critical thinking and mental models

Critical Thinking Models: A Comprehensive Guide for Effective Decision Making

Critical thinking models are valuable frameworks that help individuals develop and enhance their critical thinking skills . These models provide a structured approach to problem-solving and decision-making by encouraging the evaluation of information and arguments in a logical, systematic manner. By understanding and applying these models, one can learn to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions.

Various critical thinking models exist, each catering to different contexts and scenarios. These models offer a step-by-step method to analyze situations, scrutinize assumptions and biases, and consider alternative perspectives. Ultimately, the goal of critical thinking models is to enhance an individual’s ability to think critically, ultimately improving their reasoning and decision-making skills in both personal and professional settings.

Key Takeaways

Fundamentals of critical thinking.

Definition and Importance

Critical thinking is the intellectual process of logically, objectively, and systematically evaluating information to form reasoned judgments, utilizing reasoning , logic , and evidence . It involves:

Core Cognitive Skills

These skills enable individuals to consistently apply intellectual standards in their thought process, which ultimately results in sound judgments and informed decisions.

Influence of Cognitive Biases

The critical thinking process.

Stages of Critical Thinking

The critical thinking process starts with gathering and evaluating data . This stage involves identifying relevant information and ensuring it is credible and reliable. Next, an individual engages in analysis by examining the data closely to understand its context and interpret its meaning. This step can involve breaking down complex ideas into simpler components for better understanding.

Application in Decision Making

In decision making, critical thinking is a vital skill that allows individuals to make informed choices. It enables them to:

Critical Thinking Models

The red model.

The RED Model stands for Recognize Assumptions, Evaluate Arguments, and Draw Conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions, weighing evidence, and reaching logical conclusions.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Paul-elder model, the halpern critical thinking assessment.

The Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment is a standardized test developed by Diane Halpern to assess critical thinking skills. The evaluation uses a variety of tasks to measure abilities in core skill areas, such as verbal reasoning, argument analysis, and decision making. Pearson, a leading publisher of educational assessments, offers this test as a means to assess individuals’ critical thinking skills ^(source) .

Evaluating Information and Arguments

Evidence assessment.

When practicing critical thinking skills, it is essential to be aware of your own biases and make efforts to minimize their influence on your decision-making process.

Logic and Fallacies

Argument analysis, enhancing critical thinking, strategies for improvement, critical thinking in education, developing a critical thinking mindset.

To truly enhance critical thinking abilities, it’s important to adopt a mindset that values integrity , autonomy , and empathy . These qualities help to create a learning environment that encourages open-mindedness, which is key to critical thinking development. To foster a critical thinking mindset:

Critical Thinking in Various Contexts

The workplace and beyond.

Moreover, critical thinking transcends the workplace and applies to various aspects of life. It empowers an individual to make better decisions, analyze conflicting information, and engage in constructive debates.

Creative and Lateral Thinking

In conclusion, critical thinking is a multifaceted skill that comprises various thought processes, including creative and lateral thinking. By embracing these skills, individuals can excel in the workplace and in their personal lives, making better decisions and solving problems effectively.

Overcoming Challenges

Recognizing and addressing bias, dealing with information overload, measuring critical thinking, assessment tools and criteria, the role of iq and tests.

It’s important to note that intelligence quotient (IQ) tests and critical thinking assessments are not the same. While IQ tests aim to measure an individual’s cognitive abilities and general intelligence, critical thinking tests focus specifically on one’s ability to analyze, evaluate, and form well-founded opinions. Therefore, having a high IQ does not necessarily guarantee strong critical thinking skills, as critical thinking requires additional mental processes beyond basic logical reasoning.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main steps involved in the paul-elder critical thinking model, can you list five techniques to enhance critical thinking skills, what is the red model of critical thinking and how is it applied, how do the ‘3 c’s’ of critical thinking contribute to effective problem-solving.

The ‘3 C’s’ of critical thinking – Curiosity, Creativity, and Criticism – collectively contribute to effective problem-solving. Curiosity allows individuals to explore various perspectives and ask thought-provoking questions, while Creativity helps develop innovative solutions and unique approaches to challenges. Criticism, or the ability to evaluate and analyze ideas objectively, ensures that the problem-solving process remains grounded in logic and relevance.

What characteristics distinguish critical thinking from creative thinking?

What are some recommended books to help improve problem-solving and critical thinking skills, you may also like, how to overcome procrastination, best careers for problem solving: top opportunities for critical thinkers, parents teaching critical thinking: effective strategies for raising independent thinkers, the psychology behind critical thinking: understanding the mental processes involved, download this free ebook.

Mental Models: How to Train Your Brain to Think in New Ways

You can train your brain to think better. One of the best ways to do this is to expand the set of mental models you use to think. Let me explain what I mean by sharing a story about a world-class thinker.

I first discovered what a mental model was and how useful the right one could be while I was reading a story about Richard Feynman, the famous physicist. Feynman received his undergraduate degree from MIT and his Ph.D. from Princeton. During that time, he developed a reputation for waltzing into the math department and solving problems that the brilliant Ph.D. students couldn’t solve.

When people asked how he did it, Feynman claimed that his secret weapon was not his intelligence, but rather a strategy he learned in high school. According to Feynman, his high school physics teacher asked him to stay after class one day and gave him a challenge.

“Feynman,” the teacher said, “you talk too much and you make too much noise. I know why. You’re bored. So I’m going to give you a book. You go up there in the back, in the corner, and study this book, and when you know everything that’s in this book, you can talk again.” 1

So each day, Feynman would hide in the back of the classroom and study the book—Advanced Calculus by Woods—while the rest of the class continued with their regular lessons. And it was while studying this old calculus textbook that Feynman began to develop his own set of mental models.

“That book showed how to differentiate parameters under the integral sign,” Feynman wrote. “It turns out that’s not taught very much in the universities; they don’t emphasize it. But I caught on how to use that method, and I used that one damn tool again and again. So because I was self-taught using that book, I had peculiar methods of doing integrals.”

“The result was, when the guys at MIT or Princeton had trouble doing a certain integral, it was because they couldn’t do it with the standard methods they had learned in school. If it was a contour integration, they would have found it; if it was a simple series expansion, they would have found it. Then I come along and try differentiating under the integral sign, and often it worked. So I got a great reputation for doing integrals, only because my box of tools was different from everybody else’s, and they had tried all their tools on it before giving the problem to me.” 2

Every Ph.D. student at Princeton and MIT is brilliant. What separated Feynman from his peers wasn’t necessarily raw intelligence. It was the way he saw the problem. He had a broader set of mental models.

What is a Mental Model?

A mental model is an explanation of how something works. It is a concept, framework, or worldview that you carry around in your mind to help you interpret the world and understand the relationship between things. Mental models are deeply held beliefs about how the world works.

For example, supply and demand is a mental model that helps you understand how the economy works. Game theory is a mental model that helps you understand how relationships and trust work. Entropy is a mental model that helps you understand how disorder and decay work.

Mental models guide your perception and behavior. They are the thinking tools that you use to understand life, make decisions, and solve problems. Learning a new mental model gives you a new way to see the world—like Richard Feynman learning a new math technique.

Mental models are imperfect, but useful. There is no single mental model from physics or engineering, for example, that provides a flawless explanation of the entire universe, but the best mental models from those disciplines have allowed us to build bridges and roads, develop new technologies, and even travel to outer space. As historian Yuval Noah Harari puts it, “Scientists generally agree that no theory is 100 percent correct. Thus, the real test of knowledge is not truth, but utility.”

The best mental models are the ideas with the most utility. They are broadly useful in daily life. Understanding these concepts will help you make wiser choices and take better actions. This is why developing a broad base of mental models is critical for anyone interested in thinking clearly, rationally, and effectively.

The Secret to Great Thinking and Decision Making

Expanding your set of mental models is something experts need to work on just as much as novices. We all have our favorite mental models, the ones we naturally default to as an explanation for how or why something happened. As you grow older and develop expertise in a certain area, you tend to favor the mental models that are most familiar to you.

Here’s the problem: when a certain worldview dominates your thinking, you’ll try to explain every problem you face through that worldview. This pitfall is particularly easy to slip into when you’re smart or talented in a given area.

The more you master a single mental model, the more likely it becomes that this mental model will be your downfall because you’ll start applying it indiscriminately to every problem. What looks like expertise is often a limitation. As the common proverb says, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” 3

When a certain worldview dominates your thinking, you’ll try to explain every problem you face through that worldview.

Consider this example from biologist Robert Sapolsky. He asks, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” Then, he provides answers from different experts.

• If you ask an evolutionary biologist, they might say, “The chicken crossed the road because they saw a potential mate on the other side.”
• If you ask a kinesiologist, they might say, “The chicken crossed the road because the muscles in the leg contracted and pulled the leg bone forward during each step.”
• If you ask a neuroscientist, they might say, “The chicken crossed the road because the neurons in the chicken’s brain fired and triggered the movement.”

Technically speaking, none of these experts are wrong. But nobody is seeing the entire picture either. Each individual mental model is just one view of reality. The challenges and situations we face in life cannot be entirely explained by one field or industry.

All perspectives hold some truth. None of them contain the complete truth.

Relying on a narrow set of thinking tools is like wearing a mental straitjacket. Your cognitive range of motion is limited. When your set of mental models is limited, so is your potential for finding a solution. In order to unleash your full potential, you have to collect a range of mental models. You have to build out your decision making toolbox. Thus, the secret to great thinking is to learn and employ a variety of mental models.

Expanding Your Set of Mental Models

The process of accumulating mental models is somewhat like improving your vision. Each eye can see something on its own. But if you cover one of them, you lose part of the scene. It’s impossible to see the full picture when you’re only looking through one eye.

Similarly, mental models provide an internal picture of how the world works. We should continuously upgrade and improve the quality of this picture. This means reading widely from the best books , studying the fundamentals of seemingly unrelated fields, and learning from people with wildly different life experiences. 4

The mind’s eye needs a variety of mental models to piece together a complete picture of how the world works. The more sources you have to draw upon, the clearer your thinking becomes. As the philosopher Alain de Botton notes, “The chief enemy of good decisions is a lack of sufficient perspectives on a problem.”

The Pursuit of Liquid Knowledge

In school, we tend to separate knowledge into different silos—biology, economics, history, physics, philosophy. In the real world, information is rarely divided into neatly defined categories. In the words of Charlie Munger, “All the wisdom of the world is not to be found in one little academic department.” 5

World-class thinkers are often silo-free thinkers. They avoid looking at life through the lens of one subject. Instead, they develop “liquid knowledge” that flows easily from one topic to the next.

This is why it is important to not only learn new mental models, but to consider how they connect with one another. Creativity and innovation often arise at the intersection of ideas. By spotting the links between various mental models, you can identify solutions that most people overlook.

Tools for Thinking Better

Here’s the good news:

You don’t need to master every detail of every subject to become a world-class thinker. Of all the mental models humankind has generated throughout history, there are just a few dozen that you need to learn to have a firm grasp of how the world works.

Many of the most important mental models are the big ideas from disciplines like biology, chemistry, physics, economics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy. Each field has a few mental models that form the backbone of the topic. For example, some of the pillar mental models from economics include ideas like Incentives, Scarcity, and Economies of Scale.

If you can master the fundamentals of each discipline, then you can develop a remarkably accurate and useful picture of life. To quote Charlie Munger again, “80 or 90 important models will carry about 90 percent of the freight in making you a worldly-wise person. And, of those, only a mere handful really carry very heavy freight.” 6

I’ve made it a personal mission to uncover the big models that carry the heavy freight in life. After researching more than 1,000 different mental models, I gradually narrowed it down to a few dozen that matter most. I’ve written about some of them previously, like entropy and inversion , and I’ll be covering more of them in the future. If you’re interested, you can browse my slowly expanding list of mental models .

My hope is to create a list of the most important mental models from a wide range of disciplines and explain them in a way that is not only easy to understand, but also meaningful and practical to the daily life of the average person. With any luck, we can all learn how to think just a little bit better.

Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman. Pages 86-87.

This idea is sometimes called The Law of the Instrument or Man With a Hammer Syndrome. The original phrase comes from Abraham Kaplan’s book, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science . On page 28 he writes, “Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.”

With regards to the importance of reading widely, a quote from the wonderful writer Haruki Murakami comes to mind, “If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.”

“A Lesson on Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management & Business” by Charles Munger. Speech at USC Business School. 1994.

Thanks for reading. You can get more actionable ideas in my popular email newsletter. Each week, I share 3 short ideas from me, 2 quotes from others, and 1 question to think about. Over 3,000,000 people subscribe . Enter your email now and join us.

James Clear writes about habits, decision making, and continuous improvement. He is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller, Atomic Habits . The book has sold over 20 million copies worldwide and has been translated into more than 60 languages.

Click here to learn more →

• Entropy: Why Life Always Seems to Get More Complicated
• Inversion: The Crucial Thinking Skill Nobody Ever Taught You
• A Margin of Safety: How to Thrive in the Age of Uncertainty
• The 1 Percent Rule: Why a Few People Get Most of the Rewards
• The Paradox of Behavior Change
• All Articles

A podcast and blog exploring the meaningful path of kodawari.

Mental Models And Critical Thinking

On May 13, 2021

In Mental Frameworks , Self-Improvement

More important than learning what to think is learning how to think ( critical thinking). So in this article, we will examine one approach that’s been useful to us—that critical thinking is learning how to use mental models. Mental models are the frameworks that we use to simplify and understand the world. And building a robust toolbox of these is a great way to think more clearly and make better decisions.

At his trial, Socrates apparently uttered the famous words that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. It means that we should strive to understand ourselves in order to have a deep and meaningful life. This includes examining and being critical of our thinking.

And one way to get better at critical thinking is to build up a database of mental models.

Mental models help us by reducing complexity in the world. We can’t pay attention to everything, and models help show us what is important—they block out the noise and boost the signal. At Exploring Kodawari, we refer to them as mental frameworks, and you can view our growing list of them here .

But in order to improve our critical thinking, we must first understand how mental models work. So this article is a kind of “meta” mental framework explaining what models are and why we need so many of them.

Mental Models And How They Help With Critical Thinking

Mental models are representations of how human beings think. They can be loose concepts with a wide utility or very narrow concepts for specific applications. But in all cases, they help us understand the world by highlighting certain information within it.

Mental models also highlight the connections we see in the world. For all intents and purposes, the world is infinitely complex, and mental models allow us to let go of most of that complexity so that we can pay attention to the relevant bits.

Without mental models, we would be completely overwhelmed—we wouldn’t have a hierarchy of what to pay attention to. With them, though, we have a better chance at figuring out what’s important and how to act.

While each model by itself is biased, critical thinking is having multiple models that compete against each other. This helps us to cancel out that bias by seeing reality from as many perspectives as possible.

One way of understanding mental models is to understand heuristics. A heuristic is a fancy term for what is commonly called a rule of thumb. These are rules or models of reality that are easily learned and broadly accurate. By definition, they are not completely accurate and they do not work all of the time.

So heuristics are approximations of reality that allow us to be more efficient with our thinking. They lower our cognitive demand by blocking out the complexity of each individual situation and focusing on the broadly true pattern.

For a heuristic to be good, it either has to be true most of the time or has to have a bias in the direction of safety. For example, the rule of thumb to treat every gun as if it’s loaded might be literally false most of the time, but still pragmatically true enough to prevent horrible gun accidents.

And mental models are like heuristics in that they don’t have to be completely right—they just need utility. As British statistician George Box once said, “All models are wrong, some are useful.”

As long as we are aware that heuristics can bias our thinking, they are safe to use. And when we have to make fast decisions, they are really our only choice.

Compressing Reality

When an image or sound file is digitally compressed, information is strategically removed in order to create a smaller file. Due to redundant information and limitations in human perception, compressed files can be many times smaller while retaining almost the same fidelity.

And a good mental model is similar—it simplifies reality by removing unnecessary information and focusing on what is useful. This overlaps with the psychological concept of cognitive schema . Schemas are how our brains interpret and categorize information in the world. For example, a chair and a beanbag have little in common objectively, yet our brains see them both through the same schema of “something to sit on”.

Like heuristics, schemas/frameworks/models are about utility. Our brains did not evolve to objectively understand the world—to find the ultimate truth. Instead, they evolved to build models that are true enough . Like digital compression, successful cognitive models simplify reality by maintaining sufficient complexity—that is, they are true/accurate enough to remain useful.

As soon as they are not useful, we either have to use a different model or update our model to accommodate new information.

Your Toolbox For Critical Thinking

We’ve already said that because of bias, critical thinking requires you to have multiple models (or categories of models) that see reality from different perspectives. For example, a biologist might rely too heavily on evolutionary models (incentives, hierarchies, niches, etc) while an engineer might rely too heavily on systems thinking (feedback loops, emergence, critical mass, etc).

So having a toolbox of multiple models, including those outside your specialization, helps you find the right tool for the right job. Or at least, because different models highlight different patterns, you’ll find a model that best fits your goals.

Plus, having more schemas/models also means that you can learn and retain information more quickly. This is why I prefer the term framework. Like Charlie Munger says, frameworks give you a place to hang information:

“Well, the first rule is that you can’t really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang ’em back. If the facts don’t hang together on a latticework of theory, you don’t have them in a usable form.  You’ve got to have models in your head. And you’ve got to array your experience—both vicarious and direct—on this latticework of models.” Charlie Munger, A Lesson on Elementary Worldly Wisdom

Just like your skeleton gives your body a structure, mental frameworks structure your knowledge in an organized way. And the more frameworks you have, the more organized and useful your knowledge will be.

Making Them Personal

Just because you read about a mental model, it doesn’t make it “yours”. To really own a model, you have to integrate it into your mind through personal experience. Otherwise, the model is just a shell—a name without enough depth. But this changes once you make it personal.

Personal models become deeply rooted in your mind. It evolves from a name to a complex network of connections and examples.

For example, I use the mental framework of the modular mind almost every day. This model says that, even though we feel like a unified mind, we are actually comprised of multiple “modules” competing for our conscious attention. It has a long and complicated scientific history, but the main takeaway is simpler: you have subpersonalities inside your head and many of them are shortsighted and selfish.

So with this model, critical thinking is realizing that certain thoughts are not even your thinking at all. Yes, they come from your brain, but the modular mind reminds us that evolution makes us think things that we don’t have to believe.

But just understanding the psychology of it is not enough. You have to also sit down and notice this mental framework in your own life. You have to subjectively feel how your modules try to control you. And this is true of all models—if you don’t make them personal their utility will be mostly limited.

Categories of Mental Models

As a person just looking to think more critically, make better decisions, and generally improve themselves, I’ve found that broader categories of models are often more useful than specific ones. You can use specific frameworks, but sometimes the larger category gives you enough perspective.

So here are some broad categories of mental models and a short description of how that framework can be useful.

Evolutionary Framework

It’s easy for human beings to feel like they are somehow separate from nature. But the evolutionary framework reminds us that we are a product of nature—gradual change due to evolution by natural selection. And this applies not just to our bodies but also to parts of our psychology.

