Opting-In to Critical Thinking in Decision Making

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/09

Dr. Steve Pearlman, founder of The Critical Thinking Institute, discusses the urgent need to teach authentic critical thinking skills based on how the brain naturally processes information. He distinguishes between System 1 (fast, automatic thinking) and System 2 (deliberate, analytical thinking), emphasizing the value of metacognition and domain-specific expertise. Pearlman critiques superficial critical thinking programs and warns against indiscriminate policy cuts, such as those from the Department of Governmental Efficiency. He advocates for reasoning over authority in education and relationships, noting that even modest improvements in decision-making—like a 5% gain—can radically transform lives and institutions over time. Find out more here: http://www.thectinstitute.com.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Steve Pearlman. He’s an educator, author, and founder of The Critical Thinking Institute.

He holds a Ph.D. in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and previously co-founded one of the first higher education programs in the United States focused solely on teaching critical thinking across disciplines. With over three decades of experience in higher education, he has developed and implemented methods to enhance reasoning and decision-making skills for students, faculty, and professionals across academic, military, and corporate sectors. Pearlman is the creator of the Neurocognitive Learning approach to critical thinking and host of The Critical Thinking Institute Podcast. His work focuses on the practical application of critical thinking for individuals and institutions. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate it, Steve.

Dr. Steve Pearlman: It’s my pleasure—thanks for having me.

Jacobsen: Critical thinking can be a meaningful concept or just a buzzword. How are we defining it, technically?

Pearlman: Yes. Unfortunately, critical thinking is more often a buzzword than a meaningful practice. People throw it around as if it’s something easy to define.

But we have research on this. When we ask people—including educators who are supposed to teach it—to define critical thinking, we usually get vague catchphrases and little substance.

When we ask them to define catchphrases like “analyzing” or “thinking outside the box,” things start to fall apart. It’s very difficult for people to define those concepts clearly or consistently.

Take “thinking outside the box,” for example. It sounds good. But is any idea valuable just because it’s different or unconventional? Is that really what makes something a product of critical thinking?

I could devise an unconventional solution to world hunger—like hunting dinosaurs—but that’s not thoughtful or useful.

So, we take a very different approach at The Critical Thinking Institute. We’ve left the catchphrases behind. We look at critical thinking from a foundational perspective—what the thinking act is. We even consider it from an evolutionary standpoint, asking what thinking evolved to do and how we can harness that understanding to improve reasoning in real, measurable ways.

We also identified the core systems that run in our brains, no matter what we think. How do we teach people to become self-aware of those core systems? And then, how do we teach people to maximize their use of those core systems? That’s essentially the Neurocognitive Learning method. That’s how we approach critical thinking.

What we call it is a metacognitive process. Metacognition is a fancy word for being aware of your thinking while you’re thinking. So, we teach people to recognize what their brain is trying to do when it thinks and, therefore, take control of that process and do it better.

Jacobsen: You’ve done some work on healthy relationships. What defines a healthy relationship, and what are the top two skills people should consider?

Pearlman: Yes. A healthy relationship doesn’t mean a perfect relationship. It’s not necessarily about being ideal or even “successful” by some external standard. However, it is a relationship in which people respect one another.

So, the two most important things to remember for a healthy relationship are respect for one another and empathy for the other person’s position, boundaries, and needs.

The second is communication. Most relationships fall into trouble because both parties hold different expectations and lack sufficient communication and dialogue around those expectations. So, we want to focus our healthy relationship strategies on that.

Of course, if we can think critically with our partner, that makes it even easier.

Jacobsen: Now, when discussing respect, what does that look like?

Pearlman: It’s easy to identify moments of disrespect. That’s when someone’s needs are not being met, they’re not being heard, or they’ve voiced something important, but the other person isn’t listening. Or they’re constantly being talked over in conversation. So, respect is the opposite of that.

