticism towards unsubstantiated beliefs, Stahl and van Prooijen ( 2018 ) found that the IRS was negatively correlated with paranormal belief and belief in conspiracy theories. In separate hierarchical regressions, cognitive ability was the strongest negative predictor of both paranormal belief and of conspiracy belief, but IRS scores in combination with cognitive ability negatively predicted endorsement of paranormal belief but did not significantly predict conspiracy theory belief. These results provided partial support that that a measure of rational–analytic cognitive style related to skeptical disposition added to the variance accounted for beyond cognitive ability in negatively predicting unsubstantiated belief.

In another study that included a measure of cognitive ability, Cavojova et al. ( 2019 ) examined how CT-related dispositions and the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) were related to a measure of paranormal, pseudoscientific, and conspiracy theory beliefs. The SRS of Drummond and Fischhoff ( 2017 ) likely measures CT skill in that it measures the ability to evaluate scientific research and evidence. As expected, the unsubstantiated belief measure was negatively correlated with the SRS and a cognitive ability measure, similar to Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Unsubstantiated beliefs were positively correlated with dogmatism (the opposite of open-mindedness) but not with REI rational–analytic cognitive style. The SRS was a significant negative predictor of both unsubstantiated belief and susceptibility to bias beyond the contribution of cognitive ability, but neither dogmatism nor analytic thinking were significant predictors. Nevertheless, this study provides some support that a measure related to CT reasoning skill accounts for variance in unsubstantiated belief beyond cognitive ability.

The failure of this study to show a correlation between rational–analytic cognitive style and unsubstantiated beliefs, when some other studies have found significant correlations with it and related measures, has implications for the multidimensional assessment of unsubstantiated beliefs. One implication is that the REI rational–analytic scale may not be a strong predictor of unsubstantiated beliefs. In fact, we have recently found that the Scientific Skepticism Scale was a stronger negative predictor ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Bensley et al. 2023 ), which also suggests that other measures related to rational–analytic thinking styles should be examined. This could help triangulate the contribution of self-report cognitive style measures to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, recognizing that the use of self-report measures has a checkered history in psychological research. A second implication is that once again, measures of critical thinking skill and cognitive ability were negative predictors of unsubstantiated belief and so they, too, should be included in future assessments of unsubstantiated beliefs.

7. Discussion

This review provided different lines of evidence supporting the claim that CT goes beyond cognitive ability in accounting for certain real-world outcomes. Participants who think critically reported fewer problems in everyday functioning, not expected to befall critical thinkers. People who endorsed unsubstantiated claims less showed better CT skills, more accurate domain-specific knowledge, less susceptibility to thinking errors and bias, and were more disposed to think critically. More specifically, they tended to be more scientifically skeptical and adopt a more rational–analytic cognitive style. In contrast, those who endorsed them more tended to be more cynical and adopt an intuitive–experiential cognitive style. These characteristics go beyond what standardized intelligence tests test. In some studies, the CT measures accounted for additional variance beyond the variance contributed by general cognitive ability.

That is not to say that measures of general cognitive ability are not useful. As noted by Gottfredson ( 2004 ), “g” is a highly successful predictor of academic and job performance. More is known about g and Gf than about many other psychological constructs. On average, g is closely related to Gf, which is highly correlated with working memory ( r = 0.70) and can be as high as r = 0.77 ( r 2 = 0.60) based on a correlated two-factor model ( Gignac 2014 ). Because modern working memory theory is, itself, a powerful theory ( Chai et al. 2018 ), this lends construct validity to the fluid intelligence construct. Although cognitive scientists have clearly made progress in understanding the executive processes underlying intelligence, they have not yet identified the specific cognitive components of intelligence ( Sternberg 2022 ). Moreover, theorists have acknowledged that intelligence must also include components beyond g, including domain-specific knowledge ( Ackerman 2022 ; Conway and Kovacs 2018 ) which are not yet clearly understood,

