How to Make the Best Choices

Background

At society evolved, people faced a new problem: make to make wise choices when faced with difficult choices, complexity, threat, uncertainty, dubious information, and actors who are trying to deceive others and who excel at this practice.

To better manage this problem, people developed Critical Thinking (CT) which is a reliable method for making the best choices in any context (surrounding circumstances).

The primary job of CT is to equip actors (people and groups) so that they can make the best choices. A choice is best when it is ethical and when it reliably maximizes your rewards minus your drawbacks in a holistic sense.

Some of the rewards of CT come from the inherent rewards of best choices. Others involve not being manipulated or deceived. CT also provides social rewards: persuasive power and high levels of collaboration in groups.

Think of CT as a reliable recipe for making the best choices. Like most recipes, it cannot be learned from a single exposure. CT is more like learning a golf swing: progress comes from systematic practice with feedback over time. Once internalized, the CT method becomes both powerful and accurate, allowing people to perform well even when stakes are high and conditions are unclear.

Goals

1. Explain how to make the best choices using the Critical Thinking method.
2. Apply this method to real decisions.
3. Gain the confidence and rewards that arise from consistently making the best choices.

Note: Goals 2 and 3 require practice with feedback, just like learning the piano or anything else.

How To Make the Best Choice (The CT Casual Model)

The CT Causal model in arrow notation is

Purpose → Question → Research → Logic → Argument → Evaluate-Reflect-Repeat → Best Choice

As shown, the CT Causal model has:

• Six Input Variables: Purpose, Question?, Research, Logic, Argument, and Evaluate-Reflect-Repeat

• One Output Variable: Best Choice

Best Choice

When the causal model is implemented skillfully, the result is the best choice. A choice counts as best when it satisfies the following criteria taken together:

1. It is ethical.

2. It is true, when the choice involves a claim about reality.

3. It maximizes the arguer’s expected payoff, given the constraints.

Ethical

A choice is ethical if it meets reasonable standards of human conduct, such as caring for others, honesty, fairness, loyalty, and respect for autonomy.

Truth

A claim is true if it corresponds with reality, meaning it provides an accurate view of how the world is.

Payoff

Payoff is rewards minus drawbacks, evaluated holistically rather than narrowly or in the short term.

Arguer

The arguer is the actor, either an individual or a group, who is responsible for making the choice.

Reward

A reward is anything that tends to increase the likelihood that an organism will repeat an action. Examples include satisfaction, enjoyment, social connection, learning, status, and financial gain.

Drawback

A drawback is anything that tends to decrease the likelihood that an organism will repeat an action. Examples include pain, frustration, fear, effort, cost, time, hassles, conflict, and decision complexity.

Purpose

Job: The job of this driver is to set up the conditions required for the Critical Thinking method to succeed. It establishes what the method must accomplish and aligns the arguer’s mindset so that downstream steps can function correctly.

Input:

• Recognition that a choice can or should be made.
• Recognition of common barriers to clear thinking, such as emotions, defensiveness, premature conclusions, bias, prejudice, and status protection.

Output:

• A commitment to finding the best choice and, when applicable, the truth.
• A willingness to be open to all relevant ideas and evidence.
• A decision to avoid committing to conclusions before analysis.
• A decision to loosen attachment to starting beliefs.
• Reduced concern with being right or protecting status.
• Willingness to be wrong and to revise beliefs when warranted.

Success Criteria:

• No conclusion or choice is adopted prior to analysis.
• Competing ideas are considered rather than dismissed.
• Evidence that conflicts with initial beliefs is actively examined.

Note:

If this driver is corrupted or skipped, everything downstream is polluted. When that happens, the Critical Thinking method is unlikely to work, regardless of the quality of later steps.

Question

Job:

The job of this driver is to focus thinking on the issue that, if answered well, will produce the highest payoff for the arguer in the given context. A good question directs effort toward what actually matters and prevents wasted analysis.

Input:

• Recognition that effective Critical Thinking begins with asking a wise question.
• Awareness that not all questions are equally valuable or relevant.

Output:

• A single, clear key question whose answer would most improve the quality of the choice.
• A question framed in a way that can be investigated using evidence and reasoning.
• A question that is appropriate to the context, constraints, and stakes.

Success Criteria:

• The question is specific enough to guide research and reasoning.
• The question targets the core uncertainty or decision that matters most.
• Answering the question would materially improve the expected payoff of the choice.
• The question avoids hidden assumptions, loaded language, or premature conclusions.

