With the rise of AI, short-form media content, and other recent technological advances, the ability to think critically has become an increasingly scarce skill. Many people incorrectly identify intelligence as the ability to memorize material the best, or think that the most intelligent people are those who know the most facts. I propose that intelligence should be measured by an entirely different metric—the ability to engage in critical thinking.
To help develop this skill, I suggest the following acronym to help remember the key affectors of information: SOFABA. This stands for Sources, Outlandishness, Funding, Author, Background Knowledge, and Agenda. Let’s tackle these key points in order.
Sources tell you to look at where the information you are being given comes from. Anyone who has ever sat through an academic dishonesty speech at school knows how important it is to cite your sources when relaying information. There are many different kinds of sources available online—from Wikipedia to Google Scholar articles—so it’s important to know which are best to use and trust.
When looking at scientific/medical information, primary sources are often preferable to tertiary sources. Primary sources are when researchers do their own original work/experiments to bring forth new information. These can often be found in scientific journals, or under resources like PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Primary sources, particularly those in journals, are also often peer-reviewed. This means that other scientists have reviewed the data found and agree that it is in-line with what is previously known and is likely accurate, giving the source more credibility.
Tertiary sources are regurgitated information, and are often amalgamations of the information. Sites like Wikipedia and the Mayo Clinic take information from many primary sources and make it digestible for the general public. While tertiary sources are not particularly bad (especially if they cite the information they are using), getting information from primary sources is often preferred. Analytical information like population statistics must also be cited, and that information is found easily online.
There are other non-factual sources that are often cited in misinformation that you should also look out for. Satire sites like The Onion, or biased sources like Fox News, aren’t credible sources. And if the information you are being given is not cited at all, or has sketchy sources, then it likely is fake.
Outlandishness is a testament to the skill that is rapidly becoming rarer in society—common sense. If you hear a claim that sounds ridiculous, or too good to be true, it often is. This comes up a lot in the health sphere with “miracle cures”. Many health influencers try to push holistic products that promise to fix many ailments. Unfortunately, a single pill cannot guarantee you instant weight loss without other lifestyle changes, unless it is a pill that is severely damaging to your health. Nor can a simple fruit juice decrease your risk of getting Alzheimer’s, or an herbal tea treat cancer.
There are absolutely holistic remedies that have beneficial medicinal effects—for example, garlic does have antimicrobial properties, and tea is a great way to warm/lubricate the throat to get rid of a cold faster. However, if you hear a claim as outlandish as the others above, then you know it is likely fake, or at least warrants more research.
Funding has always, and will always continue to have a major effect on the information you are given, as those who stand to make money off of your misinformation will want to pay for its perpetration. One famous example of this is the food pyramid, a graphic that students across decades have grown up seeing. Much of the food pyramid, particularly the grain portion, was influenced by the grain industry. They paid to have the importance of carbs overexaggerated so that people would add more of it to their diet, thus coming back to inflate their pocket books.
This also affects which scientific research gets funded, and therefore which data comes to light. In the most negative scenarios, some funders will tell their researchers to embellish or water down the data they find, or influence the narrative in some way to benefit them. Funding is a bit tricky to assess initially, but funding information can often be found on official government websites or at the end of research papers.
Looking at the author of the information is the quickest way to tell you if you should trust what is being said. The use of the word “author” here doesn’t only pertain to the person creating the information, but also the ones who are propagating it. Many people believe (rightly so) that social media platforms like Tiktok and Instagram are not good places to get correct, unbiased information. In fact, within recent years the algorithms of these sites have been used to specifically target people to be fed certain information.
However, while lots of misinformation is spread online, there are many credible sources out there as well. One famous example is content-creator Doctor Mike, a board-certified physician. Dr. Mike’s entire brand is medically inclined, with a lot of his content being focused on dismantling misinformation. He’s done numerous videos and debates on topics like the safety/efficacy of vaccines, for example. Dr. Mike would count as a credible source as he has had years of education in his field, as well as over a decade of being a medical practitioner. He has the qualifications and the knowledge to speak on the medical topics he discusses, as he clearly states at the beginning of almost every video he produces.
Other content creators who do not have education or practical experience on the topics about which they are spreading information are much more likely to be producing misinformation. This may or may not be intentional (they may not know that they are spreading misinformation as they aren’t educated in the subject matter), but it is harmful nonetheless. It may seem counterintuitive, but an author is much more trustworthy when they aren’t afraid to say “I don’t know”, and only speak on the things they do know about.
Background knowledge is similar to outlandishness in that it requires you to use a bit of your common sense. If someone of significance claimed that the sky is green and always has been, instead of taking their word at face value, you should have the capacity to say, “Wait, I remember the sky being blue yesterday”. Better yet, go outside and check for yourself.
New data is always being sought out, so it’s common that new information will displace what you’ve been told is true for years. However, there is a reason that we thought something was true for years, and that is difficult to replace easily. For example, it was thought that all fats were unhealthy for a long time. Now that we know that some fats are healthy, especially in moderation, we have a better understanding of what differentiates a “healthy” from “unhealthy” fat, and where to find both types. The research to learn more about fats took years, and it didn’t entirely get rid of the idea that fats are bad, but instead expanded on the idea of when they are/aren’t good for us. Naturally, if you’ve been told that fats are bad for your entire life it would take some time getting used to this new information – as it should. When presented with the new information that some fats are good, you shouldn’t immediately dismiss everything you’ve previously been taught, but you should consider both new and old information to form a more accurate opinion based on fact.
Lastly, agenda is similar to funding and author, as all three have to do with how powerful people can benefit from controlling the narrative. When considering agenda, think about who can gain from the information being given to you. For example, the US government is currently producing lots of propaganda that immigrants, especially undocumented Latino immigrants, are dangerous, violent people who’ve only entered their country to steal from/exploit it. This has helped to push the government’s ICE agenda, which has locked thousands of people in detention centers. This misinformation completely ignores that the US government’s official statistics demonstrate that most of the people arrested are not dangerous, and many of them had/were in the process of obtaining legal documentation. In this case, the government benefits from the propaganda misinformation, which further fuels their own desires.
Being able to look at a piece of information given to you and think critically about where it came from, what its purpose is, and what it means for you is a learned skill. In a society where our education largely consists of consuming and memorizing information, without leaving much room to challenge it, we aren’t conditioned to make this extra step. This leaves us vulnerable to outside influence, which can be used to create bias, misinformation, and divides between people. To combat this, practice using the acronym above to remember what to look out for when you are given new information.