great question. i was an english major during my university years, and this skill was the epitome of everything i did.

critical thinking skills always stem from when you question quite literally, everything.

with the simplest question being:

"why?"

when you ask yourself this, it makes your brain infer, assume, and predict what the answer you're seeking could be. it also creates a sort of domino effect for more questions to be asked within the topic you're focusing on.

also, write whatever answers down that come to your mind that way you can reference back to them as you start to formulate a greater in depth discussion!

hope this helps :)

I don't look at so much as individual resources, but as a process.

If there is information you care about, compare what is said about if from multiple sources, and look for what agenda a particular source may have in conveying that information the way that they do. Especially look at who stands to profit from that information as the money trail always says a lot.

Reject the pervase ideals-based debate in modern societies, This is the first step.

A hard rule is: institutions are structurally unable to be honest. Not because of some conspiracy, but because of simple legal and PR contraints. They have to make sure that what they say portrays them as doing only legal things, only expected things, only feelgood things, only things that play well on the news. To understand that anyone who speaks FOR a legal entity is bound and gagged by these contraints, ANYONE, is a good first step.

Most things institutions and their spokesrobots say is, by definition, therefore idealist sludge; they HAVE to present their institution as adhering to legal and moral ideals to protect themselves legally and financially. First off, then, reject idealist sludge. Don't think from principles, and ideas, and shoulds, and legal frameworks. Don't deduce what goes on from whatever idealist conception you have, from who you think is an enemy or a hero, from any high principle. This is the facade world.

You have to know the material reality and its structural makeup to know HOW it's sludge. You have to understand the ACTUAL structures of political interaction, economic structures, the nature of imperial exploitation, and most of all, history, to understand if something someone claims is plausible or not, ad most importantly, how it is actually used.

An example I sometimes use is hate speech. I have a lot of friends who think it's a good idea to curtail hate speech. The wrong strategy would be: debate free speech principles, debate what people "should" say, start from the idea. You will not only get absolutely nowhere with the person you're talking to (because in the end, nobody makes ideal decisions; they make decisions on interests). You'll also debate in a sterile arena far away from the actual world. Worse, even, that this WORKS: It's a lazy argument, because anyone can yap moralist BS on things they don't understand, as ideals as a debate strategy are -specifically designed- to get people to voice opinions about things they know nothing about. This is how emotionalized social media interacion often works, Steering debates into idealist lines and avoiding material knowledge about things is a guarantee that you can manipulate and control that debate quite easily.

Better strategy: Show WHO has the power to label something "hate" or "misinformation": Show how, and against whom, it's actually, really, materially used. Show what power strutcures are supporting themselves with it, while claiming they're just helping the poor underdog. Show how the idealist arguments are presented to obscure these actual material realities.