Psychological traits that occur universally across cultures are good candidates for being adaptations. Certain cultural practices work this way too—you can think of culture as “idea software” that evolved to run on the hardware of the brain. When we learn to view ourselves through the evolutionary lens, a lot of our behavior and motivation make way more sense.

This doesn’t mean that evolved behavior is good just because it’s natural (the naturalistic fallacy). Instead, it’s a way to understand ourselves so that we can be more consistently moral.

Hedonic adaptation , the modular mind , and consciousness are all mental models that fit into this category.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are the classic thinking traps that our brains can fall into. We are especially susceptible to these in arguments and debates. While fallacious arguments might appear legit and persuasive on the surface, they contain logical errors that invalidate whatever is being argued.

A logical fallacy may be committed on purpose (deceptive) or on accident (just sloppy thinking). But the point is that either way, an argument based on a logical fallacy is false—although a claim can still be true even if its reasoning is false.

So logical fallacies are great mental models to learn about and notice in your thinking. They highlight the common patterns of how we tend to be sloppy with our thinking, and being familiar with them will improve your critical thinking skills.

Some popular examples of logical fallacies are ad hominem, the slippery slope, and the straw man. Aim to learn them and notice them in yourself and others. This will definitely improve your critical thinking skills.

This category refers to general laws or concepts from physics that we can personify in our human lives. One example is inertia. Inertia states that an object will resist changes in velocity and direction unless acted on by an outside force. And this principle of motion also applies to individuals and organizations.

Relativity is another powerful physics concept that we can export into our thinking. You don’t have to understand Einstein to realize that our frame of reference biases us. For example, if we’re in a plane at cruising altitude, we don’t realize that we’re going nearly 600 mph. But an outside observer would notice this immediately. And this effect occurs in our social lives as well. Critical thinking requires that we be aware of how relativity biases us.

Engineering Frameworks

Engineering frameworks are similar to physics (because engineers rely on physics to build things). But they tend to involve concepts that reveal themselves in more complex systems.

For example, emergence says that sometimes lower-level parts create unexpected higher-level phenomena. And often we can’t even reduce that higher-level emergence to truths from the lower-level domain.

Another engineering principle is feedback loops (A causes B which loops back to A). A classic example of this is when you place a microphone next to its speaker, quickly resulting in a high pitch screech (positive feedback). Positive feedback loops run out of control whereas negative loops (like a thermostat) maintain equilibrium.

These types of frameworks apply not just to engineering systems but also to ourselves and the organizations we create.

Conclusion: Critical Thinking Is Critical

Critical thinking is not just knowing what to think but knowing how to think. It is understanding more consciously how the human mind learns and makes sense of the world. And because mental models are how we do this, learning them more consciously will allow you to think more clearly and make better decisions.

So if you want to get better at critical thinking, consider adding more and more mental models to your toolbox. Study them and make them personal. Over time, they will help you to live a more balanced and consistent life.

Mental Model Resources

• Farnam Street’s List of Mental Models
• James Clear’s List of Mental Models
• Farnam Street’s Shane Parrish on the Making Sense Podcast
• Exploring Kodawari’s Growing List of Mental Models

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

The Mindful Pause

Stoicism as a philosophy of life.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

• Skip to main content
• Skip to header right navigation
• Skip to site footer

Farnam Street

Mastering the best of what other people have already figured out

Mental Models: The Best Way to Make Intelligent Decisions (~100 Models Explained)

What are mental models.

A mental model is a compression of how something works. Any idea, belief, or concept can be distilled down. Like a map, mental models reveal key information while ignoring irrelevant details. Models concentrate the world into understandable and useable chunks.

Mental models help us understand the world. For example, velocity is a mental model that helps you understand that both speed and direction matter. Reciprocity is a mental model that helps you understand how going positive and going first gets the world to do most of the work for you. Margin of Safety is a mental model that helps you understand that things don’t always go as planned. Relativity is a mental model that shows us we have blind spots and how a different perspective can reveal new information. The list goes on.

Coming October 2024: Pre-order all 4 volumes of The Great Mental Models now.

Eliminating Blind Spots

In life and business, the person with the fewest blind spots wins.

The source of all poor choices is blind spots. Think about it. If you had perfect information, you would always make the best decision. You’d play your hand perfectly in a poker game where you could see everyone’s cards. You wouldn’t make any mistakes.

How do we eliminate blind spots?

The best way to reduce our blind spots is to change our perspective. Just as knowing where to stand can turn a good photo into a great one, changing your perspective on a situation reveals critical information and offers new solutions.

Think of each model as a lens through which you can see the world. Each lens offers a different perspective, revealing new information. Looking through one lens lets you see one thing, and looking through another reveals something different. Looking through them both reveals more than each one individually.

While there are a lot of specific mental models, only a handful of general ones come from the big disciplines. Understanding them positions you to make fewer errors, see things others miss, and take better actions.

Let’s take a look at the best general models.

You’ve got to have models in your head and you’ve got to array you experience – both vicarious and direct – onto this latticework of mental models. Charlie munger

A Latticework of Mental Models

Worldly wisdom is not simply memorizing things and repeating them back. The people that do that fail at work and fail in life. Wisdom is knowing the consequences of your actions, which comes from the alignment between facts and reasoning.

The world is not divided into distinct disciplines. For example, business professors won’t discuss physics in their lectures, but they should. Velocity teaches us that speed and direction matter. Kinetic energy teaches us that velocity matters more than mass when creating a force. Understanding these insights helps you outperform.

In the real world, everything is connected like a latticework. Just because our teachers didn’t show us how to use the big ideas from all the disciplines in life and business doesn’t mean we can’t learn them ourselves. That’s why we created The Great Mental Models project.

Here are the big ideas that can help you make better decisions, avoid problems, and spot opportunities others miss.

• Core Thinking Concepts
• Physics and Chemistry
• Microeconomics
• Military and War
• Human Nature and Judgment

The Core Mental Models

1. The Map is Not the Territory The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect. That’s because they are reductions of what they represent. If a map were to represent the territory with perfect fidelity, it would no longer be a reduction and thus would no longer be useful to us. A map can also be a snapshot of a point in time, representing something that no longer exists. This is important to keep in mind as we think through problems and make better decisions.

2. Circle of Competence When ego and not competence drive what we undertake, we have massive blind spots. If you know what you understand, you know where you have an edge over others. When you are honest about where your knowledge is lacking, you know where you are vulnerable and where you can improve. Understanding your circle of competence improves decision-making and outcomes.

3. First Principles Thinking First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer complicated situations and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called reasoning from first principles, it’s a tool to help clarify complicated problems by separating the underlying ideas or facts from any assumptions based on them. What remains are the essentials. If you know the first principles of something, you can build the rest of your knowledge around them to produce something new.

4. Thought Experiment Thought experiments can be defined as “devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things.” Many disciplines, such as philosophy and physics, make use of thought experiments to examine what can be known. In doing so, they can open up new avenues for inquiry and exploration. Thought experiments are powerful because they help us learn from our mistakes and avoid future ones. They let us take on the impossible, evaluate the potential consequences of our actions, and re-examine history to make better decisions. They can help us both figure out what we really want and the best way to get there.

5. Second-Order Thinking Almost everyone can anticipate the immediate results of their actions. This type of first-order thinking is easy and safe, but it’s also a way to ensure you get the same results that everyone else gets. Second-order thinking is thinking farther ahead and thinking holistically. It requires us to consider not only our actions and their immediate consequences but the subsequent effects of those actions as well. Failing to consider the second and third-order effects can unleash disaster.

6. Probabilistic Thinking Probabilistic thinking is essentially trying to estimate, using some tools of math and logic, the likelihood of any specific outcome coming to pass. It is one of the best tools we have to improve the accuracy of our decisions. In a world where each moment is determined by an infinitely complex set of factors, probabilistic thinking helps us identify the most likely outcomes. When we know these, our decisions can be more precise and effective.

7. Inversion Inversion is a powerful tool to improve your thinking because it helps you identify and remove obstacles to success. The root of inversion is “invert,” which means to upend or turn upside down. As a thinking tool, it means approaching a situation from the opposite end of the natural starting point. Most of us tend to think one way about a problem: forward. Inversion allows us to flip the problem around and think backward. Sometimes it’s good to start at the beginning, but it can be more useful to start at the end.

8. Occam’s Razor Simpler explanations are more likely to be true than complicated ones. This is the essence of Occam’s Razor, a classic principle of logic and problem-solving. Instead of wasting your time trying to disprove complex scenarios, you can make decisions more confidently by basing them on the explanation that has the fewest moving parts.

9. Hanlon’s Razor Hard to trace in its origin, Hanlon’s Razor states that we should not attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by stupidity. In a complex world, using this model helps us avoid paranoia and ideology. By not generally assuming that bad results are the fault of a bad actor, we look for options instead of missing opportunities. This model reminds us that people do make mistakes. It demands that we ask if there is another reasonable explanation for the events that have occurred. The explanation most likely to be right is the one that contains the least amount of intent.

The Mental Models of Physics and Chemistry

1. Relativity Relativity has been used in several contexts in the world of physics, but the important aspect to study is the idea that an observer cannot truly understand a system of which he himself is a part. For example, a man inside an airplane does not feel like he is experiencing movement, but an outside observer can see that movement is occurring. This form of relativity tends to affect social systems in a similar way.

2. Reciprocity If I push on a wall, physics tells me that the wall pushes back with equivalent force. In a biological system, if one individual acts on another, the action will tend to be reciprocated in kind. And of course, human beings act with intense reciprocity demonstrated as well.

3. Thermodynamics The laws of thermodynamics describe energy in a closed system. The laws cannot be escaped and underlie the physical world. They describe a world in which useful energy is constantly being lost, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Applying their lessons to the social world can be a profitable enterprise.

4. Inertia An object in motion with a certain vector wants to continue moving in that direction unless acted upon. This is a fundamental physical principle of motion; however, individuals, systems, and organizations display the same effect. It allows them to minimize the use of energy, but can cause them to be destroyed or eroded.

5. Friction and Viscosity Both friction and viscosity describe the difficulty of movement. Friction is a force that opposes the movement of objects that are in contact with each other, and viscosity measures how hard it is for one fluid to slide over another. Higher viscosity leads to higher resistance. These concepts teach us a lot about how our environment can impede our movement.

6. Velocity Velocity is not equivalent to speed; the two are sometimes confused. Velocity is speed plus vector: how fast something gets somewhere. An object that moves two steps forward and then two steps back has moved at a certain speed but shows no velocity. The addition of the vector, that critical distinction, is what we should consider in practical life.

7. Leverage Most of the engineering marvels of the world were accomplished with applied leverage. As famously stated by Archimedes, “Give me a lever long enough and I shall move the world.” With a small amount of input force, we can make a great output force through leverage. Understanding where we can apply this model to the human world can be a source of great success.

8. Activation Energy A fire is not much more than a combination of carbon and oxygen, but the forests and coal mines of the world are not combusting at will because such a chemical reaction requires the input of a critical level of “activation energy” in order to get a reaction started. Two combustible elements alone are not enough.

9. Catalysts A catalyst either kick-starts or maintains a chemical reaction but isn’t itself a reactant. The reaction may slow or stop without the addition of catalysts. Social systems, of course, take on many similar traits, and we can view catalysts in a similar light.

10. Alloying When we combine various elements, we create new substances. This is no great surprise, but what can be surprising in the alloying process is that 2+2 can equal not 4 but 6 – the alloy can be far stronger than the simple addition of the underlying elements would lead us to believe. This process leads us to engineer great physical objects, but we understand many intangibles in the same way; a combination of the right elements in social systems or even individuals can create a 2+2=6 effect similar to alloying.

The Mental Models of Biology

1. Evolution Part One: Natural Selection and Extinction Evolution by natural selection was once called “the greatest idea anyone ever had.” In the 19th century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace simultaneously realized that species evolve through random mutation and differential survival rates. If we call human intervention in animal breeding an example of “artificial selection,” we can call Mother Nature deciding the success or failure of a particular mutation “natural selection.” Those best suited for survival tend to be preserved. But of course, conditions change.

2. Evolution Part Two:  Adaptation and The Red Queen Effect   Species tend to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive, given the combination of their genetics and their environment – an always-unavoidable combination. However, adaptations made in an individual’s lifetime are not passed down genetically, as was once thought:  Populations of species adapt through the process of evolution by natural selection, as the most-fit examples of the species replicate at an above-average rate.

The evolution-by-natural-selection model leads to something of an arms race among species competing for limited resources. When one species evolves an advantageous adaptation, a competing species must respond in kind or fail as a species. Standing still can mean falling behind. This arms race is called the Red Queen Effect for the character in Alice in Wonderland who said, “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”

3. Ecosystems An ecosystem describes any group of organisms coexisting with the natural world. Most ecosystems show diverse forms of life taking on different approaches to survival, with such pressures leading to varying behavior. Social systems can be seen in the same light as the physical ecosystems and many of the same conclusions can be made.

4. Niches Most organisms find a niche: a method of competing and behaving for survival. Usually, a species will select a niche for which it is best adapted. The danger arises when multiple species begin competing for the same niche, which can cause an extinction – there can be only so many species doing the same thing before limited resources give out.

5. Self-Preservation  Without a strong self-preservation instinct in an organism’s DNA, it would tend to disappear over time, thus eliminating that DNA. While cooperation is another important model, the self-preservation instinct is strong in all organisms and can cause violent, erratic, and/or destructive behavior for those around them.

6. Replication A fundamental building block of diverse biological life is high-fidelity replication. The fundamental unit of replication seems to be the DNA molecule, which provides a blueprint for the offspring to be built from physical building blocks. There are a variety of replication methods, but most can be lumped into sexual and asexual.

7. Cooperation  Competition tends to describe most biological systems, but cooperation at various levels is just as important a dynamic. In fact, the cooperation of a bacterium and a simple cell probably created the first complex cell and all of the life we see around us. Without cooperation, no group survives, and the cooperation of groups gives rise to even more complex versions of organization. Cooperation and competition tend to coexist at multiple levels.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a famous application of game theory in which two prisoners are both better off cooperating with each other, but if one of them cheats, the other is better off cheating. Thus the dilemma. This model shows up in economic life, in war, and in many other areas of practical human life. Though the prisoner’s dilemma theoretically leads to a poor result, in the real world, cooperation is nearly always possible and must be explored.

8. Hierarchical  Organization Most complex biological organisms have an innate feel for how they should organize. While not all of them end up in hierarchical structures, many do, especially in the animal kingdom. Human beings like to think they are outside of this, but they feel the hierarchical instinct as strongly as any other organism. This includes the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram Experiments, which demonstrated what humans learned practically many years before: the human bias towards being influenced by authority. In a dominance hierarchy such as ours, we tend to look to the leader for guidance on behavior, especially in situations of stress or uncertainty. Thus, authority figures have a responsibility to act well, whether they like it or not.

9. Incent ives All creatures respond to incentives to keep themselves alive. This is the basic insight of biology. Constant incentives will tend to cause a biological entity to have constant behavior to an extent. Humans are included and are particularly great examples of the incentive-driven nature of biology; however, humans are complicated in that their incentives can be hidden or intangible. The rule of life is to repeat what works and has been rewarded.

10. Tendency to Minimize Energy Output (Mental and physical) In a physical world governed by thermodynamics and competition for limited energy and resources, any biological organism that was wasteful with energy would be at a severe disadvantage for survival. Thus, we see in most instances that behavior is governed by a tendency to minimize energy usage when at all possible.

The Mental Models of Systems Thinking

1. Feedback L oops  All complex systems are subject to positive and negative feedback loops whereby A causes B, which in turn influences A (and C), and so on – with higher-order effects frequently resulting from the continual movement of the loop. In a homeostatic system, a change in A is often brought back into line by an opposite change in B to maintain the balance of the system, as with the temperature of the human body or the behavior of an organizational culture. Automatic feedback loops maintain a “static” environment unless and until an outside force changes the loop. A “runaway feedback loop” describes a situation in which the output of a reaction becomes its own catalyst (auto-catalysis).

2. Equilibrium Homeostasis is the process through which systems self-regulate to maintain an equilibrium state that enables them to function in a changing environment. Most of the time, they over or undershoot it by a little and must keep adjusting. Like a pilot flying a plane, the system is off course more often than on course. Everything within a homeostatic system contributes to keeping it within a range of equilibrium, so it is important to understand the limits of the range.

3. Bottlenecks A bottleneck describes the place at which a flow (of a tangible or intangible) is stopped, thus constraining it from continuous movement. As with a clogged artery or a blocked drain, a bottleneck in the production of any good or service can be small but have a disproportionate impact if it is in the critical path. However, bottlenecks can also be a source of inspiration as they force us to reconsider if there are alternate pathways to success.

4. Scale One of the most important principles of systems is that they are sensitive to scale. Properties (or behaviors) tend to change when you scale them up or down. In studying complex systems, we must always be roughly quantifying – in orders of magnitude, at least – the scale at which we are observing, analyzing, or predicting the system.

5. Margin of Safety   Similarly, engineers have also developed the habit of adding a margin for error into all calculations. In an unknown world, driving a 9,500-pound bus over a bridge built to hold precisely 9,600 pounds is rarely seen as intelligent. Thus, on the whole, few modern bridges ever fail. In practical life outside of physical engineering, we can often profitably give ourselves margins as robust as the bridge system.

6. Churn Churn is the silent killer of businesses. It’s the slow leak, the constant drip of customers slipping away, of users drifting off to find something new. It’s the attrition that eats away at your growth, that forces you to keep running just to stay in place. The thing about churn is that it’s often hidden. It’s not like a sudden crisis that grabs your attention. It’s a slow, quiet process that happens in the background.

Churn can present opportunity. Like a snake shedding its skin, replacing components of a system is a natural part to keeping it healthy. New parts can improve functionality.

When we use this model as a lens, we see that new people bring new ideas, and counterintuitively, some turnover allows us to maintain stability. Replacing what is worn out also allows us to upgrade and expand our capabilities, creating new opportunities. 

Some churn is inevitable. Too much can kill you.

7. Algorithms Algorithms are recipes. A list of crisp, unambiguous steps that tell you how to get from point A to point B. But they’re more than just directions. Algorithms are if‑then machines for tuning out the noise and zeroing in on the signal. Have the specs been met? Follow the algorithm and find out. Thinking algorithmically means searching for processes that reliably spit out the results you want, like a vending machine dispensing the same candy bar every time someone punches in E4. 

8. Critical mass Critical mass isn’t just a science term; it’s a guide for understanding that often things happen slowly and then all at once. It’s the moment when a system goes from sputtering along to explosive growth. Like a nuclear chain reaction, once you hit critical mass, the reaction becomes self-sustaining.

Through this lens we gain insight into the amount of material needed for a system to change from one state to another. Material can be anything from people and effort to raw material. When enough material builds up, systems reach their tipping point. When we keep going, we get sustainable change.

Using critical mass as a lens for situations in which you want different outcomes helps you identify both the design elements you need to change and the work you need to put in. 

9. Emergence Nearly everything is an emergent effect— table, a space shuttle, even us— combinations of ingredients that come together in a specific way to create something new. Emergence is the universe’s way of reminding us that when we combine different pieces in new ways, we get results that are more than the sum of their parts, often in the most unexpected and thrilling ways. 