This review also pointed to limitations in the research that should be addressed. So far, not only have few studies of unsubstantiated beliefs included measures of intelligence, but they have also often used proxies for intelligence test scores, such as SAT scores. Future studies, besides using more and better measures of intelligence, could benefit from inclusion of more specifically focused measures, such as measures of Gf and Gc. Also, more research should be carried out to develop additional high-quality measures of CT, including ones that assess specific reasoning skills and knowledge relevant to thinking about a subject, which could help resolve perennial questions about the domain-general versus domain-specific nature of intelligence and CT. Overall, the results of this review encourage taking a multidimensional approach to investigating the complex constructs of intelligence, CT, and unsubstantiated belief. Supporting these recommendations were results of studies in which the improvement accrued from explicit CT skill instruction could be more fully understood when CT skills, relevant knowledge, CT dispositions, metacognitive monitoring accuracy, and a proxy for intelligence were used.

8. Conclusions

Critical thinking, broadly conceived, offers ways to understand real-world outcomes of thinking beyond what general cognitive ability can provide and intelligence tests test. A multi-dimensional view of CT which includes specific reasoning and metacognitive skills, CT dispositions, and relevant knowledge can add to our understanding of why some people endorse unsubstantiated claims more than others do, going beyond what intelligence tests test. Although general cognitive ability and domain-general knowledge often contribute to performance on CT tasks, thinking critically about real-world questions also involves applying rules, criteria, and knowledge which are specific to the question under consideration, as well as the appropriate dispositions and cognitive styles for deploying these.

Despite the advantages of taking this multidimensional approach to CT in helping us to more fully understand everyday thinking and irrationality, it presents challenges for researchers and instructors. It implies the need to assess and instruct multidimensionally, including not only measures of reasoning skills but also addressing thinking errors and biases, dispositions, the knowledge relevant to a task, and the accuracy of metacognitive judgments. As noted by Dwyer ( 2023 ), adopting a more complex conceptualization of CT beyond just skills is needed, but it presents challenges for those seeking to improve students’ CT. Nevertheless, the research reviewed suggests that taking this multidimensional approach to CT can enhance our understanding of the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims beyond what standardized intelligence tests contribute. More research is needed to resolve remaining controversies and to develop evidence-based applications of the findings.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research involved no new testing of participants and hence did not require Institutional Review Board approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This research involved no new testing of participants and hence did not require an Informed Consent Statement.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

