#809 Insight & (Critical) Thinking

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What role does (critical) thinking play when it comes to gaining insight? That’s the question we explored in Room #809 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Insight.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to you. Today we’re continuing with our overarching theme of insight and gaining insight, and together we’ll be looking at the significance that thinking — in brackets, critical thinking — has when it comes to insight and gaining insight. So thinking and critical thinking in this context is what we want to explore together today. Just a quick note to start: since yesterday the rooms have been recorded continuously, as we discussed together on Saturday, so that we can reuse the content afterward and make it available to you in the form of transcriptions and so on. So as a heads-up at the start, this session is being recorded. If for whatever reason you don’t want to be on the audio track, feel free to use the chat to join the interaction — I’ll pick up on your comments there too. Otherwise, since the whole session is being recorded, I’ll assume it’s okay with you that it can be published accordingly, so you can also use the content for yourselves. And I’d also like to give a quick reminder that we had the giveaway on Saturday, and there will be a winner announcement from that giveaway — we’ll probably do that tomorrow, just so those of you who took part know and aren’t surprised. Right, so today’s entry point into our topic of insight and critical thinking — critical in brackets, so to speak — is set up so we can talk both about thinking in general in this context and about questioning certain things. And with that, as every morning, you’re warmly invited to join in and step into the exchange, to step in and out, so we can open this space for reflection together and, in dialogue, sort our thoughts together. It doesn’t need to be a finished thought, so to speak — just first approximations, first impulses you have, which allow us to make a few explorations together on this journey, to sort our thinking together, and to arrive at certain insights together within 60 minutes. So with that, I’ll go ahead and mute myself for a moment and see who might want to join, and I’ve also brought along one or two aspects that I can bring in shortly — though I’d be delighted if someone wants to start the round with me this morning.

While you’re still thinking it over, I’d like to bring in the two points I brought along — a couple of different definitions from Wikipedia. First, I looked up the term “thinking” — as a first approximation, what does that actually mean? I pulled up the Wikipedia definition again: in the most general sense, the term thinking refers to conscious cognitive processes that can take place independently of sensory stimulation. Its most pragmatic forms are judging, reasoning, concept formation, problem-solving, and deliberation. And then I also looked up the term “critical thinking,” also via Wikipedia. It says critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgment. So, let’s see — what role does thinking actually play, from your point of view, in the context of gaining insight? Is it necessary for us to think? We’ve also noted before that trying things out, our senses, and so on play a very important role too — that by testing certain things, by trying them out, we also arrive at certain insights. So how does this thinking relate to that? Does critical thinking, in that context, perhaps help us arrive at insights even more strongly? Or do we not need critical thinking at all? Is it an add-on? Is it a different form altogether? How would you rank it? Maybe you have different examples from the past, something you think we could pick up as an example, so we can work our way along that example and see where we’d place it.

If we look, for instance, we’ve talked in recent days about the example of children learning to walk. Certain thinking processes are certainly happening there in the background, but probably not yet in a conscious form — in the first instance, it’s really about observing something and then imitating it, simply trying it out, and through that trying, recognizing, in part: this works, this doesn’t work, I can’t hold my balance here, I plop down on my “bottom” a few times and try again, get back up. And once I’ve tried often enough, at some point I get the knack of how to stand, how to walk, take that first step, and so on — even if it’s still wobbly on the legs at first. And then, over time, we increasingly develop this ability — thinking is on the cognitive level, after all — to use and apply it more and more in different contexts, so that we’re also able, without external senses so to speak, without those influences acting on our senses, to actually trigger thinking processes for ourselves and reflect, and so on. We sometimes talk, for example, about this meta-level, where we can also take on different perspectives and so on, in order to generate insights here too. At the same time, we know that emotion plays a very important role, so that when it comes to insight and gaining insight, if we support this thinking process with these emotions, these feelings, it tends to stick better, and so on. So I’m really curious what experiences you’ve had with this and how you’d rank it, what thoughts you have on it. So, who’d like to start the dialogue with me this morning, so we can get out of this monologue? You’re warmly invited. Just a reminder of our three small room rules: a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio — and, given that the session is being recorded, that’s another reminder, and it will be published accordingly. If someone wants to remain anonymous, feel free to use the chat. Otherwise, you’re warmly invited to join.