Using this mental model is not about trying to predict emergent properties but rather acknowledging they are possible. There is no need to stick with what you know; mix it up and see what happens. Learn new skills, interact with new people, read new things.

10. Irreducibility  Irreducibility is about essence. It’s the idea that some things can’t be broken down into smaller parts without losing what makes them tick. It’s the idea that not everything can be explained by looking at its components. Emergent properties arise from complex systems that can’t be predicted by studying the individual parts.

Grappling with irreducibility requires a shift in thinking. Instead of trying to break things down, sometimes you have to zoom out. Look at the big picture. Embrace the complexity. Because some problems don’t have neat, modular solutions. They’re irreducibly messy.

Using irreducibility as a lens helps you focus on what you can change by understanding what really matters. 

11. Law of Diminishing Returns Diminishing returns is the idea that the easy wins usually come first. The more you optimize a system, the harder it gets to eke out additional improvements. Like squeezing juice from a lemon. The first squeeze is easy. The second takes a bit more work. By the tenth squeeze, you’re fighting for every last drop.

When you’re a beginner, every bit of effort translates into significant gains. But as you level up, progress becomes more incremental. It takes more and more work to get better and better. That’s why going from good to great is often harder than going from bad to good.

Understanding diminishing returns is crucial for allocating resources efficiently. You want to focus on the areas where you can get the biggest bang for your buck. Sometimes, that means knowing when to stop optimizing and move on to something else. 

The Mental Models of Numeracy

1. Distributions The normal distribution is a statistical process that leads to the well-known graphical representation of a bell curve, with a meaningful central “average” and increasingly rare standard deviations from that average when correctly sampled. (The so-called “central limit” theorem.) Well-known examples include human height and weight, but it’s just as important to note that many common processes, especially in non-tangible systems like social systems, do not follow this pattern. Normal distributions can be contrasted with power law, or exponential, distributions.

2. Compounding Compounding is the magic of exponential growth. It’s the idea that small, consistent gains can snowball into massive results over time. Like a tiny snowball rolling down a hill, picking up more and more snow until it’s an avalanche.

Compounding requires us to think long- term about our knowledge, experiences, and relationships. It tells us that the small stuff we learn, the people we meet, and the connections we deepen, when reinvested into our lives, build up our fortunes in wisdom and relationships, not by chance, but by the steady, patient accumulation of efforts. The majority of success doesn’t happen by accident, and the lens of compounding illuminates the investments we need to make to get there.

Compounding is how you turn ordinary into extraordinary, one tiny gain at a time. 

3. Sampling When we want to get information about a population (meaning a set of alike people, things, or events), we usually need to look at a sample (meaning a part of the population). It is usually not possible or even desirable to consider the entire population, so we aim for a sample that represents the whole. As a rule of thumb, more measurements mean more accurate results, all else being equal. Small sample sizes can produce skewed results.

4. Randomness Though the human brain has trouble comprehending it, much of the world is composed of random, non-sequential, non-ordered events. We are “fooled” by random effects when we attribute causality to things that are actually outside of our control. If we don’t course-correct for this fooled-by-randomness effect – our faulty sense of pattern-seeking – we will tend to see things as being more predictable than they are and act accordingly.

5. Regression to the Mean In a normally distributed system, long deviations from the average will tend to return to that average with an increasing number of observations: the so-called Law of Large Numbers. We are often fooled by regression to the mean, as with a sick patient improving spontaneously around the same time they begin taking an herbal remedy, or a poorly performing sports team going on a winning streak. We must be careful not to confuse statistically likely events with causal ones.

6. Multiplying by Zero Any reasonably educated person knows that any number multiplied by zero, no matter how large the number, is still zero. This is true in human systems as well as mathematical ones. In some systems, a failure in one area can negate great effort in all other areas. As simple multiplication would show, fixing the “zero” often has a much greater effect than does trying to enlarge the other areas.

7. Equivalence The introduction of algebra allowed us to demonstrate mathematically and abstractly that two seemingly different things could be the same. By manipulating symbols, we can demonstrate equivalence or inequivalence, the use of which led humanity to untold engineering and technical abilities. Knowing at least the basics of algebra can allow us to understand a variety of important results.

8. Surface Area The surface area of a three dimensional object is the amount of space on the outside of it. Thus, the more surface area you have, the more contact you have with your environment. Sometimes a high surface area is desirable: Our lungs and intestines have a huge surface area to increase the absorption of oxygen and nutrients. Other times we want to reduce our exposure, such as limiting our internet exposure to reduce the attack surface.

9. Global and Local Maxima The maxima and minima of a mathematical function are the largest and smallest values over its domain. Although there is one maximum value, the global maximum, there can be smaller peaks of value in a given range, the local maxima. Global and local maxima help us identify peaks, and if there is still potential to go higher or lower. It also reminds us that sometimes we have to go down to go back up.

The Mental Models of Microeconomics

1. Opportunity Costs Doing one thing means not being able to do another. We live in a world of trade-offs, and the concept of opportunity cost rules all. Most aptly summarized as “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

2. Creative Destruction Coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter, the term “creative destruction” describes the capitalistic process at work in a functioning free-market system. Motivated by personal incentives (including but not limited to financial profit), entrepreneurs will push to best one another in a never-ending game of creative one-upmanship, in the process destroying old ideas and replacing them with newer technology. Beware getting left behind.

3.  Comparative Advantage The Scottish economist David Ricardo had an unusual and non-intuitive insight: Two individuals, firms, or countries could benefit from trading with one another even if one of them was better at everything. Comparative advantage is best seen as an applied opportunity cost: If it has the opportunity to trade, an entity gives up free gains in productivity by not focusing on what it does best.

4. Specialization (Pin Factory) Another Scottish economist, Adam Smith, highlighted the advantages gained in a free-market system by specialization. Rather than having a group of workers each producing an entire item from start to finish, Smith explained that it’s usually far more productive to have each of them specialize in one aspect of production. He also cautioned, however, that each worker might not enjoy such a life; this is a trade-off of the specialization model.

5. Seizing the Middle In chess, the winning strategy is usually to seize control of the middle of the board, so as to maximize the potential moves that can be made and control the movement of the maximal number of pieces. The same strategy works profitably in business, as can be demonstrated by John D. Rockefeller’s control of the refinery business in the early days of the oil trade and Microsoft’s control of the operating system in the early days of the software trade.

6. Trademarks, Patents, and Copyrights These three concepts, along with other related ones, protect the creative work produced by enterprising individuals, thus creating additional incentives for creativity and promoting the creative-destruction model of capitalism. Without these protections, information and creative workers have no defense against their work being freely distributed.

7. Double-Entry Bookkeeping One of the marvels of modern capitalism has been the bookkeeping system introduced in Genoa in the 14th century. The double-entry system requires that every entry, such as income, also be entered into another corresponding account. Correct double-entry bookkeeping acts as a check on potential accounting errors and allows for accurate records and thus, more accurate behavior by the owner of a firm.

8. Utility (Marginal, Diminishing, Increasing) The usefulness of additional units of any good tends to vary with scale. Marginal utility allows us to understand the value of one additional unit, and in most practical areas of life, that utility diminishes at some point. On the other hand, in some cases, additional units are subject to a “critical point” where the utility function jumps discretely up or down. As an example, giving water to a thirsty man has diminishing marginal utility with each additional unit, and can eventually kill him with enough units.

9. Bribery Often ignored in mainstream economics, the concept of bribery is central to human systems: Given the chance, it is often easier to pay a certain agent to look the other way than to follow the rules. The enforcer of the rules is then neutralized. This principal/agent problem can be seen as a form of arbitrage.

10. Arbitrage Given two markets selling an identical good, an arbitrage exists if the good can profitably be bought in one market and sold at a profit in the other. This model is simple on its face, but can present itself in disguised forms: The only gas station in a 50-mile radius is also an arbitrage as it can buy gasoline and sell it at the desired profit (temporarily) without interference. Nearly all arbitrage situations eventually disappear as they are discovered and exploited.

11. Supply and Demand The basic equation of biological and economic life is one of limited supply of necessary goods and competition for those goods. Just as biological entities compete for limited usable energy, so too do economic entities compete for limited customer wealth and limited demand for their products. The point at which supply and demand for a given good are equal is called an equilibrium; however, in practical life, equilibrium points tend to be dynamic and changing, never static.

12. Scarcity Game theory describes situations of conflict, limited resources, and competition. Given a certain situation and a limited amount of resources and time, what decisions are competitors likely to make, and which should they make? One important note is that traditional game theory may describe humans as more rational than they really are. Game theory is theory, after all.

13. Mr. Market Mr. Market was introduced by the investor Benjamin Graham in his seminal book The Intelligent Investor to represent the vicissitudes of the financial markets. As Graham explains, the markets are a bit like a moody neighbor, sometimes waking up happy and sometimes waking up sad – your job as an investor is to take advantage of him in his bad moods and sell to him in his good moods. This attitude is contrasted to an efficient-market hypothesis in which Mr. Market always wakes up in the middle of the bed, never feeling overly strong in either direction.

The Mental Models of Military and War

1. Seeing the Front One of the most valuable military tactics is the habit of “personally seeing the front” before making decisions – not always relying on advisors, maps, and reports, all of which can be either faulty or biased. The Map/Territory model illustrates the problem with not seeing the front, as does the incentive model. Leaders of any organization can generally benefit from seeing the front, as not only does it provide firsthand information, but it also tends to improve the quality of secondhand information.

2. Asymmetric Warfare The asymmetry model leads to an application in warfare whereby one side seemingly “plays by different rules” than the other side due to circumstance. Generally, this model is applied by an insurgency with limited resources. Unable to out-muscle their opponents, asymmetric fighters use other tactics, as with terrorism creating fear that’s disproportionate to their actual destructive ability.

3. Two-Front War The Second World War was a good example of a two-front war. Once Russia and Germany became enemies, Germany was forced to split its troops and send them to separate fronts, weakening their impact on either front. In practical life, opening a two-front war can often be a useful tactic, as can solving a two-front war or avoiding one, as in the example of an organization tamping down internal discord to focus on its competitors.

4. Counterinsurgency Though asymmetric insurgent warfare can be extremely effective, over time competitors have also developed counterinsurgency strategies. Recently and famously, General David Petraeus of the United States led the development of counterinsurgency plans that involved no additional force but substantial additional gains. Tit-for-tat warfare or competition will often lead to a feedback loop that demands insurgency and counterinsurgency.

5. Mutually Assured Destruction Somewhat paradoxically, the stronger two opponents become, the less likely they may be to destroy one another. This process of mutually assured destruction occurs not just in warfare, as with the development of global nuclear warheads, but also in business, as with the avoidance of destructive price wars between competitors. However, in a fat-tailed world, it is also possible that mutually assured destruction scenarios simply make destruction more severe in the event of a mistake (pushing destruction into the “tails” of the distribution).

The Mental Models of Human Nature and Judgment

1. Trust Fundamentally, the modern world operates on trust. Familial trust is generally a given (otherwise we’d have a hell of a time surviving), but we also choose to trust chefs, clerks, drivers, factory workers, executives, and many others. A trusting system is one that tends to work most efficiently; the rewards of trust are extremely high.

2. Bias from Incentives Highly responsive to incentives, humans have perhaps the most varied and hardest to understand set of incentives in the animal kingdom. This causes us to distort our thinking when it is in our own interest to do so. A wonderful example is a salesman truly believing that his product will improve the lives of its users. It’s not merely convenient that he sells the product; the fact of his selling the product causes a very real bias in his own thinking.

3. Pavlovian Association Ivan Pavlov very effectively demonstrated that animals can respond not just to direct incentives but also to associated objects; remember the famous dogs salivating at the ring of a bell. Human beings are much the same and can feel positive and negative emotion towards intangible objects, with the emotion coming from past associations rather than direct effects.

4.  Tendency to Feel Envy & Jealousy Humans have a tendency to feel envious of those receiving more than they are, and a desire “get what is theirs” in due course. The tendency towards envy is strong enough to drive otherwise irrational behavior, but is as old as humanity itself. Any system ignorant of envy effects will tend to self-immolate over time.

5.  Tendency to Distort Due to Liking/Loving or  Disliking/Hating Based on past association, stereotyping, ideology, genetic influence, or direct experience, humans have a tendency to distort their thinking in favor of people or things that they like and against people or things they dislike. This tendency leads to overrating the things we like and underrating or broadly categorizing things we dislike, often missing crucial nuances in the process.

6. Denial  Anyone who has been alive long enough realizes that, as the saying goes, “denial is not just a river in Africa.” This is powerfully demonstrated in situations like war or drug abuse, where denial has powerful destructive effects but allows for behavioral inertia. Denying reality can be a coping mechanism, a survival mechanism, or a purposeful tactic.

7.  Availability Heuristic One of the most useful findings of modern psychology is what Daniel Kahneman calls the Availability Bias or Heuristic: We tend to most easily recall what is salient, important, frequent, and recent. The brain has its own energy-saving and inertial tendencies that we have little control over – the availability heuristic is likely one of them. Having a truly comprehensive memory would be debilitating. Some sub-examples of the availability heuristic include the Anchoring and Sunk Cost Tendencies.

8. Representativeness Heuristic The three major psychological findings that fall under Representativeness, also defined by Kahneman and his partner Tversky, are:

a. Failure to Account for Base Rates An unconscious failure to look at past odds in determining current or future behavior.

b. Tendency to Stereotype  The tendency to broadly generalize and categorize rather than look for specific nuance. Like availability, this is generally a necessary trait for energy-saving in the brain.

c. Failure to See False Conjunctions Most famously demonstrated by the Linda Test, the same two psychologists showed that students chose more vividly described individuals as more likely to fit into a predefined category than individuals with broader, more inclusive, but less vivid descriptions, even if the vivid example was a mere subset of the more inclusive set. These specific examples are seen as more representative of the category than those with the broader but vaguer descriptions, in violation of logic and probability.

9.  Social Proof (Safety in Numbers) Human beings are one of many social species, along with bees, ants, and chimps, among many more. We have a DNA-level instinct to seek safety in numbers and will look for social guidance of our behavior. This instinct creates a cohesive sense of cooperation and culture which would not otherwise be possible but also leads us to do foolish things if our group is doing them as well.

10.  Narrative Instinct Human beings have been appropriately called “the storytelling animal” because of our instinct to construct and seek meaning in narrative. It’s likely that long before we developed the ability to write or to create objects, we were telling stories and thinking in stories. Nearly all social organizations, from religious institutions to corporations to nation-states, run on constructions of the narrative instinct.

11. Curiosity Instinct We like to call other species curious, but we are the most curious of all, an instinct which led us out of the savanna and led us to learn a great deal about the world around us, using that information to create the world in our collective minds. The curiosity instinct leads to unique human behavior and forms of organization like the scientific enterprise. Even before there were direct incentives to innovate, humans innovated out of curiosity.

12. Language Instinct The psychologist Steven Pinker calls our DNA-level instinct to learn grammatically constructed language the Language Instinct. The idea that grammatical language is not a simple cultural artifact was first popularized by the linguist Noam Chomsky. As we saw with the narrative instinct, we use these instincts to create shared stories, as well as to gossip, solve problems, and fight, among other things. Grammatically ordered language theoretically carries infinite varying meaning.

13. First-Conclusion Bias As Charlie Munger famously pointed out, the mind works a bit like a sperm and egg: the first idea gets in and then the mind shuts. Like many other tendencies, this is probably an energy-saving device. Our tendency to settle on first conclusions leads us to accept many erroneous results and cease asking questions; it can be countered with some simple and useful mental routines.

14.  Tendency to Overgeneralize from Small Samples It’s important for human beings to generalize; we need not see every instance to understand the general rule, and this works to our advantage. With generalizing, however, comes a subset of errors when we forget about the Law of Large Numbers and act as if it does not exist. We take a small number of instances and create a general category, even if we have no statistically sound basis for the conclusion.

15. Relative Satisfaction/Misery Tendencies The envy tendency is probably the most obvious manifestation of the relative satisfaction tendency, but nearly all studies of human happiness show that it is related to the state of the person relative to either their past or their peers, not absolute. These relative tendencies cause us great misery or happiness in a very wide variety of objectively different situations and make us poor predictors of our own behavior and feelings.

16.  Commitment & Consistency Bias As psychologists have frequently and famously demonstrated, humans are subject to a bias towards keeping their prior commitments and staying consistent with our prior selves when possible. This trait is necessary for social cohesion: people who often change their conclusions and habits are often distrusted. Yet our bias towards staying consistent can become, as one wag put it, a “hobgoblin of foolish minds” – when it is combined with the first-conclusion bias, we end up landing on poor answers and standing pat in the face of great evidence.

17.  Hindsight Bias Once we know the outcome, it’s nearly impossible to turn back the clock mentally. Our narrative instinct leads us to reason that we knew it all along (whatever “it” is), when in fact we are often simply reasoning post-hoc with information not available to us before the event. The hindsight bias explains why it’s wise to keep a journal of important decisions for an unaltered record and to re-examine our beliefs when we convince ourselves that we knew it all along.

18.  Sensitivity to Fairness Justice runs deep in our veins. In another illustration of our relative sense of well-being, we are careful arbiters of what is fair. Violations of fairness can be considered grounds for reciprocal action, or at least distrust. Yet fairness itself seems to be a moving target. What is seen as fair and just in one time and place may not be in another. Consider that slavery has been seen as perfectly natural and perfectly unnatural in alternating phases of human existence.

19. Tendency to Overestimate Consistency of Behavior ( Fundamental Attribution Error ) We tend to over-ascribe the behavior of others to their innate traits rather than to situational factors, leading us to overestimate how consistent that behavior will be in the future. In such a situation, predicting behavior seems not very difficult. Of course, in practice this assumption is consistently demonstrated to be wrong, and we are consequently surprised when others do not act in accordance with the “innate” traits we’ve endowed them with.

20. Influence of Stress (Including Breaking Points) Stress causes both mental and physiological responses and tends to amplify the other biases. Almost all human mental biases become worse in the face of stress as the body goes into a fight-or-flight response, relying purely on instinct without the emergency brake of Daniel Kahneman’s “System 2” type of reasoning. Stress causes hasty decisions, immediacy, and a fallback to habit, thus giving rise to the elite soldiers’ motto: “In the thick of battle, you will not rise to the level of your expectations, but fall to the level of your training.”

21. Survivorship Bias A major problem with historiography – our interpretation of the past – is that history is famously written by the victors. We do not see what Nassim Taleb calls the “silent grave” – the lottery ticket holders who did not win. Thus, we over-attribute success to things done by the successful agent rather than to randomness or luck, and we often learn false lessons by exclusively studying victors without seeing all of the accompanying losers who acted in the same way but were not lucky enough to succeed.

22.  Tendency to Want to Do Something (Fight/Flight, Intervention, Demonstration of Value, etc.) We might term this Boredom Syndrome: Most humans have the tendency to need to act, even when their actions are not needed. We also tend to offer solutions even when we do not have knowledge to solve the problem.