• Ackerman Phillip L. Intelligence … Moving beyond the lowest common denominator. American Psychologist. 2022; 78 :283–97. doi: 10.1037/amp0001057. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alper Sinan, Bayrak Faith, Yilmaz Onurcan. Psychological correlates of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and preventive measures: Evidence from Turkey. Current Psychology. 2020; 40 :5708–17. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00903-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan. Critical Thinking in Psychology and Everyday Life: A Guide to Effective Thinking. Worth Publishers; New York: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan. The Critical Thinking in Psychology Assessment Battery (CTPAB) and Test Guide. 2021. Unpublished manuscript. Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, USA.
• Bensley D. Alan. “I can’t believe you believe that”: Identifying unsubstantiated claims. Skeptical Inquirer. 2023; 47 :53–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan, Spero Rachel A. Improving critical thinking skills and metacognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014; 12 :55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan, Lilienfeld Scott O. Assessment of Unsubstantiated Beliefs. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 2020; 6 :198–211. doi: 10.1037/stl0000218. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan, Masciocchi Christopher M., Rowan Krystal A. A comprehensive assessment of explicit critical thinking instruction on recognition of thinking errors and psychological misconceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 2021; 7 :107. doi: 10.1037/stl0000188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan, Watkins Cody, Lilienfeld Scott O., Masciocchi Christopher, Murtagh Michael, Rowan Krystal. Skepticism, cynicism, and cognitive style predictors of the generality of unsubstantiated belief. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2022; 36 :83–99. doi: 10.1002/acp.3900. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bensley D. Alan, Rodrigo Maria, Bravo Maria, Jocoy Kathleen. Dual-Process Theory and Cognitive Style Predictors of the General Endorsement of Unsubstantiated Claims. 2023. Unpublished manuscript. Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, USA.
• Bensley D. Alan, Lilienfeld Scott O., Powell Lauren. A new measure of psychological. misconceptions: Relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences. 2014; 36 :9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bierwiaczonek Kinga, Kunst Jonas R., Pich Olivia. Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being. 2020; 12 :1270–85. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12223. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A. Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2012; 26 :721–29. doi: 10.1002/acp.2851. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Halpern Diane F. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2019. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler Heather A., Pentoney Christopher, Bong Maebelle P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrnes James P., Dunbar Kevin N. The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Research Review. 2014; 26 :477–93. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo John T., Petty Richard E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 42 :116–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cacioppo John T., Petty Richard E., Feinstein Jeffrey A., Jarvis W. Blair G. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin. 1996; 119 :197. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavojova Vladimira, Srol Jakub, Jurkovic Marek. Why we should think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019; 34 :85–95. doi: 10.1002/acp.3595. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chai Wen Jia, Hamid Abd, Ismafairus Aini, Abdullah Jafri Malin. Working memory from the psychological and neuroscience perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9 :401. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway Andrew R., Kovacs Kristof. The nature of the general factor of intelligence. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2018. pp. 49–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drummond Caitlin, Fischhoff Baruch. Development and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2017; 30 :26–38. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1906. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwyer Christopher P. An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11 :105. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11060105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ennis Robert H. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron Joan, Sternberg Robert., editors. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. W. H. Freeman; New York: 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein Seymour. Intuition from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In: Plessner Henning, Betsch Tilmann., editors. Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making. Erlbaum; Washington, DC: 2008. pp. 23–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fasce Angelo, Pico Alfonso. Science as a vaccine: The relation between scientific literacy and unwarranted beliefs. Science & Education. 2019; 28 :109–25. doi: 10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederick Shane. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005; 19 :25–42. doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner Howard. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century. Basic Books; New York: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Genovese Jeremy E. C. Paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 39 :93–102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gignac Gilles E. Fluid intelligence shares closer to 60% of its variance with working memory capacity and is a better indicator of general intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :122–33. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson Linda S. Life, death, and intelligence. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2004; 4 :23–46. doi: 10.1891/194589504787382839. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana. Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2021; 9 :22. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2018. pp. 183–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Irwin Harvey J., Young J. M. Intuitive versus reflective processes in the formation of paranormal beliefs. European Journal of Parapsychology. 2002; 17 :45–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jolley Daniel, Paterson Jenny L. Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020; 59 :628–40. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12394. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux; New York: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowalski Patricia, Taylor Annette J. Ability and critical thinking as predictors of change in students’ psychological misconceptions. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2004; 31 :297–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Dispositional Factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 48 :54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunda Ziva. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 98 :480–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lantian Anthony, Bagneux Virginie, Delouvee Sylvain, Gauvrit Nicolas. Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020; 35 :674–84. doi: 10.1002/acp.3790. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilienfeld Scott O. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007; 2 :53–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindeman Marjaana. Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology and Health. 2011; 26 :371–82. doi: 10.1080/08870440903440707. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindeman Marjaana, Aarnio Kia. Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality. 2006; 20 :585–602. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobato Emilio J., Mendoza Jorge, Sims Valerie, Chin Matthew. Explaining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2014; 28 :617–25. doi: 10.1002/acp.3042. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maqsood Alisha, Jamil Farhat, Khalid Ruhi. Thinking styles and belief in superstitions: Moderating role of gender in young adults. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2018; 33 :335–348. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCutcheon Lynn E., Apperson Jenneifer M., Hanson Esher, Wynn Vincent. Relationships among critical thinking skills, academic achievement, and misconceptions about psychology. Psychological Reports. 1992; 71 :635–39. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1992.71.2.635. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrew Kevin S. CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence. 2009; 37 :1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan Jonathan. Religion and dual-process cognition: A continuum of styles or distinct types. Religion, Brain, & Behavior. 2016; 6 :112–29. doi: 10.1080/2153599X.2014.966315. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nie Fanhao, Olson Daniel V. A. Demonic influence: The negative mental health effects of belief in demons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2016; 55 :498–515. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12287. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacini Rosemary, Epstein Seymour. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76 :972–87. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel Niraj, Baker S. Glenn, Scherer Laura D. Evaluating the cognitive reflection test as a measure of intuition/reflection, numeracy, and insight problem solving, and the implications for understanding real-world judgments and beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2019; 148 :2129–53. doi: 10.1037/xge0000592. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennycook Gordon, Cheyne James Allen, Barr Nathaniel, Koehler Derek J., Fugelsang Jonathan A. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :549–63. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006999. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennycook Gordon, Cheyne James Allen, Seti Paul, Koehler Derek J., Fugelsang Jonathan A. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition. 2012; 123 :335–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ren Xuezhu, Tong Yan, Peng Peng, Wang Tengfei. Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence. 2020; 82 :10187. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers Paul, Fisk John E., Lowrie Emma. Paranormal belief, thinking style preference and susceptibility to confirmatory conjunction errors. Consciousness and Cognition. 2018; 65 :182–95. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saher Marieke, Lindeman Marjaana. Alternative medicine: A psychological perspective. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 39 :1169–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosu Edward M. The development and psychometric validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2013; 9 :107–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahl Tomas, van Prooijen Jan-Wilem. Epistemic irrationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 122 :155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. Yale University Press; New Haven: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89 :345–57. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning. 2007; 13 :225–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking bias. Thinking and Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. The MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Intelligence. Penguin Press; London: 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2019; 7 :23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sternberg Robert J. The search for the elusive basic processes underlying human intelligence: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Journal of Intelligence. 2022; 10 :28. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10020028. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swami Viren, Voracek Martin, Stieger Stefan, Tran Ulrich S., Furnham Adrian. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition. 2014; 133 :572–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teunisse Alessandra K., Case Trevor I., Fitness Julie, Sweller Naomi. I should have known better: Development of a self-report measure of gullibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2019; 46 :408–23. doi: 10.1177/0146167219858641. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobacyk Jerome J. A revised paranormal belief scale. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 2004; 23 :94–98. doi: 10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Linden Sander. The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) leads to decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 87 :173–75. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Prooijen Jan-Willem. Belief in conspiracy theories: Gullibility or rational skepticism? In: Forgas Joseph P., Baumeister Roy F., editors. The Social Psychology of Gullibility: Fake News, Conspiracy Theories, and Irrational Beliefs. Routledge; London: 2019. pp. 319–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler David. The Measurement of Intelligence. 3rd ed. Williams & Witkins; Baltimore: 1944. [ Google Scholar ]
• West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E., Stanovich Keith E. Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100 :930–41. doi: 10.1037/a0012842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.