Respect means wanting to understand the other person’s needs. It doesn’t mean you can always meet all those needs perfectly, but it means wanting to understand them and doing your best to meet and honour them. Respect boundaries where they exist. Respect needs, desires, and interests. Support the person in whatever their interests are, and so forth.

I don’t even love the term compromise, though we often use it in the context of healthy relationships. Compromise can suggest that we’re constantly giving in to one another. Compromise is a part of any relationship, but the most successful relationships aren’t about tallying who gave in more. They’re about seeing the relationship as a team effort, where both partners work together toward each other’s success.

That’s a different way to think about it, and that mindset shift greatly affects how people approach their role in a relationship. If we tell people they must make many compromises, we get into a scoreboard mentality: “I made seven compromises; you only made three.” Or, “I made four big compromises—how dare you not meet me halfway?”

Instead, if we look at it as a team effort—about supporting one another’s interests—then it becomes less about compromising and more about mutual support, finding things we can do together that make both of us happy at the same time.

Jacobsen: You’ve also done work in situations where things haven’t just become unhealthy but have crossed into abuse. How do you apply critical thinking in that context?

Pearlman: We teach people through online courses. I used to run these kinds of courses on sexual assault prevention and similar topics.

Most of what we taught were not physical techniques. We focused on things akin to what’s sometimes called verbal judo—the ability to manage a conversation, deflect it, or steer it in a way that either de-escalates the situation or allows the person to get out of a sticky or dangerous scenario.

We teach other preventive strategies, but one key feature is knowing how to communicate in a way that gives you more control over the situation. That’s where critical thinking comes into play—when we have an expectation that isn’t met, the brain experiences conflict.

Our brains operate through frameworks—it’s how we navigate situations. However, each person has their framework that they apply.

Here’s an example we use based on a real story someone shared with us: A young woman went to another guy’s apartment, and things started to become problematic. The standard and correct thing is to say no and assert boundaries. And we advocate for that. Everyone should feel empowered to set and express clear boundaries.

But in some cases, that does not stop a would-be rapist—because, unfortunately, some perpetrators expect resistance, and they’ve already worked around that expectation. So when the woman in this situation said “no,” and it didn’t work—and the man started to become more physical—she remembered something we covered in our training videos: If you do not give a direct resistant response, then the other person may not experience the situation as resistance, and therefore, may not escalate their behaviour further.

So, instead of resisting in a way that would meet his expected framework, she changed the framework entirely. She said, “Hey, listen, I’ve got to go to the bathroom first.”

She ran to the bathroom, locked the door, and immediately texted her friends to come pick her up and bang on the guy’s door. She stayed in the bathroom for about ten minutes. Eventually, her friends arrived, knocked loudly on the door, and she was able to get out safely.

She did that by applying critical thinking—not by resisting or complying but by changing the situation’s structure. Instead of meeting the aggressor in his expected script, she used deflection and delay to create an escape.

Critical thinking can offer that in high-stakes, real-world situations. It’s the ability to understand how the brain—yours and sometimes someone else’s—processes a moment and then uses that insight to navigate toward a better outcome. Often, that outcome is mutual. In a case like this, it’s about safety and survival.

Jacobsen: Can you quickly explain the difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking? That’s from the late Daniel Kahneman.

Pearlman: The brain has two general thinking systems.

System 1 is the fast system we use for rapid decision-making. It is instinctive—essentially a survivalist mechanism. So, often, when we’re in a fight-flight, freeze, or fawn response, we’re operating in System 1. It also includes automatic processes—things we’ve committed to memory to the point where we no longer have to think actively about them.

System 2, on the other hand, is the slow, effortful, deliberate, and critical thinking system. It’s where conscious reasoning and deeper analysis happen.

It’s possible—and sometimes positive—to move things from System 2 into System 1. For example, it can become automatic when we learn a skill thoroughly. However, the problem is that once something enters System 1, we often stop thinking about it altogether—even when we should revisit it, especially if it concerns values, beliefs, or assumptions. Those automatic responses become the frameworks we use to act on the world.