23. Falsification / Confirmation Bias What a man wishes, he also believes. Similarly, what we believe is what we choose to see. This is commonly referred to as the confirmation bias. It is a deeply ingrained mental habit, both energy-conserving and comfortable, to look for confirmations of long-held wisdom rather than violations. Yet the scientific process – including hypothesis generation, blind testing when needed, and objective statistical rigor – is designed to root out precisely the opposite, which is why it works so well when followed.

The modern scientific enterprise operates under the principle of falsification: A method is termed scientific if it can be stated in such a way that a certain defined result would cause it to be proved false. Pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-science operate and propagate by being unfalsifiable – as with astrology, we are unable to prove them either correct or incorrect because the conditions under which they would be shown false are never stated.

Good Thinking Guide: Mastering Critical Thinking and Mental Models

You want to access that wisdom when you realize that most problems have been considered and solved before. And that's the study of mental models and critical thinking. After my investigation on the podcast, I realized there is so much time saving from mastering mental models. So here's the guide to good thinking.

Introduction: Unleashing the Power of Critical Thinking and Mental Models

In a world filled with constant information and complex challenges, the ability to think critically and apply mental models is more valuable than ever.

Whether a student, professional, or lifelong learner, this beginner's guide will take you on a transformative journey toward mastering critical thinking and mental models .

The Foundation of Critical Thinking

Step 1: Develop Analytical Skills

Critical thinking begins with the mastery of analytical skills . Train your mind to dissect information, break down complex ideas, and identify critical components. A practical exercise is to read a news article and identify its main arguments, supporting evidence, and potential biases. You'll be better equipped to navigate the sea of information by honing this skill.

Step 2: Embrace a Structured Thought Process

Structured thinking provides a framework for organizing your thoughts. Start by outlining your ideas before writing an essay or solving a problem. Imagine you're planning a vacation – list the essential steps, such as choosing a destination, booking accommodations, and creating an itinerary. Applying this approach in your daily life enhances clarity and coherence in your thinking.

The Art of Hypothesis Building

Step 3: Formulate Educated Guesses (Hypotheses)

Formulating hypotheses involves making educated guesses based on available information. Suppose you're exploring the decline in local businesses. Your idea might be that the rise of e-commerce has impacted brick-and-mortar stores. As you gather data and analyze trends, your hypothesis can evolve, reflecting your more profound understanding of the situation.

Step 4: Validate Through Research and Experimentation

A hypothesis gains strength through validation. Research extensively, gather data, and conduct experiments if applicable. For instance, to test your hypothesis about e-commerce impact, analyze sales data before and after the rise of online shopping. The results will either confirm your hypothesis or guide you toward refining it.

Uncovering Insights Through Mental Models

Step 5: Embrace Different Mental Models

Mental models are frameworks that help you perceive the world from diverse perspectives. Explore models like the " Pareto Principle " or the " Five Whys ." If you're troubleshooting a recurring software issue, the Five Whys technique involves asking "why" five times to uncover the root cause. This broader understanding enriches your insights and enhances your problem-solving capabilities.

Step 6: Apply Mental Models in Real-Life Scenarios

Translating mental models into real-life scenarios sharpens your critical thinking . Imagine you're managing a project that consistently falls behind schedule. Applying the " Eisenhower Matrix " can help prioritize tasks based on urgency and importance. This approach ensures that essential duties receive attention, leading to better project management.

Mastering Problem-Solving Techniques

Step 7: Define the Problem Clearly

Effective problem-solving begins with a clear problem statement. Whether troubleshooting a malfunctioning gadget or addressing workplace conflicts, articulating the problem helps direct your efforts. For instance, to enhance team collaboration, define whether the issue lies in communication, conflicting goals, or other factors.

Step 8: Brainstorm and Evaluate Solutions

Engage in brainstorming sessions to generate potential solutions. Then, evaluate each solution's feasibility, considering resources, time, and impact. Suppose you're enhancing customer service at a restaurant. Brainstormed solutions might include implementing a feedback system or offering staff training. Evaluate these options based on their potential to address the underlying issue.

Evolving Insights and Problem-Solving

Step 9: Refine Insights and Adapt

As you gather insights and solve problems, remain open to evolution. Your understanding might deepen, prompting adjustments to your mental models or hypotheses. Continuing with the restaurant example, consider revising the approach or exploring a different mental model if the feedback system implementation doesn't yield the expected results.

Step 10: Cultivate a Growth Mindset

Critical thinking and mental models thrive in a growth mindset. Embrace challenges, learn from failures, and continuously seek to expand your knowledge. Read books that delve into critical thinking , such as Daniel Kahneman's " Thinking, Fast and Slow ," or explore mental models through " Super Thinking " by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann.

Empowering Your Cognitive Arsenal

Congratulations! You've embarked on a journey to harness the power of critical thinking and mental models . You've equipped yourself with a formidable cognitive arsenal by developing analytical skills , formulating hypotheses , embracing mental models , and mastering problem-solving techniques. Remember, these skills are not confined to academia; they're invaluable tools for making informed decisions, understanding the world, and navigating its complexities. As you apply these principles, your insights will deepen, and your problem-solving prowess will flourish.

Suggested Reading:

• " Thinking, Fast and Slow " by Daniel Kahneman
• " Super Thinking: The Big Book of Mental Models " by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann
• " How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day " by Michael J. Gelb
• " The Art of Thinking Clearly " by Rolf Dobelli
• " Critical Thinking: A User's Manual " by Debra Jackson and Paul Newberry

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE INSIGHTS NEWSLETTER

What Are Mental Models?

Imagine wielding a powerful lens that not only decodes the world’s intricacies but also shields you from the pitfalls of irrationality—welcome to the realm of mental models. The concept and application of the mental model concept is fervently endorsed by Charlie Munger, the Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, who could be called the ‘poster boy’…

Our Four Steps to Excellence Model

A guaranteed process to achieve change.

Imagine having a powerful lens that helps you make sense of the world’s complexities while protecting you from irrational decisions. Welcome to the world of mental models.

All change, whether you know it or not, starts through the lens of a mental model or paradigm. Therefore, as you can imagine, it is crucial to ensure you are using the right mental model to start with, otherwise all else that follows may be invalid.

This concept, championed by Charlie Munger, the Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, is all about using a multidisciplinary approach to thinking. Mental models are cognitive blueprints that can fundamentally change how you interact with and understand the world.

The Power of Mental Models

A mental model is essentially a framework for understanding how things work. It’s your internal map for interpreting the world, including concepts, relationships, and patterns. In situations where irrational thinking might lead you astray, mental models serve as a defense mechanism, guiding you through complexities with clarity and sound judgment. They enable you to develop innovative solutions and break free from irrational thought patterns.

Charlie Munger — The Poster Boy of Mental Models

Charlie Munger is a prime advocate for using multiple mental models to make better decisions. As Warren Buffett’s right-hand man at Berkshire Hathaway, Munger attributes his success to his ability to evaluate investments through a variety of mental models. He believes that the human brain needs a “latticework of models” to truly understand and retain knowledge. Here’s what Munger says about the importance of mental models:

“You can’t really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang ’em back. If the facts don’t hang together on a latticework of theory, you don’t have them in a usable form. You’ve got to have models in your head. And you’ve got to array your experience both vicarious and direct on this latticework of models.”

— CHARLIE MUNGER

The More Mental Models, The Better

Munger emphasizes that having a wide range of mental models significantly increases your chances of success. He often mentions the importance of continuous learning and expanding your mental toolkit:

“I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines. They go to bed every night a little wiser than they were when they got up, and boy does that help, particularly when you have a long run ahead of you.”

Practical Application of Mental Models

We’ve all been in situations where we’re stuck on a problem, and someone else comes along with a clear, logical solution. Often, they succeed not because they’re smarter, but because they used a different mental model to view the problem.

Scenario No. 1 — Personal Development

Sarah, a mid-level manager, feels stuck in her career. She wants to advance but is unsure how to develop the necessary skills and mindset.

Applying the Correct Mental Model

Sarah starts by adopting the “Growth Mindset” model, which emphasizes the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work.

Shift in Mindset/Paradigm

By embracing the growth mindset, Sarah shifts her perspective from feeling stuck to viewing challenges as opportunities for growth. She begins to see her current skills as the starting point, not the end.

Sarah enrolls in professional development courses, seeks feedback from her superiors, and actively seeks out new projects that push her boundaries.

Over time, Sarah gains new skills, builds confidence, and is promoted to a senior management position. Her proactive approach and newfound abilities also enhance her job satisfaction and career trajectory.

Scenario No. 2 — Emotional Intelligence

John struggles with managing his emotions at work, leading to conflicts with colleagues and a tense working environment.

John learns about the “Emotional Intelligence” model, which includes self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills.

John realizes the importance of understanding and managing his emotions and begins to view his emotional responses as areas for improvement rather than fixed traits.

He starts practicing mindfulness and reflection techniques to become more self-aware. John also attends workshops on emotional intelligence and begins to apply these principles in his daily interactions.

As John becomes more emotionally intelligent, he notices a significant improvement in his relationships at work. Conflicts decrease, collaboration increases, and John becomes known as a supportive and understanding colleague, improving overall team dynamics.

Scenario No. 3 — Leadership

Emily, a newly appointed team leader, finds it challenging to inspire and motivate her team, leading to low morale and productivity.

Emily adopts the “Servant Leadership” model, which focuses on the leader serving the team, emphasizing empathy, listening, and empowering others.

Emily shifts from a top-down leadership approach to one where she prioritizes her team’s needs and development.

She holds regular one-on-one meetings to understand her team members’ goals and challenges. Emily provides the necessary resources and support, encourages professional development, and recognizes team members’ achievements.

Over time, Emily’s team becomes more motivated and engaged. Productivity improves, and the team achieves its goals more effectively. Emily’s leadership style earns her respect and loyalty from her team, setting a positive example for others in the organization.

By following The Critical Thought Lab’s 4-step process—applying the right mental model, shifting mindset, taking action, and achieving change—you can effectively address and overcome real-world challenges in personal development, emotional intelligence, and leadership.

How Many Mental Models Are There?

There are hundreds of mental models across various disciplines. However, Munger suggests you don’t need to know them all. Instead, focus on the most important ones that can explain a wide range of phenomena. This approach is similar to Pareto’s Principle (the 80/20 rule), which states that 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. By mastering the most impactful mental models, you can understand and navigate the world more effectively.

“You may say, ‘my God, this is already getting way too tough.’ But, fortunately, it isn’t that tough — because 80 or 90 important models will carry about 90% of the freight in making you a worldly-wise person…”

Munger advises building a diverse knowledge base from multiple fields to gain a holistic understanding of the world. This interdisciplinary approach helps you analyze situations from different angles, spotting opportunities and risks that others might miss.

The Takeaway

The most valuable mental models are those with practical applications across various aspects of life. They help you make wise decisions and take effective actions. By cultivating a diverse set of mental models, you enhance your ability to think clearly, logically, and efficiently, ultimately making you better equipped to navigate life’s complexities.

Subscribe To Our Free Insights Newsletter

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at anytime.

• Productivity
• Thoughtful learning

Mental models: 13 thinking tools to boost your problem-solving skills

Imagine you've gone out to dinner with friends. You’ve just sat down at your favorite table at your favorite restaurant, looking forward to the evening ahead.

The waiter brings over your menus and tells you about the specials. It sounds like one of the dishes is really good — you've always wanted to try it, and the way they've described it sounds amazing.

You're mulling it over in your mind while the others order, and then it's your turn — and you just ask for the same meal you always get.

Sound familiar?

Whether it’s your favorite meal or the perfectly worn-in pair of jeans in your closet, this tendency to fall back on what we know rather than risk something unknown is the result of a common thinking tool called a mental model.

Mental models, like the status quo bias in the scenario above, represent how we perceive something to operate in the world based on what we have learned in our lives. We all use them to help us understand complex situations and predict what will happen. If leveraged well, they can be powerful thinking tools.

This article will explore the concept of mental models as thinking tools and uncover 13 mental models you can add to your toolkit of thinking skills.

Mental models as thinking tools

Most of the time, we're not as thoughtful as we think. While many of us consider ourselves capable of critical thinking, researchers say we tend to make snap judgments without using our knowledge.

For example, let’s try an exercise. Take a look at this image:

Did you immediately react based on what you think is about to happen?

Although there isn’t a picture showing what takes place next, most of us made a guess using a tool we weren't even aware of — a mental model. Through our mental model, we could predict a possible outcome (which hopefully didn’t involve any scratches or falls).

Many of our snap judgments and reactions — whether about a photo we see or a problem we encounter — are shaped by the mental models we use to view the world. We begin to develop mental models as soon as we are born and continue to develop them throughout our lives, using them as a thinking tool to make sense of life, solve problems, and make decisions.

We all start out with different sets of mental models — after all, we all have different experiences that shape our early lives. As we gain experiences and knowledge, we add more models to our toolkit and learn to see things in new ways.

Sometimes our mental models work against us. If we limit our thinking to only a few mental models, we can suffer from critical thinking barriers . However, when we actively pursue thoughtful learning and collect many mental models, they can be extremely valuable tools for critical and creative thinking.

Munger's Latticework of Mental Models

Mental models as thinking tools were first made popular by Charlie Munger in his 1995 " The Psychology of Human Misjudgment " speech at Harvard University. Entrepreneurs and thinkers have since embraced mental models to achieve success.

According to Munger's Latticework of Mental Models theory, we can use various thinking tools to see problems from several points of view. Combining mental models increases original thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills instead of relying on one frame of reference.

As Munger said , "All the wisdom of the world is not to be found in one little academic department ... 80 or 90 important models will carry about 90 percent of the freight in making you a worldly-wise person. And, of those, only a mere handful really carry very heavy freight."

This is why we need to keep learning — to expand our toolbox. The more mental models we have in our toolkit, the easier it is to find one that works for the situation.

A well-stocked toolbox is more effective at solving a problem than a single nail.

Focus like never before

Gather information, take notes, review, reflect, surface insights. All from one perfect, distraction-free interface.

13 valuable tools for your thinking skills toolkit

There are hundreds of mental models and thinking tools available, which can be overwhelming. Most of us are familiar with concepts like the Eisenhower Matrix and brainstorming. However, we can use many other mental models for creative and critical thinking. Here are 13 thinking tools to boost decision-making, problem-solving, and creative thinking skills.

1. First Principles

First principle thinking is a mental model that can be used for problem-solving by breaking things down to the most basic level. This thinking tool is based on the idea that all complex problems can be reduced to more specific, fundamental parts. Using first-principles thinking, you identify the underlying causes of a problem and then find the best solutions that address those root causes.

For instance, it would be impossible to pack up your entire house at once if you were moving. To pack efficiently and safely, you’d need to go room by room, tackling one room at a time.

2. Inversion

Inversion is a technique used to generate ideas of creative solutions to problems by imagining the opposite of them. Inversion is higher-order thinking that requires thinking about the solution you don't want. With inverted thinking, you consider how something might fail and then try to avoid those mistakes. This approach differs from "working backward," another way of doing things that encourages you to begin with the desired end solution in mind.

3. Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is a mental model that can simplify complex problems and situations by determining which explanation is most likely. This thinking tool is based on the principle that the simplest answer is usually correct. When using Occam's Razor, you should look for the most obvious, straightforward reasoning that fits all facts.

4. Bloom's Taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy is a mental model used for categorizing the knowledge levels of learners. The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning domains are grouped into three hierarchical levels, with each level encompassing the previous one. In a hierarchical structure, areas of knowledge begin with simple skills and progress to higher-order thinking.

The six levels of Bloom's Taxonomy are:

• Knowledge: Recalling or recognizing facts and information
• Comprehension: Understanding the meaning of information
• Application: Using information in new ways
• Analysis: Breaking down information into smaller parts
• Synthesis: Putting pieces of information together to form a new whole
• Evaluation: Making judgments about the value of information

By applying the actions from each level of this tool, we can analyze situations from different angles and find more comprehensive solutions.

5. Incentives

Incentives are a model that can be used to encourage desired behavior. Based on a cause and effect concept, people will be more likely to act if they are given an incentive to do so. The incentives can be monetary, such as a bonus or commission, or non-monetary, such as recognition or privileges.

6. Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error is characterized by the tendency to focus too much on personal characteristics and not enough on circumstances when judging others. This mental model believes that people's actions reflect who they are without considering their point of view. This can lead to misunderstanding and conflict.

For example, it's easy to get angry and lash out at someone who cuts you off in traffic without considering that maybe they are rushing to the hospital for an emergency. Keeping this model in mind can help us avoid over-simplifying behavior.

7. Law of Diminishing Returns

The Law of Diminishing Returns provides a way to determine when it’s no longer efficient to continue investing in something. This thinking tool is based on the idea that there’s a point at which additional investment in something will result in diminishing returns.

The law of diminishing returns is often used in higher-level business decisions to determine when to stop investing in a project, but it’s also used in other forms of decision-making. Research has found that decision-makers tend to use a "matching" strategy in which they make their choice based on the relative value each option has.

8. Redundancy

The redundancy theory suggests that learners retain less new knowledge if the same information is presented in multiple ways or if it’s unnecessarily elaborate. Studies have shown that using several sources to relay information, such as text, visuals, and audio can create a lack of focus and less learning. Integrating the redundancy model can help teachers and leaders make learning more efficient.

9. Hanlon's Razor

Hanlon's Razor is a mental model that suggests most mistakes are not made maliciously. The purpose of this tool is to remind us not to assume the worst in the actions of others. Hanlon's Razor can help us see the situation from another's point of view and have more empathy, therefore avoiding making wrong assumptions.

For example, friends who aren't answering their mobile phones most likely aren't mad at you. Maybe they're just busy, or perhaps there are various other reasons to explain their delay.

10. Common Knowledge

We usually think of common knowledge as universal facts most people understand. However, the mental model of common knowledge is a little different. Used as a thinking tool, it focuses on pooling together the knowledge we don't share and taking into account the wisdom of others to help us make better decisions. Brainstorming, creating concept maps, and integrating feedback are useful tools we can use to share common knowledge.

11. Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias refers to the tendency to focus on successful people, businesses, and strategies while overlooking failed ones.

For example, the idea that all 21st-century Hollywood stars got there through hard work may underestimate the amount of networking used to achieve fame. The idea dismisses the millions of other actors who worked just as hard but didn't have the same connections.

This thinking process can lead to decision-making errors because it causes people to overestimate their chances of success. However, when used to frame thinking, understanding the survivorship bias can help us consider other points of view and avoid making incorrect decisions.

12. The Ladder of Inference

The Ladder of Inference is a mental model that helps explain why we make judgments quickly and unconsciously. The ladder illustrates the rapid steps our minds go through to make decisions and take action in any given situation. The seven steps are:

• Observations: The data or information that we carry in through our senses
• Selected Data: The process of our brain choosing which information is important and which to ignore
• Meanings: Making interpretations and judgments based on our experiences, beliefs, and values
• Assumptions: The views or beliefs that we hold that help us interpret the facts
• Conclusions: The decision or opinion that we form based on our assumptions
• Beliefs: The convictions that we have about ourselves and the world around us
• Actions: The way we act or respond based on our thoughts

Using the Ladder of Inference as a thinking tool can help us avoid rash judgments based on assumptions and ensure sound thinking.

