Meta-Thinking

The practice of thinking about how you are thinking. It's stepping back from the content of your thoughts to examine the patterns, assumptions, biases, and frameworks shaping them. Meta-thinking involves asking: "What mental model am I using? What goal is driving this line of thought? What am I not considering?" It is the cognitive equivalent of looking at the source code of your own mind to debug flawed logic and upgrade your processing algorithms.

Example: During an argument, instead of just defending your point, you pause and engage in Meta-Thinking: "Why am I so emotionally invested in winning this? Is my goal to find truth or to protect my ego? Am I using a binary win/lose framework when a more nuanced one is needed?" This shifts the conflict from a battle to a collaborative debugging session.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Critical Bias (Critical Thinking Bias)

The paradoxical and self-defeating mindset where the tools of critical thinking—skepticism, demand for evidence, logical analysis—are applied selectively, rigorously, and almost exclusively to opposing viewpoints or unfamiliar information, while one's own deeply-held beliefs are protected by a shield of unexamined assumptions and motivated reasoning. It is the bias of believing you are bias-free because you are "critical," mistaking aggressive debunking of others for genuine intellectual rigor. This creates a sophisticated echo chamber where the thinker feels intellectually superior because they can tear down every external argument, never turning that same destructive gaze inward.

Critical Bias (Critical Thinking Bias) Example: A climate change "skeptic" meticulously picks apart every minor uncertainty in a complex climate model, demanding impossible levels of proof. Yet, they uncritically accept a blog post from an oil-funded think tank as definitive truth. This is Critical Bias—wielding the scalpel of scrutiny only on the other side's evidence, while performing surgery with a butter knife on their own. They believe their skepticism makes them objective, when it's just a weaponized filter for confirmation.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Weaponization of Critical Thinking

The practice of using the tools and language of critical thinking—skepticism, questioning, demand for evidence—not to genuinely evaluate claims but to undermine, dismiss, or attack positions one dislikes. The weaponizer of critical thinking doesn't apply the same standards to their own beliefs; they simply wield "critical thinking" as a cudgel against others, demanding impossible levels of proof, rejecting all evidence as insufficient, and declaring themselves the only rational person in the conversation. It's the rhetorical equivalent of a child covering their ears and shouting "I'm being critical!" The weaponization of critical thinking is especially common in online debates, where "just asking questions" becomes a way to spread doubt without making claims, and "being skeptical" becomes a way to dismiss expertise without engaging it.

Weaponization of Critical Thinking Example: "He weaponized critical thinking in every discussion, demanding sources, then rejecting them, asking for evidence, then dismissing it, claiming to be skeptical while believing obvious nonsense. He wasn't thinking critically; he was using the language of critical thinking to avoid ever being wrong. His opponents gave up, exhausted. The weapon had done its job."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026