A very good morning, dear Vera.

Good morning Yasemin, I’ll just come up on stage now, otherwise you’ll close the room.

Exactly, quarter past is always the cutoff.

Right, there are only two minutes left.

Wonderful. So what are your first thoughts on the topic, so we can actually keep the room open for today?

My first thought was actually this critical — critical thinking. Thinking is one thing, but critical thinking — and critical thinking, in my opinion, also means questioning something, looking at it from different angles, and if I have one piece of information, also listening to or seeking out other information, simply to look at new perspectives on a matter or an opinion.

Yes, absolutely. And here the question really does arise again as to what extent this critical questioning of things plays a decisive role when it comes to insight and gaining insight. Where do you stand on that? Do you have any ideas or experiences you’d like to bring in?

Oh, I didn’t quite catch your whole sentence just now, Yasemin.

Happy to repeat it. Yes, absolutely — so I agree with what you’re saying, and my question was: to what extent does this critical thinking, or questioning, play a significant role — does it play a role — when it comes to insight and gaining insight? Maybe you have a concrete example for that too.

It absolutely plays a role, in my opinion, because I sometimes have an opinion about something — I have to think for a moment whether a concrete example comes to mind — but I sometimes have an opinion about a matter that I consider important. And if I then question and re-examine it, maybe prompted by an impulse from someone, it can even happen that I change my opinion, and therefore also my understanding of it, and arrive at new thoughts, and say: okay, I held this opinion for so long, thinking it was right, but now I unfortunately have to say — only a really silly example comes to mind — there’s a winemaker here that I find unlikeable, just not great, but then I visited him and looked at everything and talked with him. He gave a kind of tour, very interesting, and I changed my opinion — so I gained new insight and thereby changed my opinion, that he’s actually a likeable person after all, and that how he makes the wine is good too. Maybe not the most fitting example, but nothing else comes to mind right now.

That’s a wonderful way to start, thank you so much. So in principle, here we have a pre-formed opinion built up through experience, stored based on certain experiences, which for you meant that a certain professional group, say, you didn’t particularly like, for whatever reason — and then, through new impulses, you were able to reconsider that, so to speak, through a newly made experience, an old stored experience can also be objectified again, relativized. So depending on the context, it can mean different things. And in this moment, though, we have an impulse from outside, which doesn’t necessarily have to mean questioning or critical thinking yet — it’s first of all a new experience you had, which led you to correct, re-examine, or similarly revise the opinion you held before. Critical questioning or thinking can go a step further than that. So critical thinking could already be present here in the sense of: okay, I now have a positive — if we’re on the rational level here — that I now think about it again. I did have a different opinion, but I had a different experience here. That would be a very active process, so to speak, of critically re-examining yourself, in order to arrive at the insight that I’m allowed to revise this, or handle it differently in the future. But it could also be that I don’t do this so actively on this rational level at all — that through the positive experience, through this impulse, the experience I gained automatically results in a new learning experience that arose, which then causes me to change my opinion or stance here too, without an active rational step. With critical questioning, if we approach it “actively” — so we can have it passively or actively, that would already be a first distinction we could draw. If I approach it actively, meaning consciously — we could perhaps differentiate even better by conscious versus unconscious, because the thinking processes are always happening, basically, in the background, but the question is whether we perceive them consciously and consciously steer them at that point. And critical questioning can then mean that I approach certain information I receive in a really targeted way and say: is that actually true? Or what other perspectives are there on it? We’ve had this again and again in recent days, for example with social media contexts. We get flooded with information from all sides there and sometimes can’t really distinguish what statements are actually valid, have justification, or similar — where maybe I need to do my own research, look into it, not just consume it and take it as true and given, but critically question it, so as not to stay in a certain bubble in terms of how we construct reality and the perception we had in that context. And that’s the topic we opened up yesterday too — specifically to open other doors as well, to generate further perspectives, maybe to specifically seek out information, whether that’s studies or not, but at least to open up other perspectives too, in order to arrive at new insights through a very conscious and deliberate, critical questioning. How would you rank that, Vera?