Boost your productivity with ABLE app

Highlight, annotate or take notes from anywhere, and it's easily linked to a selected topic in your Knowledge Base.

13. 80/20 Rule

The 80/20 Rule is a thinking tool that we can use to understand the relationship between inputs and outputs. This model is based on the idea that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort. The 80/20 rule can be used to decide how to allocate resources.

Thinking tools are essential for a learner's toolkit

Every lifelong learner should have a toolbox of thinking tools. Mental models are helpful thinking tools that can enhance the creative and critical thinking processes. By having more tools at your disposal, you can approach any situation from various angles, increasing the probability of finding a successful solution.

Remember — building your thinking toolkit is an ongoing process. Keep learning, and you'll soon find that you're making better decisions consistently and solving problems more quickly.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Feel free to share, recommend and connect 🙏

Connect with me on Twitter 👉   https://twitter.com/iamborisv

And follow Able's journey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meet_able

And subscribe to our newsletter to read more valuable articles before it gets published on our blog.

Now we're building a Discord community of like-minded people, and we would be honoured and delighted to see you there.

Erin E. Rupp

Read more posts by this author

5 remedies for poor time management (and how to know if you need them)

Become a better critical thinker with these 7 critical thinking exercises.

What is abstract thinking? 10 activities to improve your abstract thinking skills

5 examples of cognitive learning theory (and how you can use them)

0 results found.

• Aegis Alpha SA
• We build in public

Building with passion in

Mental Models: The Key to Better Thinking & Decisions

The human brain takes in 11 million bits of information a second. But it can only process 40 to 50 bits a second. This applies beyond just our immediate senses, when we make decisions we don’t consider all the data. Instead, we use frameworks, systems and filters to help guide our decisions, and that’s where mental models come in.

In this article, I’ll take you through what they are, the benefits they bring and provide some example models that can help you reap the benefits of this approach to thinking.

Table of Contents

What are mental models?

A mental model is a representation (model) of how things work in the world. We each have mental models from our experiences and we use these to understand information, make predictions and decide on what we should do.

They may arise from observations in one area but can be applied to other fields.

By gaining new mental maps we can improve our decisions, predictions and understand of the world. In fact, some discoveries were only possible once people gained new ways of looking at the world.

Streamline making decisions

Making good decisions is hard and takes time.

Mental models can help us navigate new situations using thought patterns that have worked in the past. They can help us work out what actually matters even when we’re ignorant of the topic.

This means better decisions, faster even in new experiences.

Be a more critical thinker

We all fall into cognitive biases and logical fallacies now and then.

In fact, some are bad mental models we’ve picked up over time. By focusing on refining, replacing and adding new models, we can remove our blind spots and become more critical thinkers.

Improve your problem-solving skills

Mental models give you a tool kit to solve problems.

By gathering a set of ways to focus on the information that matters, understand what the data in front of you is saying and act in light of that data, you can solve problems more effectively. By using models from outside of your field, you can come up with unique solutions.

Learn and apply new ideas & skills faster

Mental models help us understand and breakdown new ideas and skills.

This is a critical step in learning a new topic or idea. By identifying the patterns and principles of an idea or skill, you can learn not just the theory but how it works in practice too.

Improve your communication and empathy

We don’t all see the world in the same way.

We have different experiences, background and thought processes that change our perspectives and actions. By understanding different models, we can better understand others’ viewpoints. This enables us to communicate more effectively.

Mental models let us live in someone else’s world.

Compounding benefits

Mental models compound over time.

The more models we acquire and learn when and how to apply them, the more they aid each other. We can even use models to figure out which model to use.

The sooner you start building your toolbox, the greater the benefits you’ll reap.

Mental models to explore

If you want some practical examples, explore this growing list that I’m curating. Each one has a hand drawn illustration to help you understand and remember the concept better.

The Circle of Competence: A Mental Model to Avoid Mistakes

How inversion can help you solve problems where you have no idea how to start, the power of second order thinking: making better decisions for a better life, occam’s razor: the atomic mental model, probabilistic thinking: how to make better decisions in an uncertain world, hanlon’s razor: reduce stress and build better relationships, the power of the 5 whys technique: a journey to root cause analysis, reversible vs. irreversible decisions: the key to avoiding overthinking, bike shedding: tackling the trivial and embracing priorities, inertia: a mental model to achieve real change, the tipping point: a mental model to help ideas spread, hofstadter’s law: why projects are always delayed, the power of compounding: unlocking exponential growth and long-term ‘success, the diderot effect: avoiding the spiral of consumerism, the power of divergent and convergent thinking, multiplying by zero: a mental model to avoid disaster, the principle of least effort, leverage: a mental model for maximum results, the 80/20 rule: getting more from less with the pareto principle, falsifiability: a mental model to search for truth, the rule of 7: unveiling the power of repetition in consumer choices, the lindy effect: a tool to predict longevity and value, antifragility: thriving in chaos and uncertainty, the benjamin franklin effect: favour-induced affection, lead and lag measures: two metrics to achieve your goals, want better meetings try the two pizza rule, the hawthorne effect: boost your productivity through awareness, start building your collection of mental maps.

By being more intentional about how we think and the filters and maps we use to look at the world, we can improve our thinking and decisions. Subscribe if you want new models in your inbox.

Chris Wilson

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

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

Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems

Diane f. halpern.

1 Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Emerita, Altadena, CA 91001, USA

Dana S. Dunn

2 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA; ude.naivarom@nnud

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. A high IQ is correlated with many important outcomes (e.g., academic prominence, reduced crime), but it does not protect against cognitive biases, partisan thinking, reactance, or confirmation bias, among others. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests. Similarly, some scholars argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Other investigators advocate for critical thinking as a model of intelligence specifically designed for addressing real-world problems. Yes, intelligence (i.e., critical thinking) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem such as COVID-19, which we use as an example of contemporary problems that need a new approach.

1. Introduction

The editors of this Special Issue asked authors to respond to a deceptively simple statement: “How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems.” This statement holds many complexities, including how intelligence is defined and which theories are designed to address real-world problems.

2. The Problem with Using Standardized IQ Measures for Real-World Problems

For the most part, we identify high intelligence as having a high score on a standardized test of intelligence. Like any test score, IQ can only reflect what is on the given test. Most contemporary standardized measures of intelligence include vocabulary, working memory, spatial skills, analogies, processing speed, and puzzle-like elements (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition; see ( Drozdick et al. 2012 )). Measures of IQ correlate with many important outcomes, including academic performance ( Kretzschmar et al. 2016 ), job-related skills ( Hunter and Schmidt 1996 ), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior ( Burhan et al. 2014 ), and for those with exceptionally high IQs, obtaining a doctorate and publishing scholarly articles ( McCabe et al. 2020 ). Gottfredson ( 1997, p. 81 ) summarized these effects when she said the “predictive validity of g is ubiquitous.” More recent research using longitudinal data, found that general mental abilities and specific abilities are good predictors of several work variables including job prestige, and income ( Lang and Kell 2020 ). Although assessments of IQ are useful in many contexts, having a high IQ does not protect against falling for common cognitive fallacies (e.g., blind spot bias, reactance, anecdotal reasoning), relying on biased and blatantly one-sided information sources, failing to consider information that does not conform to one’s preferred view of reality (confirmation bias), resisting pressure to think and act in a certain way, among others. This point was clearly articulated by Stanovich ( 2009, p. 3 ) when he stated that,” IQ tests measure only a small set of the thinking abilities that people need.”

3. Which Theories of Intelligence Are Relevant to the Question?

Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. For example, Grossmann et al. ( 2013 ) cite many studies in which IQ scores have not predicted well-being, including life satisfaction and longevity. Using a stratified random sample of Americans, these investigators found that wise reasoning is associated with life satisfaction, and that “there was no association between intelligence and well-being” (p. 944). (critical thinking [CT] is often referred to as “wise reasoning” or “rational thinking,”). Similar results were reported by Wirthwein and Rost ( 2011 ) who compared life satisfaction in several domains for gifted adults and adults of average intelligence. There were no differences in any of the measures of subjective well-being, except for leisure, which was significantly lower for the gifted adults. Additional research in a series of experiments by Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that participants with high cognitive ability were as likely as others to endorse positions that are consistent with their biases, and they were equally likely to prefer one-sided arguments over those that provided a balanced argument. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests (e.g., Sternberg 2019 ). Similarly, Stanovich and West ( 2014 ) argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Halpern and Butler ( 2020 ) advocate for CT as a useful model of intelligence for addressing real-world problems because it was designed for this purpose. Although there is much overlap among these more recent theories, often using different terms for similar concepts, we use Halpern and Butler’s conceptualization to make our point: Yes, intelligence (i.e., CT) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem like COVID-19.

4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence

One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson ( 2020, p. 205 ): “the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life.” Using this definition, the question of whether intelligent thinking can solve a world problem like the novel coronavirus is a resounding “yes” because solutions to real-world novel problems are part of his definition. This is a popular idea in the general public. For example, over 1000 business managers and hiring executives said that they want employees who can think critically based on the belief that CT skills will help them solve work-related problems ( Hart Research Associates 2018 ).

We define CT 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 kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. International surveys conducted by the OECD ( 2019, p. 16 ) established “key information-processing competencies” that are “highly transferable, in that they are relevant to many social contexts and work situations; and ‘learnable’ and therefore subject to the influence of policy.” One of these skills is problem solving, which is one subset of CT skills.

The CT model of intelligence is comprised of two components: (1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level and (2) appropriate use of CT skills. The underlying idea is that CT skills can be identified, taught, and learned, and when they are recognized and applied in novel settings, the individual is demonstrating intelligent thought. CT skills include judging the credibility of an information source, making cost–benefit calculations, recognizing regression to the mean, understanding the limits of extrapolation, muting reactance responses, using analogical reasoning, rating the strength of reasons that support and fail to support a conclusion, and recognizing hindsight bias or confirmation bias, among others. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent in a variety of settings.

One of the key concepts in this model is that CT skills transfer in appropriate situations. Thus, assessments using situational judgments are needed to assess whether particular skills have transferred to a novel situation where it is appropriate. In an assessment created by the first author ( Halpern 2018 ), short paragraphs provide information about 20 different everyday scenarios (e.g., A speaker at the meeting of your local school board reported that when drug use rises, grades decline; so schools need to enforce a “war on drugs” to improve student grades); participants provide two response formats for every scenario: (a) constructed responses where they respond with short written responses, followed by (b) forced choice responses (e.g., multiple choice, rating or ranking of alternatives) for the same situations.

There is a large and growing empirical literature to support the assertion that CT skills can be learned and will transfer (when taught for transfer). See for example, Holmes et al. ( 2015 ), who wrote in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , that there was “significant and sustained improvement in students’ critical thinking behavior” (p. 11,199) for students who received CT instruction. Abrami et al. ( 2015, para. 1 ) concluded from a meta-analysis that “there are effective strategies for teaching CT skills, both generic and content specific, and CT dispositions, at all educational levels and across all disciplinary areas.” Abrami et al. ( 2008, para. 1 ), included 341 effect sizes in a meta-analysis. They wrote: “findings make it clear that improvement in students’ CT skills and dispositions cannot be a matter of implicit expectation.” A strong test of whether CT skills can be used for real-word problems comes from research by Butler et al. ( 2017 ). Community adults and college students (N = 244) completed several scales including an assessment of CT, an intelligence test, and an inventory of real-life events. Both CT scores and intelligence scores predicted individual outcomes on the inventory of real-life events, but CT was a stronger predictor.

Heijltjes et al. ( 2015, p. 487 ) randomly assigned participants to either a CT instruction group or one of six other control conditions. They found that “only participants assigned to CT instruction improved their reasoning skills.” Similarly, when Halpern et al. ( 2012 ) used random assignment of participants to either a learning group where they were taught scientific reasoning skills using a game format or a control condition (which also used computerized learning and was similar in length), participants in the scientific skills learning group showed higher proportional learning gains than students who did not play the game. As the body of additional supportive research is too large to report here, interested readers can find additional lists of CT skills and support for the assertion that these skills can be learned and will transfer in Halpern and Dunn ( Forthcoming ). There is a clear need for more high-quality research on the application and transfer of CT and its relationship to IQ.

5. Pandemics: COVID-19 as a Consequential Real-World Problem

A pandemic occurs when a disease runs rampant over an entire country or even the world. Pandemics have occurred throughout history: At the time of writing this article, COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic whose actual death rate is unknown but estimated with projections of several million over the course of 2021 and beyond ( Mega 2020 ). Although vaccines are available, it will take some time to inoculate most or much of the world’s population. Since March 2020, national and international health agencies have created a list of actions that can slow and hopefully stop the spread of COVID (e.g., wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, avoiding group gatherings), yet many people in the United States and other countries have resisted their advice.

Could instruction in CT encourage more people to accept and comply with simple life-saving measures? There are many possible reasons to believe that by increasing citizens’ CT abilities, this problematic trend can be reversed for, at least, some unknown percentage of the population. We recognize the long history of social and cognitive research showing that changing attitudes and behaviors is difficult, and it would be unrealistic to expect that individuals with extreme beliefs supported by their social group and consistent with their political ideologies are likely to change. For example, an Iranian cleric and an orthodox rabbi both claimed (separately) that the COVID-19 vaccine can make people gay ( Marr 2021 ). These unfounded opinions are based on deeply held prejudicial beliefs that we expect to be resistant to CT. We are targeting those individuals who beliefs are less extreme and may be based on reasonable reservations, such as concern about the hasty development of the vaccine and the lack of long-term data on its effects. There should be some unknown proportion of individuals who can change their COVID-19-related beliefs and actions with appropriate instruction in CT. CT can be a (partial) antidote for the chaos of the modern world with armies of bots creating content on social media, political and other forces deliberately attempting to confuse issues, and almost all media labeled “fake news” by social influencers (i.e., people with followers that sometimes run to millions on various social media). Here, are some CT skills that could be helpful in getting more people to think more critically about pandemic-related issues.

Reasoning by Analogy and Judging the Credibility of the Source of Information

Early communications about the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID from national health agencies were not consistent. In many regions of the world, the benefits of wearing masks incited prolonged and acrimonious debates ( Tang 2020 ). However, after the initial confusion, virtually all of the global and national health organizations (e.g., WHO, National Health Service in the U. K., U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) endorse masks as a way to slow the spread of COVID ( Cheng et al. 2020 ; Chu et al. 2020 ). However, as we know, some people do not trust governmental agencies and often cite the conflicting information that was originally given as a reason for not wearing a mask. There are varied reasons for refusing to wear a mask, but the one most often cited is that it is against civil liberties ( Smith 2020 ). Reasoning by analogy is an appropriate CT skill for evaluating this belief (and a key skill in legal thinking). It might be useful to cite some of the many laws that already regulate our behavior such as, requiring health inspections for restaurants, setting speed limits, mandating seat belts when riding in a car, and establishing the age at which someone can consume alcohol. Individuals would be asked to consider how the mandate to wear a mask compares to these and other regulatory laws.

Another reason why some people resist the measures suggested by virtually every health agency concerns questions about whom to believe. Could training in CT change the beliefs and actions of even a small percentage of those opposed to wearing masks? Such training would include considering the following questions with practice across a wide domain of knowledge: (a) Does the source have sufficient expertise? (b) Is the expertise recent and relevant? (c) Is there a potential for gain by the information source, such as financial gain? (d) What would the ideal information source be and how close is the current source to the ideal? (e) Does the information source offer evidence that what they are recommending is likely to be correct? (f) Have you traced URLs to determine if the information in front of you really came from the alleged source?, etc. Of course, not everyone will respond in the same way to each question, so there is little likelihood that we would all think alike, but these questions provide a framework for evaluating credibility. Donovan et al. ( 2015 ) were successful using a similar approach to improve dynamic decision-making by asking participants to reflect on questions that relate to the decision. Imagine the effect of rigorous large-scale education in CT from elementary through secondary schools, as well as at the university-level. As stated above, empirical evidence has shown that people can become better thinkers with appropriate instruction in CT. With training, could we encourage some portion of the population to become more astute at judging the credibility of a source of information? It is an experiment worth trying.

6. Making Cost—Benefit Assessments for Actions That Would Slow the Spread of COVID-19

Historical records show that refusal to wear a mask during a pandemic is not a new reaction. The epidemic of 1918 also included mandates to wear masks, which drew public backlash. Then, as now, many people refused, even when they were told that it was a symbol of “wartime patriotism” because the 1918 pandemic occurred during World War I ( Lovelace 2020 ). CT instruction would include instruction in why and how to compute cost–benefit analyses. Estimates of “lives saved” by wearing a mask can be made meaningful with graphical displays that allow more people to understand large numbers. Gigerenzer ( 2020 ) found that people can understand risk ratios in medicine when the numbers are presented as frequencies instead of probabilities. If this information were used when presenting the likelihood of illness and death from COVID-19, could we increase the numbers of people who understand the severity of this disease? Small scale studies by Gigerenzer have shown that it is possible.

Analyzing Arguments to Determine Degree of Support for a Conclusion

The process of analyzing arguments requires that individuals rate the strength of support for and against a conclusion. By engaging in this practice, they must consider evidence and reasoning that may run counter to a preferred outcome. Kozyreva et al. ( 2020 ) call the deliberate failure to consider both supporting and conflicting data “deliberate ignorance”—avoiding or failing to consider information that could be useful in decision-making because it may collide with an existing belief. When applied to COVID-19, people would have to decide if the evidence for and against wearing a face mask is a reasonable way to stop the spread of this disease, and if they conclude that it is not, what are the costs and benefits of not wearing masks at a time when governmental health organizations are making them mandatory in public spaces? Again, we wonder if rigorous and systematic instruction in argument analysis would result in more positive attitudes and behaviors that relate to wearing a mask or other real-world problems. We believe that it is an experiment worth doing.

7. Conclusions

We believe that teaching CT is a worthwhile approach for educating the general public in order to improve reasoning and motivate actions to address, avert, or ameliorate real-world problems like the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that CT can guide intelligent responses to societal and global problems. We are NOT claiming that CT skills will be a universal solution for the many real-world problems that we confront in contemporary society, or that everyone will substitute CT for other decision-making practices, but we do believe that systematic education in CT can help many people become better thinkers, and we believe that this is an important step toward creating a society that values and practices routine CT. The challenges are great, but the tools to tackle them are available, if we are willing to use them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.F.H. and D.S.D.; resources, D.F.H.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, D.F.H.; writing—review and editing, D.F.H. and D.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No IRB Review.