• support@iqtests.com
• 866-483-2010

What Is The Average IQ Of A Professor

Average IQ Of A Professor: 121

In academia, intelligence is often a given. But what exactly does that mean for professors? The average IQ of a professor, according to various studies, is around 121. This impressive figure showcases not just raw intelligence but a rich blend of problem-solving skills, emotional intelligence, and critical thinking. Let's dig deeper into what this number truly represents and why it matters.

Unveiling the Concept of the IQ Of A Professor

When we talk about the "IQ of a professor," we're not just referencing a number on a test. Professors possess a unique combination of cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, and practical skills that set them apart in the academic world. Their high IQ is a reflection of their ability to solve complex problems, empathize with students, and think critically about a wide range of topics.

Defining the Components of IQ Of A Professor

Professors are known for their intellectual prowess, but there's more to the story. Here are the key elements that contribute to their high IQ:

Problem Solving

Professors are adept at tackling difficult questions and finding innovative solutions, drawing from their extensive knowledge and research experience. They often collaborate with colleagues and students to explore new ideas and push the boundaries of their respective fields.

Understanding and relating to students' experiences is crucial for effective teaching. By recognizing their unique challenges and backgrounds, educators can tailor their methods to better engage and support each student. This connection fosters a more inclusive and motivating learning environment, ultimately leading to better educational outcomes.

Critical Thinking

The ability to analyze information, evaluate arguments, and synthesize knowledge is fundamental. These skills are essential for making informed decisions, solving complex problems, and developing a deeper understanding of various subjects. In an increasingly data-driven world, honing these abilities ensures that individuals remain critical thinkers and effective communicators.

Adaptability

Professors must constantly update their knowledge and teaching methods to stay current. This involves keeping up with the latest research, attending conferences, and integrating new technologies and pedagogical strategies into their classrooms to enhance student learning.

These components work together to create an environment where learning thrives, making professors invaluable assets to educational institutions.

Understanding the Latest Research

Recent studies have shed light on what makes an exceptional professor. It's not just about having a high IQ score; it's about how that intelligence is applied. Research shows that professors who excel in both technical expertise and personal skills are more effective educators. For instance, a study from the University of Cambridge found that professors who score high in emotional intelligence tend to have better student outcomes.

This means that they are not only masters in their subject areas but also have the ability to connect with students on a personal level, understand their needs, and respond empathetically. Additionally, these professors often employ more engaging teaching methods, create inclusive classroom environments, and foster a sense of community among their students.

As a result, students are more likely to feel motivated, supported, and capable of succeeding in their academic endeavors.

Key Findings:

• Balanced Skill Set: Professors need a mix of hard and soft skills to succeed.
• Continuous Learning: The best professors are lifelong learners who constantly seek to improve.
• Student-Centered Approach: Professors who prioritize student engagement and understanding tend to be more successful.

Challenges and Solutions

Maintaining a high IQ isn't without its challenges. Professors face a unique set of obstacles that can impact their effectiveness. Here are some common challenges and practical solutions:

Challenge 1: Keeping Up with New Information

Solution: Continuous professional development and attending academic conferences can help.

Challenge 2: Balancing Research and Teaching

Solution: Time management strategies and delegating tasks when possible can provide relief.

Challenge 3: Emotional Burnout

Solution: Implementing self-care routines and seeking support from colleagues can mitigate burnout.

By addressing these challenges head-on, professors can maintain their high IQ and continue to inspire their students.

The Future of Professors

The role of professors is evolving. With advancements in technology and changes in educational methodologies, the skills required for professors are also shifting. Here's a glimpse into the future:

• Tech-Savvy Teaching: Professors will need to integrate digital tools into their teaching methods.
• Interdisciplinary Knowledge: A broad understanding of multiple disciplines will become increasingly valuable.
• Global Perspective: Professors will need to incorporate diverse perspectives to prepare students for a globalized world.

Staying ahead of these trends will be crucial for future success in academia.

The average IQ of professors is notably higher than the general population, reflecting the intense intellectual demands of their roles in higher education. University professors, including both college professors and those in PhD programs, often exhibit IQ scores well above the population average.

Traditional IQ tests reveal that the average IQ score for professors, particularly those in cognitive psychology and physical sciences, far exceeds that of most college students and even graduate students. This higher IQ is not unearned; it is a testament to their rigorous academic training and their continuous pursuit of knowledge.

In the vast majority of cases, these professors are not only masters of their subject areas but also skilled at navigating the complex landscape of academia. This includes the ability to balance research and teaching responsibilities, stay ahead of advancements in their fields, and connect with their students on a meaningful level.

As the role of professors continues to evolve, their high IQ, combined with their adaptability and dedication, ensures that they remain invaluable assets in shaping the minds and futures of countless individuals in higher education.

What Is The Average IQ Of A Master's Degree Holder

What Is The Average IQ Of A Neurosurgeon

What Is The Average IQ Of A Nurse

What Is The Average IQ Of A PhD Holder

• What Is The Average Physician IQ
• What Is The Average IQ Of Physicists
• What Is The Average IQ Of Mathematicians
• What Is The Average IQ Of Accountants
• What Is The Average IQ Of A Student At MIT