As extremely important, because the moment I simply adopt something — an opinion or a view — without questioning it and forming my own picture from it, my own opinion, based on other information, I’m just running after other people’s opinions, other people’s insights. And that doesn’t get you anywhere. Because then the world would still be flat — if nobody had said: hang on, can that even be true, or could it not also be different? And looked at it critically, critically. And especially in political opinion, it’s really important too, to question and, based on critical thinking, gain new insights.

Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And here the question arises too, I think, of how far critical thinking, or questioning something, might also require a particular stance or mindset — that it always has to be trained, so to speak, to critically question things. Because we don’t automatically and inevitably always do that; it can really be necessary to actively step into this critical questioning, again and again, out of a mindset we hold. I’d like to quickly bring in something from the chat before I bring in Sabine. There was a question about the recording — where can it be listened to afterward? I can’t find a corresponding tab on the Deep Talk Club site. Thank you for that question, so I can address it. Since it’s new, it’ll take a few more days, so to speak, until we’ve organized everything in the background and it’s set up accordingly. I’ll definitely let you know in the coming days where you can find it. And you’ll certainly find a note about it on the Deep Talk Club page too, so feel free to check in there in the meantime. But I’ll also officially announce it once it’s ready to go. Right now we’re recording and preparing everything in the background, and once it’s accessible, I’ll be happy to let you know where you can access the material. Wonderful. And Tobias also wrote in the chat: I think it’s extremely important to question things too. Sometimes you’re allowed to change your opinion because your own position rests on very shaky ground, or possibly none at all. And sometimes your own position actually becomes more solid, when you realize, after checking, that it makes even more sense. Yes, so a confirming effect can also be a result — it doesn’t always mean that whatever we think about or critically question ultimately has to be revised or corrected. That’s one of the options, but it can also be that the insight puts us on a track where we say: yes, apparently I was actually quite right with my thinking after all. Sabine, a very good morning to you. What do you have to say about it?

Good morning. Yes, I brought a few things — first, the topic of prejudice. That ties in a bit with what we had yesterday — when we say things like “all refugees,” “all Black people,” or whatever. Often there’s really no willingness to gather insight at all, it’s simply prejudice. That was one point. Same with the topic of influencers — I don’t believe every influencer actually checks all their products first. Of course, an influencer is basically the same thing you were saying earlier about social media — there’s often no critical thinking involved there either, it’s just going out to the masses. What also struck me is the topic of politicians — whether it’s the climate-focused ones or the far-right ones, there’s hardly anything that shifts there. They have their entrenched opinion and not much moves. One more question I have is on the topic of negative thinking versus critical thinking. I’ll probably personally find it hard to tell those apart sometimes, even though I do see the difference. It’s not really a question, but if I go a bit down that road, and I have a negative stance toward something, turning that negative stance into a critical one might be difficult for me at times. Those were just a few thoughts.

Wonderful, lovely impulses, thank you. So, on the one hand we can open up different groups, so to speak, to look at things from these different perspectives. You mentioned influencers, politicians. Then, tying into the Author Breakfast we had yesterday, the topic of prejudice too — is there even any willingness there at all, or with strong generalizations that keep coming up, is it perhaps fair to assume there’s little to no willingness to check certain things? Although in the topic we had yesterday, it’s often the case in those contexts that it’s not really prejudice in the sense of some extreme movement where willingness is lacking, but it was also, among other things, about unconscious bias — unconscious patterns that lead us to stigmatize without fully noticing it ourselves, without really intending to do it, and maybe even being a bit shocked ourselves when we’re made aware of it, when it’s pointed out, in a concrete example, that someone put it into words. So we really have quite a range here, from one end to the other — there’s a lot to look at from many different angles. And I also liked that last point you raised, about negative thinking versus critical thinking. I assume you mean the classic type — the one we might have stored in our heads — a kind of grumbler, someone who always sees everything negatively in some way, in different contexts. And whether that’s actually the same as this critical thinking or questioning. I have a first idea of how I’d differentiate or place that. Do you have any first approaches where you’d say, this might be what makes the difference — Vera, Sabine?