Informed Consent Statement

No Informed Consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Wade C. Anne, Surkes Michael A., Tamim Rana, Zhang Dai. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A Stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2008; 78 :1102–34. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrami Philip C., Bernard Robert M., Borokhovski Evgueni, Waddington David I., Wade C. Anne. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2015; 85 :275–341. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burhan Nik Ahmad Sufian, Kurniawan Yohan, Sidek Abdul Halim, Mohamad Mohd Rosli. Crimes and the Bell curve: Th e role of people with high, average, and low intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.08.005. [ CrossRef ] [ 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 ]
• Cheng Vincent Chi-Chung, Wong Shuk-Ching, Chuang Vivien Wai-Man, So Simon Yung-Chun, Chen Jonathan Hon-Kwan, Sridhar Sidharth, To Kelvin Kai-Wwang, Chan Jasper Fuk-Wu, Hung Ivan Fan-Ngai, Ho Pak-Leung, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Infectious Disease. 2020; 81 :107–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu Derek K., Aki Elie A., Duda Stephanie, Solo Karla, Yaacoub Sally, Schunemann Holger J. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A system atic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020; 395 :1973–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan Sarah J., Guss C. Dominick, Naslund Dag. Improving dynamic decision-making through training and self-re flection. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :284–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drozdick Lisa Whipple, Wahlstrom Dustin, Zhu Jianjun, Weiss Lawrence G. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition. In: Flanagan Dawn P., Harrison Patti L., editors. Contemporary Intellectual as Sessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. The Guilford Press; New York: 2012. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer Gerd. When all is just a click away: Is critical thinking obsolete in the digital age? In: Sternberg Robert J., Halpern Diane F., editors. Critical Thinking IN Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 197–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfredson Linda S. Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence. 1997; 24 :79–132. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossmann Igor, Varnum Michael E. W., Na Jinkyung, Kitayama Shinobu, Nisbett Richard E. A route to well-being: Intelligence ver sus wise reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013; 142 :944–53. doi: 10.1037/a0029560. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F. Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. Schuhfried Test Publishers; Modling: 2018. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]. Available online: www.schuhfried.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The nature of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana S. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Taylor & Francis; New York: Forthcoming. in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halpern Diane F., Millis Keith, Graesser Arthur, Butler Heather, Forsyth Carol, Cai Zhiqiang. Operation ARA: A computerized learn ing game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2012; 7 :93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart Research Associates [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Employers Express Confidence in Colleges and Universities: See College as Worth the Investment, New Research Finds. 2018 Aug 29; Available online: https://hartresearch.com/employers-express-confidence-in-colleges-and-universities-see-college-as-worth-the-investment-new-research-finds/
• Heijltjes Anita, Gog Tamara van, Lippink Jimmie, Paas Fred. Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self-explanation on students’ reasoning performance. Instructional Science. 2015; 43 :487–506. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9347-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes Natasha G., Wieman Carl E., Bonn DougA. Teaching critical thinking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 :11199–204. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1505329112. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter John E., Schmidt Frank L. Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 1996; 2 :447–72. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.2.3-4.447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozyreva Anastasia, Lewandowsky Stephan, Hertwig Ralph. Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2020 21 doi: 10.1177/1529100620946707. Available online: https://www.psychologi calscience.org/publications/confronting-digital-challenges-with-cognitive-tools.html [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kretzschmar Andre, Neubert Jonas C., Wusternberg Sascha, Greiff Samuel. Construct validity of complex problem- solv ing: A comprehensive view on different facts of intelligence and school grades. Intelligence. 2016; 54 :55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lang Jonas W.B., Kell Harrison J. General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020; 105 :1047–61. doi: 10.1037/apl0000472. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovelace Berkeley., Jr. Medical Historians Compare the Coronavirus to the 1918 Flu Pandemic: Both Were Highly Political. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; CNBC. 2020 Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/comparing-1918-flu-vs-corona virus.html?fbclid=IwAR1RAVRUOIdN9qqvNnMPimf5Q4XfV-pn_qdC3DwcfnPu9kavwumDI2zq9Xs
• Marr Rhuaridh. Iranian Cleric Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Can Make People Gay. [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Metro Weekly. 2021 Available online: https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/02/iranian-cleric-claims-covid-19-vaccine-can-make-people-gay/
• McCabe Kira O., Lubinski David, Benbow Camilla P. Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2020; 119 :390–416. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000239. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mega Emiliano R. COVID Has Killed more than One Million People. How Many more will Die? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; Nature. 2020 Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02762-y [ PubMed ]
• Nickerson Raymond S. Developing intelligence through instruction. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2020. pp. 205–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion. 3rd ed. OECD Publishing; Paris: 2019. OECD Skills Studies. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Matthew. Why won’t Britons Wear Face Masks? [(accessed on 30 March 2021)]; YouGov. 2020 Available online: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/07/15/why-wont-britons-wear-face-masks
• 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. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict my-side bias and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. What intelligence tests miss. The Psychologist. 2014; 27 :80–83. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews201126216. [ CrossRef ] [ 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 ]
• Tang Julian W. COVID-19: Interpreting scientific evidence—Uncertainty, confusion, and delays. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2020; 20 :653. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05387-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirthwein Linda, Rost Detlef H. Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individuals Differences. 2011; 21 :182–86. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

More From Forbes

5 time tested mental models to help you become a better change leader.

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

Millenial young woman with short blonde hair portrait sitting and meditate with ok sign mudra on ... [+] gray blue background

In today's fast-paced environment, effective change leadership is essential. However, navigating the complexities of transformation can be daunting. This is where mental models come into play. Mental models are cognitive frameworks that help us comprehend and interpret our surroundings. For change leaders, these models can serve as valuable tools, enabling clearer thinking and better decision-making. Let's explore five time-tested mental models that can elevate your change leadership abilities.

First Principles Thinking

First Principles Thinking is about deconstructing complex problems into their most basic elements. It allows leaders to identify the core truths and build solutions from the ground up.

Why is this relevant to leading change? Because change often involves complex challenges with many moving parts. By breaking down these challenges to their fundamental components, you can uncover innovative solutions and avoid getting bogged down by assumptions and conventions. It's like stripping down a machine to its essential parts to understand how it works and how it can be improved.

How can you practice First Principles Thinking? Start by questioning every assumption related to the change you're leading. Ask yourself, "What do I know for sure?" and "Why is this important?" Challenge the status quo and encourage your team to do the same. When faced with a problem, try to reconstruct it from scratch, focusing on the fundamental truths rather than accepted practices.

Second Order Thinking

Second Order Thinking involves considering the long-term consequences of decisions, not just the immediate outcomes. It's about thinking several steps ahead.

‘Squad’ Rep. Jamaal Bowman Unseated By Latimer In Pricey New York Primary

Samsung teases new galaxy z fold 6 with early email, long-predicted space war 1 has started: free-world allies are winning.

Why is this mental model crucial for change leaders? Because any significant change will have ripple effects throughout an organization. These effects aren't always immediately apparent and failing to anticipate them can lead to unforeseen challenges. By adopting Second Order Thinking, you can better prepare for and mitigate potential negative impacts, ensuring a smoother transition.

To incorporate Second Order Thinking into your decision-making, always ask, "And then what?" Consider the cascading effects of your actions. For example, if you're implementing a new technology, think beyond its immediate benefits and consider how it might affect workflow, employee morale and customer experience in the long run. This holistic approach will help you make more informed and sustainable decisions.

Inversion Technique

The Inversion Technique is about thinking backward to move forward. Instead of asking how to achieve a goal, you consider what might prevent you from achieving it.

Why is inversion relevant to leading change? Because identifying potential obstacles and pitfalls in advance can help you avoid them. It forces you to look at the change process from a different angle, revealing blind spots and helping you develop more robust strategies.

To practice the Inversion Technique, start by envisioning the worst-case scenarios. Ask yourself, "What could go wrong?" and "What would failure look like?" Once you have a clear picture of potential pitfalls, you can take proactive steps to address them. This negative visualization can be a powerful tool for risk management and contingency planning, ensuring you're prepared for any eventuality.

The Pareto Principle

The Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, suggests that 80% of outcomes result from 20% of efforts. It's about focusing on what truly matters.

Why should change leaders care about the Pareto Principle? Because in any change initiative, resources are limited. By identifying and concentrating on the critical few factors that will have the most significant impact, you can maximize efficiency and effectiveness. It's about working smarter, not harder.

To apply the Pareto Principle, start by analyzing your change initiative to identify the key drivers of success. Ask yourself, "What are the 20% of activities that will yield 80% of the results?" Focus your energy and resources on these high-impact areas. This targeted approach will help you achieve more with less, driving meaningful progress without overextending your team.

The Map is not Your Territory

This mental model reminds us that our perceptions and representations of reality are just that—representations. They are not the reality itself.

Why is this distinction important for leading change? Because leaders often rely on data, reports, and plans to guide their decisions. While these tools are valuable, they can never fully capture the complexity and nuances of real-world situations. Recognizing this limitation helps you stay adaptable and responsive to actual conditions as they unfold.

To practice this mental model, remain open-minded and flexible. Regularly validate your assumptions and plans against the real-world outcomes. Engage with your team and stakeholders to gather diverse perspectives and feedback. The goal is to adapt and iterate based on what you learn, not to rigidly follow a plan that might become outdated or incomplete.

These models provide frameworks for navigating the intricacies of transformation, helping you to break down complex problems, foresee long-term impacts, identify potential obstacles, focus on high-impact activities and remain adaptable to real-world conditions. Embrace these mental models as part of your change leadership toolkit and you'll be well-equipped to lead your organization through successful change.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

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

Forbes Community Guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how can you be a power user?

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

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

Get smarter with 100 thinking tools

A collection of mental models, cognitive biases and metacognitive frameworks all written by a friendly ai..

View Tools Learn More

Mental Models

Apply simple explanations and representations to better navigate our complex world.

Cognitive Biases

Correct the systematic errors in thinking that occur when you process information in the world around you.

Metacognitive Frameworks

Reflect on the information at your disposal and how it connects together to make better decisions.

Thinking Tools

Add these tools to your thinking toolbox for smarter and faster decision-making.

Butterfly Effect

A mental model that helps explain how small changes can cause large changes in the future.

• Learn this model

Confirmation Bias

A cognitive bias that leads us to favor information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs.

• Avoid this bias

Uncertainty Matrix

A metacognitive framework used to differentiate between different types of uncertainties.

• Apply this framework

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

How do critical thinking ability and critical thinking disposition relate to the mental health of university students.

• School of Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Theories of psychotherapy suggest that human mental problems associate with deficiencies in critical thinking. However, it currently remains unclear whether both critical thinking skill and critical thinking disposition relate to individual differences in mental health. This study explored whether and how the critical thinking ability and critical thinking disposition of university students associate with individual differences in mental health in considering impulsivity that has been revealed to be closely related to both critical thinking and mental health. Regression and structural equation modeling analyses based on a Chinese university student sample ( N = 314, 198 females, M age = 18.65) revealed that critical thinking skill and disposition explained a unique variance of mental health after controlling for impulsivity. Furthermore, the relationship between critical thinking and mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity (acting on the spur of the moment) and non-planning impulsivity (making decisions without careful forethought). These findings provide a preliminary account of how human critical thinking associate with mental health. Practically, developing mental health promotion programs for university students is suggested to pay special attention to cultivating their critical thinking dispositions and enhancing their control over impulsive behavior.

Introduction

Although there is no consistent definition of critical thinking (CT), it is usually described as “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanations of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations that judgment is based upon” ( Facione, 1990 , p. 2). This suggests that CT is a combination of skills and dispositions. The skill aspect mainly refers to higher-order cognitive skills such as inference, analysis, and evaluation, while the disposition aspect represents one's consistent motivation and willingness to use CT skills ( Dwyer, 2017 ). An increasing number of studies have indicated that CT plays crucial roles in the activities of university students such as their academic performance (e.g., Ghanizadeh, 2017 ; Ren et al., 2020 ), professional work (e.g., Barry et al., 2020 ), and even the ability to cope with life events (e.g., Butler et al., 2017 ). An area that has received less attention is how critical thinking relates to impulsivity and mental health. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between CT (which included both CT skill and CT disposition), impulsivity, and mental health among university students.

Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Mental Health

Associating critical thinking with mental health is not without reason, since theories of psychotherapy have long stressed a linkage between mental problems and dysfunctional thinking ( Gilbert, 2003 ; Gambrill, 2005 ; Cuijpers, 2019 ). Proponents of cognitive behavioral therapy suggest that the interpretation by people of a situation affects their emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions. Those with mental problems are inclined to bias or heuristic thinking and are more likely to misinterpret neutral or even positive situations ( Hollon and Beck, 2013 ). Therefore, a main goal of cognitive behavioral therapy is to overcome biased thinking and change maladaptive beliefs via cognitive modification skills such as objective understanding of one's cognitive distortions, analyzing evidence for and against one's automatic thinking, or testing the effect of an alternative way of thinking. Achieving these therapeutic goals requires the involvement of critical thinking, such as the willingness and ability to critically analyze one's thoughts and evaluate evidence and arguments independently of one's prior beliefs. In addition to theoretical underpinnings, characteristics of university students also suggest a relationship between CT and mental health. University students are a risky population in terms of mental health. They face many normative transitions (e.g., social and romantic relationships, important exams, financial pressures), which are stressful ( Duffy et al., 2019 ). In particular, the risk increases when students experience academic failure ( Lee et al., 2008 ; Mamun et al., 2021 ). Hong et al. (2010) found that the stress in Chinese college students was primarily related to academic, personal, and negative life events. However, university students are also a population with many resources to work on. Critical thinking can be considered one of the important resources that students are able to use ( Stupple et al., 2017 ). Both CT skills and CT disposition are valuable qualities for college students to possess ( Facione, 1990 ). There is evidence showing that students with a higher level of CT are more successful in terms of academic performance ( Ghanizadeh, 2017 ; Ren et al., 2020 ), and that they are better at coping with stressful events ( Butler et al., 2017 ). This suggests that that students with higher CT are less likely to suffer from mental problems.

Empirical research has reported an association between CT and mental health among college students ( Suliman and Halabi, 2007 ; Kargar et al., 2013 ; Yoshinori and Marcus, 2013 ; Chen and Hwang, 2020 ; Ugwuozor et al., 2021 ). Most of these studies focused on the relationship between CT disposition and mental health. For example, Suliman and Halabi (2007) reported that the CT disposition of nursing students was positively correlated with their self-esteem, but was negatively correlated with their state anxiety. There is also a research study demonstrating that CT disposition influenced the intensity of worry in college students either by increasing their responsibility to continue thinking or by enhancing the detached awareness of negative thoughts ( Yoshinori and Marcus, 2013 ). Regarding the relationship between CT ability and mental health, although there has been no direct evidence, there were educational programs examining the effect of teaching CT skills on the mental health of adolescents ( Kargar et al., 2013 ). The results showed that teaching CT skills decreased somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and insomnia in adolescents. Another recent CT skill intervention also found a significant reduction in mental stress among university students, suggesting an association between CT skills and mental health ( Ugwuozor et al., 2021 ).

The above research provides preliminary evidence in favor of the relationship between CT and mental health, in line with theories of CT and psychotherapy. However, previous studies have focused solely on the disposition aspect of CT, and its link with mental health. The ability aspect of CT has been largely overlooked in examining its relationship with mental health. Moreover, although the link between CT and mental health has been reported, it remains unknown how CT (including skill and disposition) is associated with mental health.

Impulsivity as a Potential Mediator Between Critical Thinking and Mental Health

One important factor suggested by previous research in accounting for the relationship between CT and mental health is impulsivity. Impulsivity is recognized as a pattern of action without regard to consequences. Patton et al. (1995) proposed that impulsivity is a multi-faceted construct that consists of three behavioral factors, namely, non-planning impulsiveness, referring to making a decision without careful forethought; motor impulsiveness, referring to acting on the spur of the moment; and attentional impulsiveness, referring to one's inability to focus on the task at hand. Impulsivity is prominent in clinical problems associated with psychiatric disorders ( Fortgang et al., 2016 ). A number of mental problems are associated with increased impulsivity that is likely to aggravate clinical illnesses ( Leclair et al., 2020 ). Moreover, a lack of CT is correlated with poor impulse control ( Franco et al., 2017 ). Applications of CT may reduce impulsive behaviors caused by heuristic and biased thinking when one makes a decision ( West et al., 2008 ). For example, Gregory (1991) suggested that CT skills enhance the ability of children to anticipate the health or safety consequences of a decision. Given this, those with high levels of CT are expected to take a rigorous attitude about the consequences of actions and are less likely to engage in impulsive behaviors, which may place them at a low risk of suffering mental problems. To the knowledge of the authors, no study has empirically tested whether impulsivity accounts for the relationship between CT and mental health.

This study examined whether CT skill and disposition are related to the mental health of university students; and if yes, how the relationship works. First, we examined the simultaneous effects of CT ability and CT disposition on mental health. Second, we further tested whether impulsivity mediated the effects of CT on mental health. To achieve the goals, we collected data on CT ability, CT disposition, mental health, and impulsivity from a sample of university students. The results are expected to shed light on the mechanism of the association between CT and mental health.

Participants and Procedure

A total of 314 university students (116 men) with an average age of 18.65 years ( SD = 0.67) participated in this study. They were recruited by advertisements from a local university in central China and majoring in statistics and mathematical finance. The study protocol was approved by the Human Subjects Review Committee of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Each participant signed a written informed consent describing the study purpose, procedure, and right of free. All the measures were administered in a computer room. The participants were tested in groups of 20–30 by two research assistants. The researchers and research assistants had no formal connections with the participants. The testing included two sections with an interval of 10 min, so that the participants had an opportunity to take a break. In the first section, the participants completed the syllogistic reasoning problems with belief bias (SRPBB), the Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCSTS-CV), and the Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), respectively. In the second session, they completed the Barrett Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11), Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), and University Personality Inventory (UPI) in the given order.

Measures of Critical Thinking Ability

The Chinese version of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test was employed to measure CT skills ( Lin, 2018 ). The CCTST is currently the most cited tool for measuring CT skills and includes analysis, assessment, deduction, inductive reasoning, and inference reasoning. The Chinese version included 34 multiple choice items. The dependent variable was the number of correctly answered items. The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the CCTST is 0.56 ( Jacobs, 1995 ). The test–retest reliability of CCTST-CV is 0.63 ( p < 0.01) ( Luo and Yang, 2002 ), and correlations between scores of the subscales and the total score are larger than 0.5 ( Lin, 2018 ), supporting the construct validity of the scale. In this study among the university students, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the CCTST-CV was 0.5.

The second critical thinking test employed in this study was adapted from the belief bias paradigm ( Li et al., 2021 ). This task paradigm measures the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments independently of one's prior beliefs ( West et al., 2008 ), which is a strongly emphasized skill in CT literature. The current test included 20 syllogistic reasoning problems in which the logical conclusion was inconsistent with one's prior knowledge (e.g., “Premise 1: All fruits are sweet. Premise 2: Bananas are not sweet. Conclusion: Bananas are not fruits.” valid conclusion). In addition, four non-conflict items were included as the neutral condition in order to avoid a habitual response from the participants. They were instructed to suppose that all the premises are true and to decide whether the conclusion logically follows from the given premises. The measure showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.83) in a Chinese sample ( Li et al., 2021 ). In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the SRPBB was 0.94.

