Thinking About Thinking: How to Think, Not What to Think
Learn to question assumptions and enhance your decision-making.
Posted May 10, 2026 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader
For more than 30 years, I have been researching and teaching students at Harvard University and Northwestern University how to think about their thinking. That may sound abstract, but the idea is remarkably practical. Education should not simply teach people what to think; it should teach them how to think.
In many classrooms, students are often rewarded for arriving at the “right” answer or repeating the dominant perspective of the moment. But real intellectual growth happens when people learn how to examine their own assumptions before rushing to conclusions. It requires asking difficult questions: Why do I believe this? What evidence supports my view? What evidence challenges it? Am I reacting emotionally to information rather than evaluating it carefully? Am I being pressured into believing this?
These questions are at the heart of scientific thinking.
For years, I taught an advanced research methods course designed to help students develop what I call a scientific worldview . Although the course was created for students pursuing research, the underlying principles apply to everyone. Scientific thinking is not limited to laboratories, academic journals, or researchers in white coats. It is a disciplined way of approaching information, conflict, and uncertainty in everyday life.
Scientific thinking teaches us to slow down before reaching conclusions. It requires us to question our assumptions, evaluate evidence, remain open to contradictory information, and revise our beliefs when the evidence demands it. In an era of social media outrage, political polarization, and information overload, these skills are no longer optional. They are essential.
The scientific method, as we know it today, evolved over centuries. Historians often note contributions from many civilizations, including early Muslim scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham, whose work emphasized observation, experimentation, and skepticism. While scientific thinking shares common elements with philosophy and critical thinking, it was uniquely designed for one central purpose: getting closer to truth.
That sounds straightforward, but in practice it is incredibly difficult.
Scientific thinking is not simply a checklist. It requires discipline, humility, and practice. It is a craft.
People often use the word “elite” as an insult. But true expertise, whether in medicine, engineering, music, athletics, or scientific reasoning, requires years of study and disciplined practice. We trust elite surgeons to perform complicated procedures because they have developed specialized skills. We trust elite pilots to fly airplanes because they have mastered an incredibly complex craft.
Why should we assume rigorous thinking requires any less training?
The ability to evaluate evidence carefully, recognize flawed reasoning, and tolerate ambiguity is not automatic. It must be learned.
Consider how quickly people jump to conclusions based on limited information. Someone reads a headline and assumes they know the full story. A viral social media clip becomes “proof” of a broader political narrative. A personal experience gets generalized into a universal truth.
For example, if one person has a negative encounter with a member of another political or religious group, they may begin making sweeping assumptions about that entire group. Scientific thinking interrupts that process by asking: Is my experience representative? What additional evidence do I need? Are there alternative explanations?
Or consider health misinformation. During public health crises, people are often exposed to conflicting claims online. Scientific thinking encourages individuals to ask whether conclusions are based on peer-reviewed evidence, anecdotal stories, or emotionally charged misinformation.
Even in personal relationships, scientific thinking can help. If a friend does not return your call, your first assumption may be that they are upset with you. But scientific thinking asks whether there may be other explanations. They may be overwhelmed, distracted, or dealing with something unrelated.
This type of thinking is particularly important in democratic societies.
Democracy depends on freedom of thought. It requires citizens who can evaluate competing ideas without blindly following authority figures, political tribes, or ideological movements. Democracies are strengthened when individuals can think independently while remaining open to evidence and differing perspectives.
Without these skills, freedom of thought can be replaced by manipulation. That is where artificial intelligence may play an important role. AI is often discussed as a threat to human thinking, but it can also become a powerful tool for improving it. AI can expose people to multiple viewpoints, challenge cognitive biases, summarize opposing arguments, and help individuals test their assumptions.
For example, someone could ask AI to present the strongest arguments on both sides of a controversial issue. They could ask it to identify weaknesses in their reasoning. They could use it to explore data they might not have otherwise encountered. Of course, AI is not neutral. It reflects the data it is trained on and the humans who design it. It can also reinforce bias if used carelessly.
That is why human judgment remains essential. AI should not replace thinking. It should strengthen our ability to think about our thinking. For decades, I have been writing and teaching about the importance of helping people examine their own biases and assumptions before reaching conclusions. It is encouraging to see broader conversations emerging about critical thinking, intellectual humility, and cognitive bias. But recognizing the problem is only the beginning.
The real work lies in practice. Learning how to think about or thinking requires effort. It requires curiosity. It requires the willingness to admit when we are wrong. Most importantly, it requires the courage to seek truth over comfort.
In a world increasingly telling us what to think, learning how to think may be one of the most important skills we can develop.
Weissmark, M.S. (2026). Seeing the Other Side: Shifting perceptions . 2nd. Edition Amazon KDP.
Weissmark, M. S. (2004). Justice Matters: Legacies of the Holocaust and World War II . Oxford University Press, USA.
Weissmark, M. S. (2020). The Science of Diversity . Oxford University Press, USA.
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Mona Sue Weissmark, Ph.D. , is a psychology professor and founder of the Program Initiative for Global Mental Health Studies at Northwestern University.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.