Well, with a grumbler, I’d say that’s someone who finds fault with everything anyway. That doesn’t really have much to do with critical thinking, because it’s really just an anti-stance, a stance of putting things down. I don’t think much real thought has gone into the matter at all. Because critical thinking also means questioning yourself, your own thoughts, and what someone else says or does. And then it also depends on who that is — from one person you might just adopt an opinion without questioning it, without critical thinking, and with another you go into confrontation more, into “no, that can’t be,” but beyond that I still have to question it and think critically about it, not just go into an anti-stance.

Thank you. And what sounds relatively simple in theory is of course not always quite so simple in practice. I can understand that well, Sabine, feel free to add to it in a moment too — especially when I think of work contexts, where people work together in a team, it’s often the case that the person who, in inverted commas, simply questions things critically is also experienced as someone exhausting, because it naturally requires more discussion, maybe more rounds, to look at things more closely, and it might not always be so easy in practice to tell that difference. Sabine, you wanted to add something.

No, I didn’t mean the typical grumbler who’s against everything and doesn’t fundamentally think about anything — I meant more, say, the climate discussion. That’s another thing we now have at home — the kids are very climate-focused, vegan, and so on. And it sometimes gets difficult to discuss things like that, like “just think about it, the economy needs to be okay too” — more in that direction is what I meant. So I didn’t mean the typical grumbler — that I can’t stand either, if you pick up the phone and already know their opinion, that’s not what I meant. They should think critically, but critically in a one-way street, even though there might be several possibilities.

Wonderful, thank you so much for that distinction too. Let me try to sum up briefly on this classic grumbler versus the questioner. I think a key characteristic you can use to tell them apart, even in situations where it’s not always so clear and obvious, is whether there’s a willingness to actually talk about it, to enter into dialogue, in the sense of finding a solution. So whether it’s solution-oriented thinking and acting at that point, or whether it’s simply, as Vera put it so nicely, basically an anti-stance, no matter what it’s about, and not constructive either. So the constructive part plays a really key role here — in the sense of also opening further doors, of considering things, not just being against something, but really thinking in different directions too. And I think we can build a nice bridge here to what you said, Sabine, or what you originally meant — namely, when someone, for example in the context of the climate discussion, looks at it from one perspective and holds a certain stance on certain topics, and here maybe does see things quite critically on the one hand, but on the other hand — and here we’re back at a similar point — hasn’t opened up enough perspectives yet. That means looking at it through one dimension, one level, so to speak, through one lens, and developing certain opinions accordingly, and maybe aligning your behavior accordingly or formulating expectations accordingly, but completely blanking out other areas. And there we’re basically back at that aspect of how important these different perspectives really are. We talked earlier about how, when it comes to gaining insight in connection with thinking and critical thinking, it also has to do with getting impulses that lead to or contribute to having the opportunity to look through different lenses, to look through a new lens. And if, in different contexts, I only ever look through a single lens, then maybe in a certain context I’ve thought critically, so to speak, or picked up on topics critically, but I’ve possibly not taken the complexity, in inverted commas, into account in that context — because every angle we look from, and also the demands that get formulated in that context, ultimately have effects, effects on other areas too. And we see that not just with climate discussions or similar, but for example also, not just with political topics or climate topics, but also in everyday life, if we take various situations from business life. I know this often from companies, for example, that certain decisions get made, and people don’t necessarily always think about what effects that has, for example, on other departments. And it usually has a lot of effects on the process level, on the level of structural change, and so on, that often don’t get considered. We can also pick up the example again with energy prices and so on. If you’ve been following that a bit, or maybe you’ve already gotten letters from your energy providers, that prices are now going to be capped to some extent, that relief is supposed to be provided here accordingly. Before, there was a flat-rate payment, a one-time payout based on the amount of the advance payments made. And there I asked myself, for example, to what extent that actually makes sense in one case or another, because the moment such decisions are made, it also has an effect on companies. I’ve never in the past received as many postal notices from my energy provider as in the last three months, I’d say, altogether. And that’s crazy — not just that this has to be covered on the process side, that it has to be managed, that resources have to be made available for it, also by the energy providers, but also all these letters — if you think about how many customers a company like that has, that causes costs too, and those costs then have to be borne by the company. And here, in principle, from the ground up, maybe even a good consideration — but on the other hand also an effect, and maybe even negative effects, in this case on the companies ultimately, which also represents a burden, so to speak — and not just financially, but also in terms of resources, and so on, because all of that has to be managed too. So what do you say to that, Vera, Sabine?