Measures of Critical Thinking Disposition

The Chinese Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory was employed to measure CT disposition ( Peng et al., 2004 ). This scale has been developed in line with the conceptual framework of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. We measured five CT dispositions: truth-seeking (one's objectivity with findings even if this requires changing one's preconceived opinions, e.g., a person inclined toward being truth-seeking might disagree with “I believe what I want to believe.”), inquisitiveness (one's intellectual curiosity. e.g., “No matter what the topic, I am eager to know more about it”), analyticity (the tendency to use reasoning and evidence to solve problems, e.g., “It bothers me when people rely on weak arguments to defend good ideas”), systematically (the disposition of being organized and orderly in inquiry, e.g., “I always focus on the question before I attempt to answer it”), and CT self-confidence (the trust one places in one's own reasoning processes, e.g., “I appreciate my ability to think precisely”). Each disposition aspect contained 10 items, which the participants rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale. This measure has shown high internal consistency (overall Cronbach's α = 0.9) ( Peng et al., 2004 ). In this study, the CCTDI scale was assessed at Cronbach's α = 0.89, indicating good reliability.

Measure of Impulsivity

The well-known Barrett Impulsivity Scale ( Patton et al., 1995 ) was employed to assess three facets of impulsivity: non-planning impulsivity (e.g., “I plan tasks carefully”); motor impulsivity (e.g., “I act on the spur of the moment”); attentional impulsivity (e.g., “I concentrate easily”). The scale includes 30 statements, and each statement is rated on a 5-point scale. The subscales of non-planning impulsivity and attentional impulsivity were reversely scored. The BIS-11 has good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.81, Velotti et al., 2016 ). This study showed that the Cronbach's α of the BIS-11 was 0.83.

Measures of Mental Health

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 was used to assess mental health problems such as depression (e.g., “I feel that life is meaningless”), anxiety (e.g., “I find myself getting agitated”), and stress (e.g., “I find it difficult to relax”). Each dimension included seven items, which the participants were asked to rate on a 4-point scale. The Chinese version of the DASS-21 has displayed a satisfactory factor structure and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92, Wang et al., 2016 ). In this study, the internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of the DASS-21 was 0.94.

The University Personality Inventory that has been commonly used to screen for mental problems of college students ( Yoshida et al., 1998 ) was also used for measuring mental health. The 56 symptom-items assessed whether an individual has experienced the described symptom during the past year (e.g., “a lack of interest in anything”). The UPI showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92) in a Chinese sample ( Zhang et al., 2015 ). This study showed that the Cronbach's α of the UPI was 0.85.

Statistical Analyses

We first performed analyses to detect outliers. Any observation exceeding three standard deviations from the means was replaced with a value that was three standard deviations. This procedure affected no more than 5‰ of observations. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which facets of critical thinking were related to mental health. In addition, structural equation modeling with Amos 22.0 was performed to assess the latent relationship between CT, impulsivity, and mental health.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of all the variables. CT disposition such as truth-seeking, systematicity, self-confidence, and inquisitiveness was significantly correlated with DASS-21 and UPI, but neither CCTST-CV nor SRPBB was related to DASS-21 and UPI. Subscales of BIS-11 were positively correlated with DASS-21 and UPI, but were negatively associated with CT dispositions.

Table 1 . Descriptive results and correlations between all measured variables ( N = 314).

Regression Analyses

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of CT skill and disposition on mental health. Before conducting the analyses, scores in DASS-21 and UPI were reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of mental health. Table 2 presents the results of hierarchical regression. In model 1, the sum of the Z-score of DASS-21 and UPI served as the dependent variable. Scores in the CT ability tests and scores in the five dimensions of CCTDI served as predictors. CT skill and disposition explained 13% of the variance in mental health. CT skills did not significantly predict mental health. Two dimensions of dispositions (truth seeking and systematicity) exerted significantly positive effects on mental health. Model 2 examined whether CT predicted mental health after controlling for impulsivity. The model containing only impulsivity scores (see model-2 step 1 in Table 2 ) explained 15% of the variance in mental health. Non-planning impulsivity and motor impulsivity showed significantly negative effects on mental health. The CT variables on the second step explained a significantly unique variance (6%) of CT (see model-2 step 2). This suggests that CT skill and disposition together explained the unique variance in mental health after controlling for impulsivity. 1

Table 2 . Hierarchical regression models predicting mental health from critical thinking skills, critical thinking dispositions, and impulsivity ( N = 314).

Structural equation modeling was performed to examine whether impulsivity mediated the relationship between CT disposition (CT ability was not included since it did not significantly predict mental health) and mental health. Since the regression results showed that only motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity significantly predicted mental health, we examined two mediation models with either motor impulsivity or non-planning impulsivity as the hypothesized mediator. The item scores in the motor impulsivity subscale were randomly divided into two indicators of motor impulsivity, as were the scores in the non-planning subscale. Scores of DASS-21 and UPI served as indicators of mental health and dimensions of CCTDI as indicators of CT disposition. In addition, a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples was established to test for direct and indirect effects. Amos 22.0 was used for the above analyses.

The mediation model that included motor impulsivity (see Figure 1 ) showed an acceptable fit, χ ( 23 ) 2 = 64.71, RMSEA = 0.076, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.073. Mediation analyses indicated that the 95% boot confidence intervals of the indirect effect and the direct effect were (0.07, 0.26) and (−0.08, 0.32), respectively. As Hayes (2009) indicates, an effect is significant if zero is not between the lower and upper bounds in the 95% confidence interval. Accordingly, the indirect effect between CT disposition and mental health was significant, while the direct effect was not significant. Thus, motor impulsivity completely mediated the relationship between CT disposition and mental health.

Figure 1 . Illustration of the mediation model: Motor impulsivity as mediator variable between critical thinking dispositions and mental health. CTD-l = Truth seeking; CTD-2 = Analyticity; CTD-3 = Systematically; CTD-4 = Self-confidence; CTD-5 = Inquisitiveness. MI-I and MI-2 were sub-scores of motor impulsivity. Solid line represents significant links and dotted line non-significant links. ** p < 0.01.

The mediation model, which included non-planning impulsivity (see Figure 2 ), also showed an acceptable fit to the data, χ ( 23 ) 2 = 52.75, RMSEA = 0.064, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06. The 95% boot confidence intervals of the indirect effect and the direct effect were (0.05, 0.33) and (−0.04, 0.38), respectively, indicating that non-planning impulsivity completely mediated the relationship between CT disposition and mental health.

Figure 2 . Illustration of the mediation model: Non-planning impulsivity asmediator variable between critical thinking dispositions and mental health. CTD-l = Truth seeking; CTD-2 = Analyticity; CTD-3 = Systematically; CTD-4 = Self-confidence; CTD-5 = Inquisitiveness. NI-I and NI-2 were sub-scores of Non-planning impulsivity. Solid line represents significant links and dotted line non-significant links. ** p < 0.01.

This study examined how critical thinking skill and disposition are related to mental health. Theories of psychotherapy suggest that human mental problems are in part due to a lack of CT. However, empirical evidence for the hypothesized relationship between CT and mental health is relatively scarce. This study explored whether and how CT ability and disposition are associated with mental health. The results, based on a university student sample, indicated that CT skill and disposition explained a unique variance in mental health. Furthermore, the effect of CT disposition on mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity. The finding that CT exerted a significant effect on mental health was in accordance with previous studies reporting negative correlations between CT disposition and mental disorders such as anxiety ( Suliman and Halabi, 2007 ). One reason lies in the assumption that CT disposition is usually referred to as personality traits or habits of mind that are a remarkable predictor of mental health (e.g., Benzi et al., 2019 ). This study further found that of the five CT dispositions, only truth-seeking and systematicity were associated with individual differences in mental health. This was not surprising, since the truth-seeking items mainly assess one's inclination to crave for the best knowledge in a given context and to reflect more about additional facts, reasons, or opinions, even if this requires changing one's mind about certain issues. The systematicity items target one's disposition to approach problems in an orderly and focused way. Individuals with high levels of truth-seeking and systematicity are more likely to adopt a comprehensive, reflective, and controlled way of thinking, which is what cognitive therapy aims to achieve by shifting from an automatic mode of processing to a more reflective and controlled mode.

Another important finding was that motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity mediated the effect of CT disposition on mental health. The reason may be that people lacking CT have less willingness to enter into a systematically analyzing process or deliberative decision-making process, resulting in more frequently rash behaviors or unplanned actions without regard for consequences ( Billieux et al., 2010 ; Franco et al., 2017 ). Such responses can potentially have tangible negative consequences (e.g., conflict, aggression, addiction) that may lead to social maladjustment that is regarded as a symptom of mental illness. On the contrary, critical thinkers have a sense of deliberativeness and consider alternate consequences before acting, and this thinking-before-acting mode would logically lead to a decrease in impulsivity, which then decreases the likelihood of problematic behaviors and negative moods.

It should be noted that although the raw correlation between attentional impulsivity and mental health was significant, regression analyses with the three dimensions of impulsivity as predictors showed that attentional impulsivity no longer exerted a significant effect on mental effect after controlling for the other impulsivity dimensions. The insignificance of this effect suggests that the significant raw correlation between attentional impulsivity and mental health was due to the variance it shared with the other impulsivity dimensions (especially with the non-planning dimension, which showed a moderately high correlation with attentional impulsivity, r = 0.67).

Some limitations of this study need to be mentioned. First, the sample involved in this study is considered as a limited sample pool, since all the participants are university students enrolled in statistics and mathematical finance, limiting the generalization of the findings. Future studies are recommended to recruit a more representative sample of university students. A study on generalization to a clinical sample is also recommended. Second, as this study was cross-sectional in nature, caution must be taken in interpreting the findings as causal. Further studies using longitudinal, controlled designs are needed to assess the effectiveness of CT intervention on mental health.

In spite of the limitations mentioned above, the findings of this study have some implications for research and practice intervention. The result that CT contributed to individual differences in mental health provides empirical support for the theory of cognitive behavioral therapy, which focuses on changing irrational thoughts. The mediating role of impulsivity between CT and mental health gives a preliminary account of the mechanism of how CT is associated with mental health. Practically, although there is evidence that CT disposition of students improves because of teaching or training interventions (e.g., Profetto-Mcgrath, 2005 ; Sanja and Krstivoje, 2015 ; Chan, 2019 ), the results showing that two CT disposition dimensions, namely, truth-seeking and systematicity, are related to mental health further suggest that special attention should be paid to cultivating these specific CT dispositions so as to enhance the control of students over impulsive behaviors in their mental health promotions.

Conclusions

This study revealed that two CT dispositions, truth-seeking and systematicity, were associated with individual differences in mental health. Furthermore, the relationship between critical thinking and mental health was mediated by motor impulsivity and non-planning impulsivity. These findings provide a preliminary account of how human critical thinking is associated with mental health. Practically, developing mental health promotion programs for university students is suggested to pay special attention to cultivating their critical thinking dispositions (especially truth-seeking and systematicity) and enhancing the control of individuals over impulsive behaviors.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by HUST Critical Thinking Research Center (Grant No. 2018CT012). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

XR designed the study and revised the manuscript. ZL collected data and wrote the manuscript. SL assisted in analyzing the data. SS assisted in re-drafting and editing the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by the Social Science Foundation of China (grant number: BBA200034).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ We re-analyzed the data by controlling for age and gender of the participants in the regression analyses. The results were virtually the same as those reported in the study.

Barry, A., Parvan, K., Sarbakhsh, P., Safa, B., and Allahbakhshian, A. (2020). Critical thinking in nursing students and its relationship with professional self-concept and relevant factors. Res. Dev. Med. Educ. 9, 7–7. doi: 10.34172/rdme.2020.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Benzi, I. M. A., Emanuele, P., Rossella, D. P., Clarkin, J. F., and Fabio, M. (2019). Maladaptive personality traits and psychological distress in adolescence: the moderating role of personality functioning. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 140, 33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.026

Billieux, J., Gay, P., Rochat, L., and Van der Linden, M. (2010). The role of urgency and its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours. Behav. Res. Ther. 48, 1085–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., and Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Think. Skills Creat. 25, 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005

Chan, C. (2019). Using digital storytelling to facilitate critical thinking disposition in youth civic engagement: a randomized control trial. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 107:104522. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104522

Chen, M. R. A., and Hwang, G. J. (2020). Effects of a concept mapping-based flipped learning approach on EFL students' English speaking performance, critical thinking awareness and speaking anxiety. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 51, 817–834. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12887

Cuijpers, P. (2019). Targets and outcomes of psychotherapies for mental disorders: anoverview. World Psychiatry. 18, 276–285. doi: 10.1002/wps.20661

Duffy, M. E., Twenge, J. M., and Joiner, T. E. (2019). Trends in mood and anxiety symptoms and suicide-related outcomes among u.s. undergraduates, 2007–2018: evidence from two national surveys. J. Adolesc. Health. 65, 590–598. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.04.033

Dwyer, C. P. (2017). Critical Thinking: Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: Astatement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction . Millibrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Fortgang, R. G., Hultman, C. M., van Erp, T. G. M., and Cannon, T. D. (2016). Multidimensional assessment of impulsivity in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder: testing for shared endophenotypes. Psychol. Med. 46, 1497–1507. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000131

Franco, A. R., Costa, P. S., Butler, H. A., and Almeida, L. S. (2017). Assessment of undergraduates' real-world outcomes of critical thinking in everyday situations. Psychol. Rep. 120, 707–720. doi: 10.1177/0033294117701906

Gambrill, E. (2005). “Critical thinking, evidence-based practice, and mental health,” in Mental Disorders in the Social Environment: Critical Perspectives , ed S. A. Kirk (New York, NY: Columbia University Press), 247–269.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Educ. 74. 101–114. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y

Gilbert, T. (2003). Some reflections on critical thinking and mental health. Teach. Phil. 24, 333–339. doi: 10.5840/teachphil200326446

Gregory, R. (1991). Critical thinking for environmental health risk education. Health Educ. Q. 18, 273–284. doi: 10.1177/109019819101800302

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the newmillennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420. doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360

Hollon, S. D., and Beck, A. T. (2013). “Cognitive and cognitive-behavioral therapies,” in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, Vol. 6 . ed M. J. Lambert (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 393–442.

Hong, L., Lin, C. D., Bray, M. A., and Kehle, T. J. (2010). The measurement of stressful events in chinese college students. Psychol. Sch. 42, 315–323. doi: 10.1002/pits.20082

CrossRef Full Text

Jacobs, S. S. (1995). Technical characteristics and some correlates of the california critical thinking skills test, forms a and b. Res. Higher Educ. 36, 89–108.

Kargar, F. R., Ajilchi, B., Goreyshi, M. K., and Noohi, S. (2013). Effect of creative and critical thinking skills teaching on identity styles and general health in adolescents. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 84, 464–469. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.585

Leclair, M. C., Lemieux, A. J., Roy, L., Martin, M. S., Latimer, E. A., and Crocker, A. G. (2020). Pathways to recovery among homeless people with mental illness: Is impulsiveness getting in the way? Can. J. Psychiatry. 65, 473–483. doi: 10.1177/0706743719885477

Lee, H. S., Kim, S., Choi, I., and Lee, K. U. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors associated with suicide ideation and attempts in korean college students. Psychiatry Investig. 5, 86–93. doi: 10.4306/pi.2008.5.2.86

Li, S., Ren, X., Schweizer, K., Brinthaupt, T. M., and Wang, T. (2021). Executive functions as predictors of critical thinking: behavioral and neural evidence. Learn. Instruct. 71:101376. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101376

Lin, Y. (2018). Developing Critical Thinking in EFL Classes: An Infusion Approach . Singapore: Springer Publications.

Luo, Q. X., and Yang, X. H. (2002). Revising on Chinese version of California critical thinkingskillstest. Psychol. Sci. (Chinese). 25, 740–741.

Mamun, M. A., Misti, J. M., Hosen, I., and Mamun, F. A. (2021). Suicidal behaviors and university entrance test-related factors: a bangladeshi exploratory study. Persp. Psychiatric Care. 4, 1–10. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12783

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., and Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin. Psychol. 51, 768–774. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:63.0.CO;2-1

Peng, M. C., Wang, G. C., Chen, J. L., Chen, M. H., Bai, H. H., Li, S. G., et al. (2004). Validity and reliability of the Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory. J. Nurs. China (Zhong Hua Hu Li Za Zhi). 39, 644–647.

Profetto-Mcgrath, J. (2005). Critical thinking and evidence-based practice. J. Prof. Nurs. 21, 364–371. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.10.002

Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P., and Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: evidence from adults and children. Intelligence 82:101487. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487

Sanja, M., and Krstivoje, S. (2015). Developing critical thinking in elementary mathematics education through a suitable selection of content and overall student performance. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 180, 653–659. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.174

Stupple, E., Maratos, F. A., Elander, J., Hunt, T. E., and Aubeeluck, A. V. (2017). Development of the critical thinking toolkit (critt): a measure of student attitudes and beliefs about critical thinking. Think. Skills Creat. 23, 91–100. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.007

Suliman, W. A., and Halabi, J. (2007). Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state anxiety of nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today. 27, 162–168. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.04.008

Ugwuozor, F. O., Otu, M. S., and Mbaji, I. N. (2021). Critical thinking intervention for stress reduction among undergraduates in the Nigerian Universities. Medicine 100:25030. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025030

Velotti, P., Garofalo, C., Petrocchi, C., Cavallo, F., Popolo, R., and Dimaggio, G. (2016). Alexithymia, emotion dysregulation, impulsivity and aggression: a multiple mediation model. Psychiatry Res. 237, 296–303. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.01.025

Wang, K., Shi, H. S., Geng, F. L., Zou, L. Q., Tan, S. P., Wang, Y., et al. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the depression anxiety stress scale−21 in China. Psychol. Assess. 28:e88. doi: 10.1037/pas0000207

West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., and Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 930–941. doi: 10.1037/a0012842

Yoshida, T., Ichikawa, T., Ishikawa, T., and Hori, M. (1998). Mental health of visually and hearing impaired students from the viewpoint of the University Personality Inventory. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 52, 413–418.

Yoshinori, S., and Marcus, G. (2013). The dual effects of critical thinking disposition on worry. PLoS ONE 8:e79714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.007971

Zhang, J., Lanza, S., Zhang, M., and Su, B. (2015). Structure of the University personality inventory for chinese college students. Psychol. Rep. 116, 821–839. doi: 10.2466/08.02.PR0.116k26w3

Keywords: mental health, critical thinking ability, critical thinking disposition, impulsivity, depression

Citation: Liu Z, Li S, Shang S and Ren X (2021) How Do Critical Thinking Ability and Critical Thinking Disposition Relate to the Mental Health of University Students? Front. Psychol. 12:704229. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704229

Received: 04 May 2021; Accepted: 21 July 2021; Published: 19 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Liu, Li, Shang and Ren. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xuezhu Ren, renxz@hust.edu.cn

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thinking Models: 5 Little-Known Concepts to Navigate the World

How can you manage your massive workload? What does good conflict resolution look like? And why does it more and more feel like you don’t have any answers? Given the myriad of paths we can take to solve problems and make decisions, our minds rely on shortcuts to make sense of the chaos. We fall back on thinking models, cognitive tools we use every day, be it consciously or unconsciously. In his article, we’re going to explore five little-known concepts we can use to reduce the complexity of the world.