Note:

If the question is poorly chosen, even excellent research and logic will be misdirected. A weak question leads to wasted effort and low-quality choices, regardless of the quality of downstream steps.

Research

Job: The job of this driver is to inform the key question with the highest quality information available for the context. Research supplies the raw material needed for sound reasoning and well-supported conclusions.

Input:

• Recognition that high quality information improves the chances of making the best choice.
• Awareness that information quality varies and must be judged, not assumed.
• Acceptance of practical constraints such as access, time, cost, and effort.

Output:

• The best available information relevant to answering the key question, given the context.
• Information drawn from sources that are credible, relevant, and as unbiased as possible.
• Awareness of important gaps, uncertainties, and limitations in the available information.

Success Criteria:

• Information directly addresses the key question rather than peripheral issues.
• Sources are evaluated for credibility, relevance, and potential bias.
• Both supporting and opposing evidence are actively sought.
• Constraints and limitations of the research are explicitly recognized.

Note:

If this driver is weak or corrupted, the reasoning and argument that follow will be built on poor foundations. High quality logic cannot compensate for low quality information.

Logic

Job:

The job of this driver is to transform information into justified conclusions by using sound reasoning. Logic connects evidence to claims in a way that makes the reasoning valid, coherent, and checkable.

Input:

• Relevant information produced by the Research driver.
• Recognition that conclusions do not follow automatically from information and must be reasoned to.
• Willingness to examine assumptions and intermediate steps.

Output:

• Clear lines of reasoning that link evidence to conclusions.
• Identification of assumptions, inferences, and intermediate claims.
• Reasoning that is internally consistent and aligned with the standards of good logic.

Success Criteria:

• Conclusions follow from the stated premises rather than from intuition or preference.
• Assumptions are explicit rather than hidden.
• Common reasoning errors and fallacies are avoided or corrected.
• Alternative explanations or conclusions are considered and addressed.

Note:

If this driver is weak or corrupted, true information can still lead to false or misleading conclusions. Sound logic is required to correctly interpret and use even high quality evidence.

Argument

Job:

The job of this driver is to structure the reasoning in a clear and transparent form so that it can be understood, evaluated, and improved. Argument makes the issue, conclusion, and reasons explicit.

Input:

• A provisional conclusion produced by logic and reasoning.
• The supporting reasons, evidence, and assumptions that justify the conclusion.

Output:

• A clearly stated issue or question being addressed.
• A clearly stated conclusion that answers the issue.
• Explicit reasons that support the conclusion.
• Clear connections between reasons, evidence, and the conclusion.

Success Criteria:

• The issue, conclusion, and reasons are easy to identify.
• Each reason directly supports the conclusion.
• Evidence is clearly linked to the reasons it supports.
• The argument can be examined, challenged, and improved by others.

Note:

If this driver is weak or skipped, reasoning remains implicit and difficult to evaluate. Even good logic can fail to persuade or be corrected when it is not expressed as a clear argument.

Evaluate–Reflect–Repeat

Job: The job of this driver is to judge the quality of an argument and its aligned conclusion using explicit standards. If the argument does not meet the defined level of acceptable quality, then identify how it should be improved (reflection) and repeat the relevant prior steps to increase quality.

Inputs:

• An argument and its aligned conclusion
• Standards: operationalized criteria that define argument quality
• Justification for these standards
• A rule that defines the minimum acceptable level of quality

Output: One of the following:

• A concrete plan for improving the argument and its aligned conclusion
• An argument and aligned conclusion that meet the defined level of acceptable quality

Success Criteria:

• The quality judgment is made by explicit comparison with the stated standards
• If quality is insufficient, the improvement plan identifies specific deficiencies and corresponding corrective actions
• The improvement plan can be implemented by repeating earlier drivers
• The final argument meets or exceeds the rule-defined standard for acceptable quality

Notes:

• Creating high quality choices and well aligned arguments is typically an iterative process. Iteration is normal and efficient, much like drafting and revising a paper, and usually produces better results with less effort than trying to get everything right on the first attempt.

• Reflective practice goes beyond improving a single argument. It also involves examining your process for making choices and constructing arguments, with the goal of improving that process over time. Useful reflection questions include:

  • Strengths: Which actions or strategies worked well and should be repeated in future arguments?

  • Improvements: What specific actions could you take in future cases to address weaknesses or concerns?

  • Insights: What general lessons or facts about critical thinking emerged that are likely to be useful across many situations?