That would be about looking at what effects something can have, what it can lead to — something that’s well-intentioned and what then gets made of it — because then the critical question arises, thank goodness I didn’t get that flood of mail. I got one letter saying my advance payment has gone down. Whether that makes sense from the provider’s point of view, what they’re even doing there, or whether they have to do it for legal reasons. But another example of critical thinking comes to mind — in the sense that, when you can’t even imagine that someone would do something, and you just go along with it — if you think of the Spiegel scandal, the name Relotius comes to mind, I think that was the journalist who wrote fake reports, and nobody could imagine, or even considered, that it might be false, and he was hyped up. And the voices that did raise concerns — “hang on, could something be off here?” — were simply dismissed in the editorial office, because people couldn’t imagine that this man was wrong. And it did come out afterward. So many people who should have thought critically didn’t — they simply went along with it based on the man’s reputation. That was another example that came to mind.

Thank you so much. Yes, that’s a really interesting aspect you’re raising too, because yesterday, with these various prejudices we opened up, we also had different components come up, like gender, then we had social environment, then status. So certain aspects that play a role here too, in the context of typecasting or stigmatizing, which we do consciously or unconsciously — thinking in certain boxes, so to speak. And these boxes help us in everyday life to have orientation. But at the same time, that can also lead to situations, in certain contexts, where certain things simply don’t get questioned at all — that per se, because someone is a journalist by profession, maybe you don’t look at it critically again, because someone has a certain status, maybe you don’t look at it critically anymore. Or we have examples like that in other contexts too, like job applications. That’s what comes to mind first now. We’ve had cases of that in the past too, where someone forged certificates or degrees, for example, and then worked for years in some position as a doctor, even though they’d never completed a medical degree. And nobody thought to — and this typically doesn’t get done anyway, it would be far too much effort — to actually verify these certificates or degrees in some form, or they’re partly probably not even verifiable due to data protection and so on. So all of these are topics that can ultimately have massive effects in everyday life and in business, on various levels, including socially. Especially when we pick up on this medical field, that can have, in the worst case, really terrible effects, even leading to death, or contributing to it. What do you say to that, Vera, Sabine? While you’re maybe still thinking it over, I’d like to invite others too — it’s great when we can open up different perspectives together, talk about them. So if anyone would like to join us, I’ll keep the hand-raise option open for a few more minutes, feel free to come up and join the exchange. Maybe another example occurs to you, building on what’s already been said, so you can bring something in too. Or maybe there’s an aspect we haven’t touched on yet this morning that you say, that just occurred to me — how does that relate here, feel free to bring that in too. And another reminder that the room is being recorded, so by joining, you’re agreeing to that. If you’d rather not, feel free to use the chat, and for those who’d like to come up, we have our three small room rules: a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Just to keep that in mind too, to make sure these are serious contributions and not Clubhouse trolls. Vera, Sabine, do you want to add anything else? Go ahead, Sabine.

Yes, with the critical — the example you just gave, with critical thinking, there’s always the question of whether something can even be proven or not. In your example, it could be proven if you bypass data protection. But with a lot of things, in the end it’s also a matter of opinion again, or a direction things go in. We had that a few days ago — if we can prove it, of course, that would be like — how do I put it — the watchdog within your own camp, so to speak, who keeps checking, is this okay or not okay. And I think there we’re also a bit at the border between critical thinking and over-bureaucratization. In the medical field, no question, I don’t want some fake doctor sending me to my grave. But in a lot of other things, it’s always: do you really need the 25th certificate? Can you even prove it? That’s a really tricky thing, I’d say.

Yes, absolutely, and this over-bureaucratization, we have that in a lot of places too. And here, though — ultimately it’s not really about whether we can actually prove it or not. In cases like that, it would be important, but it only relates to critical questioning in the sense that, when we have an application in front of us, for example, we assume from the start that what’s written in there is actually true. We don’t assume from the start that it might not fit. Maybe you wouldn’t even need to go the over-bureaucratization route there, in the sense of bypassing data protection, but instead handle the application process quite differently from the start, to actually be able to test certain competencies in some way, in inverted commas, purely through the exchange that happens there, rather than presupposing those competencies from the start. Because at that moment, and that’s the aspect of critical thinking or critical questioning here, it’s about not assuming per se that the competencies listed or shown in a CV are actually, in fact, present. Even — we probably all agree on this — not everyone who has a degree is necessarily competent in their field afterward either, but rather really questioning that, through a different kind of interview approach or whatever, to check: is this just something learned by rote, in inverted commas, or are the underlying connections actually understood, and so on. And there, in one place or another, you might find out one thing or another in that context too. We have that in many different contexts, and of course it shouldn’t go in the direction of over-bureaucratization or anything, but that wasn’t my point at all — rather, in the sense that we have many contexts where we don’t even get into this critical thinking or questioning in the first place, because it doesn’t even occur to us. Not even because we’re not open, I wouldn’t claim that, but because it just doesn’t occur to us to doubt something at all. And we probably have that in a lot of everyday situations. I can bring up a very concrete example here — the whole Corona discussion that’s basically taken place over the last three years, and the vaccinations and so on. I mentioned this in one of the rooms before too — in the past, I actually had no awareness that, for example, the check-ups done with children, where you have that little yellow booklet, you know it, where the data is written down about when you have to go to the doctor for a check-up, essentially. And there are fixed appointments set for that, which vaccinations get done in which month, and so on and so forth. And honestly, no education is really provided about it. And to be honest, it personally never occurred to me to question it. For me it was set, given, and I even assumed it was mandatory. And I find that really fascinating — it’s not about which opinion we hold on this at all, but through this discussion that’s come up over the last three years, in the context of these vaccination events — should it become mandatory, yes, no, how do we handle the situation — through the discussions that have come up here, I only became aware, because I started dealing with it, that I’d never questioned it. And how often do we have things in life that we don’t question at all, and maybe only become aware of, through some coincidence, or through education, or through a dialogue, through an impulse, so to speak, made aware of it from outside, because it’s so self-evident to us that it doesn’t even occur to us to question it. Do you know that too, Vera, Sabine?

Yes, I know that even in the exact same context as you, with the check-up booklet, that was the same for us. With our first child we did everything, with the last one we basically didn’t do much anymore, because he was always healthy, and then we let it slide a bit. And then I was discussing it with an acquaintance, and we had private insurance, she had statutory insurance. And she said, hey, I have to go, otherwise I’ll have a problem — from her side. And we didn’t have to, because we had private insurance. And the same applies to the bonus booklet at the dentist — you have to go if you have statutory insurance. If you have private insurance, that’s fine. I mean, in your own interest, you should do both, because you want a healthy child and you want healthy teeth. But not with the big stick over your head. And this came up now because my daughter now has statutory insurance, and she says, “Mom, do I really have to keep going regularly?” and I say, yes, otherwise you’ll have a problem and won’t even get everything paid for next time. So that’s where this critical thinking came up. And I think that’s often the case simply because we don’t know about the other areas, maybe also aren’t brave enough, or are just too lazy to just go on Google, because knowledge is available everywhere today. You’d just have to question it. And I think critical thinking often falls short there.

Thank you. And another aspect from the chat, this time from Tobias, was the question I can ask myself — am I open to checking things I take as given? So, really open-ended, is that actually true, or is that just my assumption? And here this dilemma, so to speak, becomes clear. On the one hand, this openness, this open-mindedness, certainly plays a really key role in this context, that I take on and look at certain topics and so on. And at the same time, there are things we simply grew up with, taken for granted, through the kind of upbringing, through the family context, and so on, so that even though we might be open-ended at first, open to dealing with new information on many topics, open to really looking at things — but in certain contexts, because we’re simply not aware of it, we fall into that trap ourselves, without realizing that we don’t critically question certain things at all, because it just doesn’t occur to us to critically question them. And so the question arises, to some extent, of how it is, for example, with something like the media — there we do tend to look at things more critically, maybe even more critically, because we know, for example, that it can be manipulated, that it might be sensationalized to boost click numbers, or similar — so that I get to take the whole thing with a grain of salt. That means I might already have some information there, whether that’s from school, or from exchanges with others, that I’ve already dealt with this topic before. So maybe, and you put this so nicely, Sabine, in certain areas we’re maybe just not that familiar with things. So to what extent would I need to think my way into different areas regularly, or engage with them, in order to notice inconsistencies, for example, or so that question marks can develop in my head too, in the direction of critical thinking and questioning. What do you think about that? Sabine.