What Are Thinking Models?

Thinking models, also known as mental models or mindsets, provide a structured approach to solving problems and making decisions. They’re based on the idea that clear, logical thinking can help us break down complex problems, generate creative solutions and make better decisions. (Who knew?) We can think of them as tools to guide us towards an answer. Similar to mental shortcuts , we often use them unconsciously.

Mental models have been all the rage in the past years. Investors such as Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett and Naval Ravikant credit them for their success. And for good reasons. In a world of information abundance, thinking models work as simplified and experience-based mental representations of how things work. They can help us process information by focusing on what’s relevant and ignoring information that is not.

While thinking models provide a structure to reduce the world’s complexity, they’re also very context-specific. Buffett’s Circle of Competence , for example, is a useful cognitive tool to help find your calling in life. But it’s utterly useless when you’re looking to diagnose the problem with a plane that’s about to crash. So the better your thinking model matches your issue at hand, the better your judgement will be.

5 Little-Known Thinking Models

Let’s dive into five of the lesser-known thinking models. If applied consciously they can help us navigate the world. Even though they’re not without caveats.

1. Eisenhower Matrix: How to Prioritise

You’re knee-deep in work? You’re inundated with calls, requests and emails? Use the Eisenhower Matrix to categorise your tasks by importance and urgency. Also known as the Eisenhower Box or the Urgent-Important Matrix, the thinking model is a tool used to prioritize assignments and manage time. Divide your tasks into four categories based on their urgency and importance. Think of the pile of work you have before you right now. How would you classify each task?

• Is it urgent and important? Don’t lose time. Do it now.
• Is it important but not urgent? Take your time to decide when you will do it.
• Is it urgent but unimportant? Delegate it to someone else.
• Is it neither important nor urgent? Do it later.

The matrix is based on the principles of Dwight D. Eisenhower who had one of the busiest jobs imaginable. Being president of the United States. While it can help you break your workload down into manageable bits, there’s a caveat. The utility of the matrix stands and falls with your assessment of a task’s urgency and importance. This is of course not always clear cut, subjective and might change at any moment.

2. SARA Model: How to Solve Problems

The SARA Model is a structured approach to problem-solving. The acronym SARA stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. It’s popular in the world of problem-oriented policing but can be applied in pretty much any context. Here’s a version I’ve adapted for civilian purposes:

In order to solve a problem we first need to find one. This is why at the first stage, we scan our environment for potential problems. That doesn’t mean we’re looking for trouble. We’re identifying issues, for example, based on repeated instances. We also take their potential consequences into account before we prioritise the most pressing ones.

Now it’s time to zoom in on our priority problem. We analyse it, trying to understand the background and context of the issue. What is the root cause? Who is involved? How, if at all, has it been addressed so far? To answer those questions we need to gather and evaluate relevant data.

Once the root cause is known, we can look into interventions to address the problems. This includes recommending options to tackle it and considering how they can be implemented. Beware of the law of unintended consequences , though. No matter how well-intentioned, our solution could backfire and make things infinitely worse.

The law of unintended consequences is one of the reasons why it’s important to assess if our response was effective. If it was, then a re-scan of the environment should see the problem disappear. If it’s still causing trouble, we should probably re-evaluate our response or go back to analysing the problem once more.

In reality, the SARA Model tends to be used in an iterative, non-linear fashion. The four stages can be revisited at any time. For instance, we may want to go back to the scanning phase to see if the problem persists even when we’re still in the analysis phase. This makes the mental model similar to the Intelligence Cycle used in the intelligence community.

3. Conflict Resolution Model

Conflicts in the form of serious disagreements have the habit of throwing you into chaos. How could it escalate so quickly, you wonder. And how do you get out of it unscarred? Well, I have no idea. But the Conflict Resolution Model highlights six different ways people typically react to conflict. They fall into two categories: emotional and rational .

Emotional Reactions

• Flight : We evade or avoid the situation entirely rendering the conflict unresolved. The downside is that both parties lose.
• Fight : We handle a conflict with the intention to triumph over others. The downside is that there can only be one winner.
• Give up : We retreat and give up. The upshot is that the conflict ends. The downside is that it ends because we lose voluntarily.

Rational Reactions

• Evade Responsibility : We delegate the matter to someone else. Perhaps they solve the conflict for us. Perhaps they make it infinitely worse. So there’s a chance both parties end up losing.
• Compromise : We find a solution everyone involved can live with. Though not ideal, this may be the best bad solution for everyone.
• Consensus : We negotiate a third way to resolve our conflict. In the best-case scenario, we end up with both parties being satisfied.

We can use the thinking model to bring a bit of order into the chaos. By identifying the conflict resolution we are prone to and the reaction we anticipate from our counterparts. Which reaction is the best one highly depends on the situation. If you’re being mugged and get a chance to escape, you’re not trying to reach a consensus. For most non-lethal occasions you may want to master the art of negotiation .

Source: The Decision Book

4. Black Box Model: Why You Don’t Have All the Answers

Have you ever had the impression that things have gotten more complicated? That it’s increasingly difficult to understand the basics of modern life? And that all this happens at an accelerated rate? Now you have a term for it, it’s called the Black Box Model . Suggested by the authors of The Decision Book , this thinking model attempts to explain the phenomenon.

Our existence, the model proposes, is increasingly besieged with black boxes. These are “complex constructs that we do not understand even if they’re explained to us”. While we cannot see inside these black boxes, we still incorporate their implications into our decision-making. Do you really understand how the device you’re reading this article on works? Or the algorithm of the search engine you used to find it?

If we think about it further, the Black Box Model has strange consequences. The more black boxes surround us, the more our everyday decisions become a matter of faith. It could also mean we’re more susceptible to people who offer faith-based explanations rather than rational ones. We seem more comfortable in simplicity, which can lead to Bikeshedding . Meaning, instead of discussing the intricacies of complex systems at length, we revel in the trivialities we can comprehend.

5. Map vs Territory: What Makes All Models Wrong

“ The map is not the territory ” is a phrase coined by Alfred Korzybski. The Polish-American mathematician also noted that “the word is not the thing.” Such remarks may seem like a lacklustre entry for a stating-the-obvious contest. At a second glance, they’re more profound and can serve as a thinking model to understand the relationship between concepts and reality.

Maps only represent our mental construct of the world. The territory, however, is reality. This is why we have to consider maps in the context they were created. Some are ideal for navigating the roads and freeways while driving a car. But they’re not as helpful when we’re looking for bike paths and trails to take us into the wilderness. Both are incomplete and imperfect approximations of the territory after all.

Similarly, mental models are mere mental representations of the world and while they may be useful and helpful, they are not the same as reality itself. We must be able to adapt them accordingly and be flexible enough to select the one that fits our problem. In saying that, the Map vs Territory thinking model makes for a graceful segway to the part where I tell you more about the limitations of these cognitive tools.

The Limits of Thinking Models

Thinking models have clear benefits, which is great because it’s impossible not to use them. As former intel analyst Richards Heuer writes in The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis : “Mental models are inescapable. They are, in essence, a distillation of all that we think we know about a subject.” They’re invaluable tools whenever we face an overabundance of information. However, this is also what determines their trade-offs.

Valuable information can fall through the gaps. Alternative yet true explanations may be discarded. Subsequent solutions and decisions can end up being wrong. It looks like this is especially true for experienced thinkers who fall prey to confirmation bias . We may dismiss information that doesn’t fit our thinking model and embrace data that does. “The problem,” Heuer writes “is how to ensure that the mind remains open to alternative interpretations in a rapidly changing world.”

Closing Thoughts

Collecting thinking models, questioning them and adapting them to your own needs can help us navigate a world of information abundance. As long as we know what their benefits and limitations are. As popular as they have become, they’re not the only game in town. If you’re looking for more collaborative analytical techniques, check out my posts about Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) such as Premortem Analysis and Deception Detection .

Chris Meyer

I'm a writer, teacher & analyst with a background in languages, martial arts & failing at things. I collect and connect ideas while attempting humour. Here are 50 unbelievable facts about me .

• The Tenth Man Rule
• Baloney Detection Kit
• Four Stages of Competence
• Hierarchy of Disagreement
• The 48 Laws of Power
• Top 25 Interesting Ideas
• 5 Habits of the Master Thinker
• The Feynman Technique 2.0
• Zen Stories
• Orwell's Writing Rules

Sorry, there was a problem.

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

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

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

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Critical Thinking: Think in Mental Models to Develop Effective Decision Making and Problem Solving Skills. Overcome Cognitive Biases and Fallacies in Systems to Think Clearly in Your Everyday Life. Paperback – June 6, 2022

• Print length 68 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Harrison Walton
• Publication date June 6, 2022
• Dimensions 5 x 0.16 x 8 inches
• ISBN-10 1915470196
• ISBN-13 978-1915470195
• See all details

Products related to this item .sp_detail_sponsored_label { color: #555555; font-size: 11px; } .sp_detail_info_icon { width: 11px; vertical-align: text-bottom; fill: #969696; } .sp_info_link { text-decoration:none !important; } #sp_detail_hide_feedback_string { display: none; } .sp_detail_sponsored_label:hover { color: #111111; } .sp_detail_sponsored_label:hover .sp_detail_info_icon { fill: #555555; } Sponsored (function(f) {var _np=(window.P._namespace("FirebirdSpRendering"));if(_np.guardFatal){_np.guardFatal(f)(_np);}else{f(_np);}}(function(P) { P.when("A", "a-carousel-framework", "a-modal").execute(function(A, CF, AM) { var DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX = 'adFeedback:desktop:multiAsinAF:sp_detail'; A.declarative('sp_detail_feedback-action', 'click', function(event) { var MODAL_NAME_PREFIX = 'multi_af_modal_'; var MODAL_CLASS_PREFIX = 'multi-af-modal-'; var BASE_16 = 16; var UID_START_INDEX = 2; var uniqueIdentifier = Math.random().toString(BASE_16).substr(UID_START_INDEX); var modalName = MODAL_NAME_PREFIX + "sp_detail" + uniqueIdentifier; var modalClass = MODAL_CLASS_PREFIX + "sp_detail" + uniqueIdentifier; initModal(modalName, modalClass); removeModalOnClose(modalName); }); function initModal (modalName, modalClass) { var trigger = A.$(' '); var initialContent = ' ' + ' ' + ' '; var HEADER_STRING = "Leave feedback"; if (false) { HEADER_STRING = "Ad information and options"; } var modalInstance = AM.create(trigger, { 'content': initialContent, 'header': HEADER_STRING, 'name': modalName }); modalInstance.show(); var serializedPayload = generatePayload(modalName); A.$.ajax({ url: "/af/multi-creative/feedback-form", type: 'POST', data: serializedPayload, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'Accept': 'application/json'}, success: function(response) { if (!response) { return; } modalInstance.update(response); var successMetric = DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX + ":formDisplayed"; if (window.ue && window.ue.count) { window.ue.count(successMetric, (window.ue.count(successMetric) || 0) + 1); } }, error: function(err) { var errorText = 'Feedback Form get failed with error: ' + err; var errorMetric = DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX + ':error'; P.log(errorText, 'FATAL', DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX); if (window.ue && window.ue.count) { window.ue.count(errorMetric, (window.ue.count(errorMetric) || 0) + 1); } modalInstance.update(' ' + "Error loading ad feedback form." + ' '); } }); return modalInstance; } function removeModalOnClose (modalName) { A.on('a:popover:afterHide:' + modalName, function removeModal () { AM.remove(modalName); }); } function generatePayload(modalName) { var carousel = CF.getCarousel(document.getElementById("sp_detail")); var EMPTY_CARD_CLASS = "a-carousel-card-empty"; if (!carousel) { return; } var adPlacementMetaData = carousel.dom.$carousel.context.getAttribute("data-ad-placement-metadata"); var adDetailsList = []; if (adPlacementMetaData == "") { return; } carousel.dom.$carousel.children("li").not("." + EMPTY_CARD_CLASS).each(function (idx, item) { var divs = item.getElementsByTagName("div"); var adFeedbackDetails; for (var i = 0; i

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Harrison Walton (June 6, 2022)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 68 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1915470196
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1915470195
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.88 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5 x 0.16 x 8 inches
• Best Sellers Rank: #10,565,537 in Books ( See Top 100 in Books )

Products related to this item .sp_detail2_sponsored_label { color: #555555; font-size: 11px; } .sp_detail2_info_icon { width: 11px; vertical-align: text-bottom; fill: #969696; } .sp_info_link { text-decoration:none !important; } #sp_detail2_hide_feedback_string { display: none; } .sp_detail2_sponsored_label:hover { color: #111111; } .sp_detail2_sponsored_label:hover .sp_detail2_info_icon { fill: #555555; } Sponsored (function(f) {var _np=(window.P._namespace("FirebirdSpRendering"));if(_np.guardFatal){_np.guardFatal(f)(_np);}else{f(_np);}}(function(P) { P.when("A", "a-carousel-framework", "a-modal").execute(function(A, CF, AM) { var DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX = 'adFeedback:desktop:multiAsinAF:sp_detail2'; A.declarative('sp_detail2_feedback-action', 'click', function(event) { var MODAL_NAME_PREFIX = 'multi_af_modal_'; var MODAL_CLASS_PREFIX = 'multi-af-modal-'; var BASE_16 = 16; var UID_START_INDEX = 2; var uniqueIdentifier = Math.random().toString(BASE_16).substr(UID_START_INDEX); var modalName = MODAL_NAME_PREFIX + "sp_detail2" + uniqueIdentifier; var modalClass = MODAL_CLASS_PREFIX + "sp_detail2" + uniqueIdentifier; initModal(modalName, modalClass); removeModalOnClose(modalName); }); function initModal (modalName, modalClass) { var trigger = A.$(' '); var initialContent = ' ' + ' ' + ' '; var HEADER_STRING = "Leave feedback"; if (false) { HEADER_STRING = "Ad information and options"; } var modalInstance = AM.create(trigger, { 'content': initialContent, 'header': HEADER_STRING, 'name': modalName }); modalInstance.show(); var serializedPayload = generatePayload(modalName); A.$.ajax({ url: "/af/multi-creative/feedback-form", type: 'POST', data: serializedPayload, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'Accept': 'application/json'}, success: function(response) { if (!response) { return; } modalInstance.update(response); var successMetric = DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX + ":formDisplayed"; if (window.ue && window.ue.count) { window.ue.count(successMetric, (window.ue.count(successMetric) || 0) + 1); } }, error: function(err) { var errorText = 'Feedback Form get failed with error: ' + err; var errorMetric = DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX + ':error'; P.log(errorText, 'FATAL', DESKTOP_METRIC_PREFIX); if (window.ue && window.ue.count) { window.ue.count(errorMetric, (window.ue.count(errorMetric) || 0) + 1); } modalInstance.update(' ' + "Error loading ad feedback form." + ' '); } }); return modalInstance; } function removeModalOnClose (modalName) { A.on('a:popover:afterHide:' + modalName, function removeModal () { AM.remove(modalName); }); } function generatePayload(modalName) { var carousel = CF.getCarousel(document.getElementById("sp_detail2")); var EMPTY_CARD_CLASS = "a-carousel-card-empty"; if (!carousel) { return; } var adPlacementMetaData = carousel.dom.$carousel.context.getAttribute("data-ad-placement-metadata"); var adDetailsList = []; if (adPlacementMetaData == "") { return; } carousel.dom.$carousel.children("li").not("." + EMPTY_CARD_CLASS).each(function (idx, item) { var divs = item.getElementsByTagName("div"); var adFeedbackDetails; for (var i = 0; i

Customer reviews.

Our goal is to make sure every review is trustworthy and useful. That's why we use both technology and human investigators to block fake reviews before customers ever see them.  Learn more

We block Amazon accounts that violate our community guidelines. We also block sellers who buy reviews and take legal actions against parties who provide these reviews.  Learn how to report

No customer reviews

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

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

Whiteboard-of-Thought: Thinking Step-by-Step Across Modalities

Whiteboard-of-thought enables mllms to express intermediate reasoning as images using code. you probably didn't use typography knowledge to solve this query..

When presented with questions involving visual thinking, humans naturally switch reasoning modalities, often forming mental images or drawing visual aids. Large language models have shown promising results in arithmetic and symbolic reasoning by expressing intermediate reasoning in text as a chain of thought, yet struggle to extend this capability to answer text queries that are easily solved by visual reasoning, even with extensive multimodal pretraining. We introduce a simple method, whiteboard-of-thought prompting, to unlock the visual reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models across modalities. Whiteboard-of-thought prompting provides multimodal large language models with a metaphorical 'whiteboard' to draw out reasoning steps as images, then returns these images back to the model for further processing. We find this can be accomplished with no demonstrations or specialized modules, instead leveraging models' existing ability to write code with libraries such as Matplotlib and Turtle. This simple approach shows state-of-the-art results on four difficult natural language tasks that involve visual and spatial reasoning. We identify multiple settings where GPT-4o using chain-of-thought fails dramatically, including more than one where it achieves 0% accuracy, while whiteboard-of-thought enables up to 92% accuracy in these same settings. We present a detailed exploration of where the technique succeeds as well as its sources of error.

How does it work?

A brief explanation of vipergpt ., can mllms use textual reasoning to solve tasks that we solve with visual thinking, can mllms implicitly reason across modalities, evaluation: ascii understanding.

ASCII understanding is a clearly visual task with only text inputs. For humans, written text is typically processed with the same input modality as images (our eyes), allowing us to engage in visual thinking without any intermediate processing.

Examples of three BIG-Bench ASCII understanding tasks + WoT visualizations.

ASCII accuracy. MLLMs fail to perform the task with text alone. WoT unlocks visual processing to achieve substantial gains.

Consider the difficulty of understanding ASCII art being read aloud. In some sense, this is similar to how LLMs process ASCII.

Breaking down the ASCII word recognition performance, we see 'Bubble' and 'Doh' can be solved without visuals.

Text-only baselines fail to solve every instance that actually requires visual understanding.

We find most errors are due to visual perception.

Spatial navigation.

Creating visuals also shows promise for spatial navigation, especially outside of 2D grids (which are more easily represented in text).

WoT correctly identifies the meaning behind the poem, while CoT picks up on the word `TONGUE' to hallucinate a response.

Related work.

• • ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoning
• • Visual Programming for Compositional Visual Reasoning
• • PAL: Program-aided Language Models
• • Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks
• • Self-Imagine: Effective Unimodal Reasoning with Multimodal Models using Self-Imagination (cool recent work showing visual renders as HTML can help for symbolic and math reasoning)
• • Visual Sketchpad: Sketching as a Visual Chain of Thought for Multimodal Language Models (exciting concurrent work using ViperGPT-like modules to draw for vision tasks)
• • Visual ChatGPT: Talking, Drawing and Editing with Visual Foundation Models
• • Neural Module Networks
• • Inferring and Executing Programs for Visual Reasoning
• • Code4Struct: Code Generation for Few-Shot Structured Prediction from Natural Language
• • Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools