 Students are often hesitant to be critical because they don't want to question an authority claim. And what I tell them is that as they're getting their undergraduate degree and they're preparing to go to grad school or going to work place, they're the ones who are becoming the authority. That's what they're working towards. And you can only become an authority if you have, I would say, both the confidence to see the gaps in the information that you're being presented with, as well as the humility to learn from others, others who are your peers or others who know more than you, because they've been in a particular field for longer than you. So we really kind of break down the steps of critical thinking in terms of first respecting the information that you've been given, respecting the time that someone or a group of people have put into writing a particular paper or developing a particular data set, but then also understanding the limitations of that person or that team's resources and constraints. They can't be everywhere doing everything all the time. And so it's partly our job as critical thinkers, both in the academy as well as in the workplace to parse that out and to not do that with the intention of putting down someone's argument, but really in a sense with the intention of making that argument bigger and better, because it's only through that practice of constant critical thinking that we can improve upon the body of knowledge that we have, which is ultimately what research is about. Something that we talk about a lot in our class is how do we evaluate a certain situation critically without being hypercritical? So the object of a critical thinking exercise is not to say you are wrong or this is bad or that is incorrect, but really to think about a framework by which we can understand and analyze the accuracy and the bookability of a particular argument. And so we talk about how to do that. So for example, we'll go to the World Bank website and we'll look at their measurement of corruption across countries and we'll say, well, they give a quantitative measure of how corrupt India is versus how corrupt Nigeria is versus how corrupt the United States is. Corruption really mean, right? How is the World Bank defining corruption and how does that differ from how I might define corruption or how does that differ from what corruption might mean in a completely different political or social context? So really kind of unpacking the ideas and the assumptions that go behind the information sources that we trust because we tend to think, oh, the World Bank, you know, they're full of really informed individuals that know a lot and that's true, but they also come with their own assumptions that we're trying to unpack.