So, what we do at The Critical Thinking Institute is to help people recognize when their brains are relying too heavily on System 1 and how to shift into System 2 deliberately. The brain wants to resolve things quickly—uncertainty threatens it. Even though it’s capable of deep thought, the brain prefers efficiency and predictability.

If System 1 can resolve uncertainty with a conclusion it feels is “good enough,” it will do so because that serves its job: keeping us safe and stable. But that is not always the most effective way to think—especially about complex or importantissues. So, learning how to pull your brain out of System 1 and engage System 2 is essential.

Jacobsen: Are there people—besides those working in fields like Bayesian reasoning or quantum mechanics—genuinely do not feel fear or stress around high or even medium levels of uncertainty?

Pearlman: It depends. Some people embrace uncertainty more than others, but it’s less about intelligence or field and more about their capacity to entertain uncertainty as play.

There’s some fascinating research around this. For example, if we tell students they have an upcoming test, they almost instinctively interpret that as a threat. Even students who’ve studied well often have a fear-based response—concern about their grades, the unknown questions, performance, etc.

Now, let’s take students with test anxiety. They especially view the test through a lens of threat and uncertainty. But we see a shift if we work with them to reframe the situation—not as a threat, but as a challenge. How do we do that? By walking them through the tools they already have: study skills, prior successes, preparation techniques, etc.

When students focus on what they can do, they view the test as a challenge rather than a danger. Once that shift happens, they can engage more playfully and productively with the material—even while facing uncertainty.

That’s the key difference between people who can operate well in high-uncertainty environments and those who struggle. It’s not about eliminating uncertainty—it’s about interpreting it as something to be embraced rather than feared. Do I see it as a challenge I have the tools to face or as a threat to my identity or well-being?

Even physicists—who are perfectly at home dealing with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, knowing they might never resolve their questions in a lifetime—can feel threatened in different contexts. Something like going to a party, for instance, might trigger more anxiety in them than contemplating the probabilistic nature of particles.

Pearlman: It depends on the field, thoughts, and the person.

Jacobsen: Yes. So, it’s less about being ensconced in a mindset and more about a trained orientation. 

Pearlman: Everything with the brain and thinking is habitual to a certain extent. It’s about what we habituate ourselves to. And it also has a lot to do with how we’re raised. That makes a significant difference. The epigenetics of how we rear children is incredibly interesting.

For example, if children are raised in a more authoritarian household—where they’re expected to obey because Mom or Dad says so—and when they ask, “Why do I have to do it that way?” the answer is, “Because I told you to,” then we see clear developmental consequences. Research shows that children from those environments ask fewer questions in school and life. They also typically demonstrate less critical thinking, especially early on.

By contrast, children raised in more intellectually engaged households—where reasons are given and policies, decisions, and expectations are discussed—tend to become students who ask more questions, are more comfortable with ambiguity, and demonstrate stronger reasoning skills. This is unsurprising, but it’s important to recognize—and we have solid research to support it.

There’s a strong argument for raising children in ways where reason prevails over authority. That doesn’t mean we must negotiate everything with our kids—it’s not about constant negotiation. It’s about allowing reason to guide the process.

So, for example, if you say to your child, “It’s 9:00 PM—time for bed,” and the child asks, “Why do I have to go to bed at 9:00? Why is that my bedtime? Why do you get to decide?”—you might respond with something like:

“It’s not just about us deciding. When you stay up past 9:00 on school nights, you have trouble getting up for school the next morning. School is important, so getting to bed on time helps with that. That’s why bedtime is 9:00.”

Then the child might say, “That makes sense.” The outcome is the same—they go to bed at 9:00—but through a completely different thinking process.

Now, maybe the child responds, “Wait a second—it’s the State of the Union address tonight. I want to stay up and watch it because we will discuss it in class tomorrow.”