I have to quickly go to the door, someone’s ringing the bell — but I can keep talking. I think that’s often also a question of your own will. Do I want this? Do I want to block myself? Do I maybe not want to go one step at a time, but rather walk all the way around the outside? And I think that’s also a nice example — yesterday I talked with my daughter. She’s doing a start-up internship and had her last day, and was together with a bunch of founders in Berlin, and a lot of them said to her, why don’t you study too, just stay with us in the group — and we started studying, we dropped out, and so on and so forth. And then she really started discussing that a bit with me. I said, listen, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, but you know, if it doesn’t work out tomorrow and you’ve got nothing in hand, do your degree, and you can keep working as a working student or whatever. So I think that’s often something in our own heads. And the willingness is often just not there. But on the other hand, if the willingness were always there, wouldn’t we also often block ourselves and always take detours?

Yes, take detours on the one hand, maybe. On the other hand, critical thinking isn’t always easy either, in inverted commas. I think it makes sense here too to keep finding a healthy balance — not always questioning everything critically, maybe, or not subsuming everything down to the last detail, because otherwise we probably never get out of this critical thinking again. We also need certain guardrails and lanes we can move within, so to speak, where it’s also perfectly fine sometimes to just, in inverted commas, let go. And critical thinking, taken as a whole, is also a process that takes place, that requires strength and time and resources of our own too. It’s not the case that critical thinking means I think about it for two minutes and the topic’s settled — if we really want to take on topics, look at them from different perspectives, or look at facts or similar, that often means a certain amount of research work too, for example, or figuring out where I can actually get the information, what’s useful, what’s not useful, how can I — so always going into evaluation after the analysis too. And so these processes can also take up a certain amount of time and resources. And if, in inverted commas, that’s my thesis now, I questioned everything critically all the time, then I probably wouldn’t get around to doing anything else, because I’d only be occupied with critical questioning. What do you say to that?

May I? I’d say you’re absolutely right, of course. You mentioned the word, or the topic, of family briefly earlier. And now I’ve been thinking about it — isn’t it maybe the case that we already learn as children to form our own opinion, or to question critically? If I grow up as a child and, let’s say, I’m not allowed to contradict, then don’t I learn, for later life, whether in a career or otherwise, not to really think independently, to think critically? And critical thinking also has something to do with independent thinking, I assume.

Yes, a really important aspect, and here the environment and the family we come from, and the upbringing, also plays a decisive role in that context. You just mentioned it — if I learn, for example, not to contradict, when a mother or father say this or that, or family members, or maybe older relatives in a family, depending on the cultural background and so on, that can play a role — then that possibly has something to do with it too. But thinking per se, one could say, isn’t necessarily influenced by that in itself — it could be that I still have other thoughts, but I’m just not allowed to verbalize them. So there’s a certain complexity to this topic here too. That means: someone who has learned not to contradict doesn’t necessarily mean, in reverse, in my view, causally, that the person is unable to think critically or anything — it could be that the person is actually able to think critically and to question things, and might even do so, but doesn’t express it. So this “do I stand by what I think?” or “how do I handle that?” can also be an effect of it. And another effect — if I come from a family context, for example, where per se, as a whole, little critical thinking happens — that’s also a learning process, after all, I can also learn to think critically, to question critically, not to take everything as given — then I’m more at the point where I might not be able to imitate that either, because I can’t observe those processes, so to speak, in my environment. And all of that certainly has a certain effect too. At the latest in daycare, school, or similar, it should definitely become possible. Maybe not in every class, but a lot is also about conveying content. But there are also many teaching approaches where we really do try to get children to exchange, foster thinking about topics, open up different perspectives, and all of that is really geared toward generating perspectives, perspective shifts, critical questioning too. And per se, I find, if we look at how it is with children, I’d say, purely through the curiosity we bring as children — if we look at it, children want to explore and discover. It’s tendentially maybe even the case that we could assume, and you’d of course have to verify this, but you could assume that children per se might originally be much more capable of acting in the direction of critical thinking too. Through this curiosity, through this drive to explore, simply trying out different things from different perspectives, doing and acting, without thinking about it first. And that this is maybe also something we “unlearn,” so to speak, over time — unlearn in the sense of it being overlaid by new experiences. And through that we then learn that certain things are given, or one plus one is two, that’s set, we also learn that it’s just so, and certain rules, in inverted commas, in the sense of good coexistence, societal coexistence, we then also learn to accept unquestioningly, so to speak. So there are a lot, a lot of exciting aspects here too. I’d now like to move, with an eye on the time, into the closing round. If you want, you can of course tie back into this point or another one too. So what were your highlights from the room in relation to insight and critical thinking? What significance does this thinking, or critical thinking, questioning, actually have in relation to insight and gaining insight? Vera, Sabine, in that order please.

Very happy to. I’ll take the last thing you said — that this childlike curiosity, this childlike questioning, which isn’t yet so stuffed full of knowledge, should be preserved as much as possible into adulthood, into growing up, because that really contributes significantly to critical thinking. And another insight just came to me, which has nothing to do with the topic, but I want to say it anyway — I miss Jürgen.

Oh, wonderful, thank you so much.

Yes, I also want to say briefly that I wasn’t fully present the whole time, but maybe one more note on critical thinking and family, which I unfortunately didn’t fully catch. But I can say this too — I shared this week that my son has a new family, a Japanese host family, half Japanese, half Canadian. And I have to say, I found it good that he thought critically along the way and didn’t let too much get to him — he was treated badly in the other family, nothing physical, just things like, “we don’t like you anyway and you don’t bring us any money,” comments like that. And I have to say, I was actually a bit proud that he became active there and told us all about it. And we fought for him from the German side too. Within two days he had a new host family and is very happy now. And I have to say, I think, I don’t know, that was also a cultural thing again — the host parents simply didn’t expect a young man of 15 who contradicts them, or who thinks critically at times. They just wanted yes and amen. And I think, with our generation — well, our children’s generation — a completely different generation is growing up. They think very, very critically, and sometimes too critically for my taste, but that brings up a lot of discussions. So I’m in favor of critical thinking.

Nice, sometimes too critical too, yes, we’re back at that point — it doesn’t necessarily make things easier. And still, it’s important that it’s there. So it’s really fascinating. And especially this last aspect you raised, Sabine, I’d like to pick that up again in my closing words too. Because critical thinking especially becomes possible through us being able to keep gaining new perspectives — that we even have the opportunity to do that at all, whether that’s the school system enabling it, whether it’s the family enabling it, whether it’s simply the fact that I have the opportunity to get to know other cultures, and travel plays a role here too. Am I even in a position to get to know other cultures? How intensively can I get to know other cultures, not just through a longer stay in a country — through that I get even more insights — but also simply the opportunity, for example, to hold a German passport, and to be able to travel to other countries relatively easily, as far as that’s financially possible too. That also opens up completely new perspectives for us, through these contacts and the experiences we make. And all these perspectives we pick up through whatever means — I’ve given a few examples now — they ultimately lead to the fact that, the more perspectives we can see and experience in certain contexts, the more that plays an important role in relation to critical thinking, thinking, critical thinking, and through that, once again, plays a decisive role in relation to insight and gaining insight. That’s why I find this point really, really important too. And yes, thank you all so much. It was an exciting exchange with different perspectives we opened up, distinctions we made. We’ll continue tomorrow with insight and creativity — so what influence do creativity and a spirit of experimentation have on insight and gaining insight, and also looking, in that context, at what creativity actually means, how can I learn that, and how important is it to think and act creatively in relation to insight and gaining insight? And with that, I’m looking forward to tomorrow morning at 8am, here again in the Deep Talk. Feel free to join again. Thank you so much for your contributions, examples, and the various perspectives we were able to open up here together, building on that. With that — I wish you well, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow morning at 8am in the Deep Talk. Until then, ciao.