That’s a good reason. In that case, the child should stay up later. What the child learns in that moment is that reason prevails in your household—not blind authority.

Jacobsen: Speaking of authority, we now have the American administration—specifically a second Trump administration—with the newly minted Department of Governmental Efficiency. However, “minted” might not be the right word since it’s a restructured version of a previous department. Most government institutions, large or small, have some inefficiency—that’s just the nature of systems. So, the premise itself is not entirely unreasonable.

When you critically assess the definition of waste concerning the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the United States, how do they propose defining waste and fraud? What is your critical assessment of the quality of those definitions—either implicit or explicit—and the efficiency of weeding this stuff out, of extirpating it?

Pearlman: As you said, the premise is sound. There certainly can be waste in government—potentially considerable—which should be evaluated continuously.

But here’s the reality: we’re spending less on federal employees than twenty years ago. That number has been consistently declining in the United States, not increasing.

Now, that’s a different part of the question because there may still be waste in other areas that need to be addressed—and it’s certainly not just about employee salaries. The Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is approaching this indiscriminately.

Take, for example, the idea of defunding scientific research—like cutting funds from the NIH. That has hugeramifications. You’re not just saving money in the short term; you’re potentially costing the country far more in the long term.

Let’s consider the cost-benefit of research into treatments for Parkinson’s disease. Many promising experiments were underway and have since been shut down. These aren’t things you can restart overnight. It will take years to reboot that work, assuming it even gets revived.

Now think about the cost of caring for people with Parkinson’s over time—relative to the cost of continuing those experiments. It’s potentially far more expensive not to fund that research.

You can also extrapolate that same logic to other federal agencies and programs.

So, while stopping funding looks good on a budget line in the short term, it may cost taxpayers much more in the long term. Any decision about cuts should involve a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

However, we don’t see evidence that such an analysis drives DOGE’s efforts. On the contrary, they’re cutting indiscriminately without a strategic or evidence-based framework.

So the real question becomes: are these cuts made intelligently, or are they made for the sake of making cuts?

Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter, not the former.

Jacobsen: So the chainsaw metaphor is apt?

Pearlman: Yes. The now-famous image of Elon Musk holding up a chainsaw at CPAC—used as a metaphor for DOGE—is quite appropriate.

It’s a great metaphor because chainsaws don’t build anything. They just cut things down. They’re powerful tools for destruction.

We get that, especially in Texas. But chainsaws aren’t good for nuanced work. They’re certainly not designed for careful restructuring or system improvement.

And that’s exactly what DOGE is doing—cutting indiscriminately. There’s no subtlety. No long-term strategic vision. Just destruction.

And there are problems with chainsaws. The chain can snap and injure you. It can kick back and cut you. So we can extend that metaphor to DOGE—because a chainsaw is exactly what they’re using.

Yes, cuts are necessary. But wouldn’t we prefer them to be surgical? Wouldn’t we prefer a precise scalpel that corrects what needs correcting?

Instead, we’re seeing a chainsaw, which can only amputate. It cannot repair a limb. So, if you want a metaphor, the surgical one works far better.

Jacobsen: Is there something we can apply from the critical thinking methods you teach regarding domain-specific expertise? I’m thinking of the expertise involved in startups—like administration and selling a vision—instead of expertise in bureaucracy, finance, or accounting. Do you think that’s part of the core issue with the Department of Governmental Efficiency—not the premise, but the application?

Pearlman: No—it’s not a matter of domain-specific expertise. It’s more a matter of domain-specific inexpertise.

In other words, it’s not just that they lack the right expertise—it’s that they operate from the wrong premise. The flawed premise is that simply cutting for the sake of cutting is inherently valuable and that downsizing is good in and of itself.

We’re seeing decisions being made to trim down agencies by arbitrary percentages, regardless of what those agencies do. There’s no way they’ve meaningfully reviewed the operations of all these departments.

So, before we even get to questions about domain-specific competence, we must address that they operate from a fundamentally flawed principle. Cutting for its own sake is not inherently good. It can be costly and dangerous.

Yes—some cuts may be necessary. But they need to be strategic. Otherwise, we’re left with reckless amputations that hurt the very systems they’re meant to improve.

Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences of a lack of critical thinking—for an individual or an organization?

Pearlman: That’s a great question. For an organization, the typical outcome is failure—the end of the organization.

Think about it: nothing more important to any business or institution than how effectively it can observe what’s going on in its environment—how well it understands its customers and clients’ needs, its competition, and the broader trends in the world. Based on that understanding, it has to make adjustments, solve problems, and make sound decisions.

That’s how an organization stays viable. That’s how it survives—and thrives.

It has to be nimble, responsive, and grounded in good reasoning.

Pearlman: So, critical thinking is the most important thing. Companies that stop thinking—or become stagnant—are the ones that typically disappear. They die off because they’re no longer able to compete intellectually.

You see this often in the tech world, where it happens quickly. Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo used to be the dominant search engine. It was the biggest in the world for a time.

But then they got out-thought by Google. And now, Yahoo isn’t even on most people’s radar as a search engine. They’ve pivoted to offer other services, but the core dominance they once had is long gone. That’s how fast innovation can shift—and if you’re not continuously thinking critically and adapting, you fall behind.

In life, it’s the same general principle. Now, we don’t usually die from poor decisions—though tragically, that can happen in extreme cases. But more often, the cost is  Bunfulfilled potential.

We fail to live the kind of lives we want to live. This might show up in our careers, parenting, social lives, and more.

There’s some fascinating research on this. They’ve found that IQ is not the biggest differentiator regarding the quality of decisions people make. Critical thinking is.

IQ—your raw processing power—can be high. But you won’t use that processing power effectively without learning critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a skill set—just like reading or math. It has to be taught. It has to be practiced.

And the data is clear: critical thinking is a far more powerful predictor of who makes successful or damaging life decisions than raw intelligence alone.

But here’s the problem—most people never get taught dedicated critical thinking skills.

So now imagine this: say someone did learn critical thinking, and that skill helped them make just 5% better decisions. That’s a humble number—very conservative. Let’s not even say 75% or 90% better decisions. Let’s say 5%.

Imagine if starting in adolescence, you made just 5% better decisions every day of your life. Think about where you’d be today. Even if you’re in a good place now, think how much better things might be.

That 5% course correction—compounded over years—would dramatically shift the trajectory of your life. And that’s the promise of critical thinking. With even modest improvements to the quality of our decisions, we could live very different—and often far better—lives.

Jacobsen: One last question. What do you think about philosophical or so-called critical thinking programs that are sold or advocated as such—but aren’t? Some present themselves in subtle or nuanced ways that appear to teach critical thinking, but there’s a kind of linguistic misdirection. They seem like they’re offering something rigorous when, in fact, they’re not.

Pearlman: There are a lot of well-intentioned programs out there. But they often rely on catchphrases and buzzwords to bring it full circle.

Some programs focus on problem-solving processes—different step-by-step paths to solutions, sometimes with built-in stages for revisiting ideas. These can be useful.

However, I recommend caution with critical thinking programs that approach the brain from the outside. By that, I mean they start with a constructed model or process of what critical thinking should look like and then try to train your brain to follow that process.

That can be useful in limited situations. For example, knowing the scientific method, an important structure, is helpful. But what we do—and where real critical thinking flourishes—is different.

We start by understanding how the brain naturally thinks. We make people aware of that and then build on those innate neurological processes. We amplify and elevate what the brain already does when thinking critically, and that’s where real growth happens. That’s where authentic critical thinking skills develop—not by forcing the brain to mimic some external pattern, but by working with its built-in architecture.

Jacobsen: Dr. Pearlman, any final thoughts?

Pearlman: No—I think we covered a lot. That was wonderful.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steve.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.