In the run-up to the election, we are being inundated with ads and messages on a variety of important issues. An effective democracy requires the engagement of all of us. But we are all busy enough with our day jobs. Our time and minds are under heavy demands. Very few of us have the time or inclination to suddenly become experts on immigration, health care, global conflict, or economics. How can we sift through the enormous amount of data coming at us to assess the validity of arguments and make important decisions? In short, how can we become better critical thinkers? And how can we apply that same reasoned judgment to all the more immediate questions and problems we grapple with at work every day?

The most important prerequisite for effective critical thinking is a willingness to stop making assumptions. This doesn’t mean that we have to abandon our core beliefs and be open to everything. It means that we have to listen better and pause in our decisions just long enough to more objectively evaluate the information we have.

To think critically, not only about national or global issues but also about the professional and personal problems we face every day, requires us to look beyond ourselves and our biases and ask ourselves difficult questions. In short, it requires considering three elements: the source of information, the information itself, and our own biases toward that source and content.

1. Consider the source

Jim Ludes directs the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, a think tank at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island. During his career, he has worked on Capitol Hill and in the Department of Defense, among other places. “Critical thinking requires skepticism,” he says. That skepticism starts with considering the source of the information presented. Ludes encourages his students to always ask:

1. Who is the author?

2. Can I reasonably expect them to know what they are claiming?

3. What affiliations do they have?

4. Does this show any kind of bias or ignorance?”

5. Who do they cite, if anyone?

It may seem like a lot of work to ask yourself all of these questions while listening to a newscast, but we can answer many of these questions simply by choosing the news channel we listen to. That’s why it’s important to listen to a variety of voices.

We can apply the same discernment process to our conversations at work. Let’s say someone who reports to you brings up an issue about an initiative in your company. Ask yourself:

1. How close is this person to the challenge they share?

2. Are your comments based on first-hand knowledge or hearsay?

3. Who are they connected to and who are they likely to listen to?

4. What self-interest could be the reason for their argument?

When we pause to ask ourselves these questions, we can better evaluate the ideas or comments we hear. We can even ask some of these questions directly to the person we are listening to. You may go through some of these steps automatically, for example, when we immediately disregard opinions from someone we don’t trust. But even a brief pause in any situation can help us become more thoughtful and critical in our assessments.

Considering the source of information not only helps us judge the veracity of the content, but also reminds us to be more humble when criticizing others’ opinions. According to Joseph Landau, dean of Fordham University’s law school, empathy plays a big role in being an effective critical thinker. “Understanding where others are coming from and acknowledging their problems are crucial steps in forming our own opinions on an issue, especially when we’re trying to be part of solving those problems,” Landau says. “That means considering not just the context of the words, but the broader context so we can have a dialogue that is both insightful and respectful.”

Landau places great emphasis on the “respectful” aspect of communication. Law students should learn to understand the importance of “civil discourse”, with an emphasis on civil, is his highest priority.

2. Please note the information

Once we’ve decided to trust the source of information, we need to take a close look at the information itself. First, ask yourself, “Does it make sense at first glance?” Let’s turn an old saying on its head. “If it doesn’t look like a duck, quack like a duck, or walk like a duck, it probably isn’t a duck.”

Ludes asks his students to ask themselves, “Does the content you are reading seem consistent with other available versions of the story? If not, proceed with caution.”

This doesn’t mean that new ideas or opposing viewpoints are wrong or dangerous. In fact, it’s often the new thinkers on a topic that move a subject forward. It just means you need to put your antennas out and approach the new argument with greater skepticism.

Of course, if we only pay attention to a single news source, we won’t know how one idea or issue differs from others. Therefore, it’s important to engage with a range of views to improve our critical thinking. Landau believes that “embracing the unknown and being open to unexpected opportunities are essential components of a critical mindset.” These unexpected opportunities might include the chance to learn from sources we might normally be skeptical of.

In the run-up to the election, we must therefore engage with the platforms of both parties and try to really understand not only what they are saying on the various issues, but also how those positions sound to us from a common sense perspective.

As we approach our next conversation at work, this means we should suppress any knee-jerk reaction to an offhand comment or new idea presented in a meeting. When our immediate instinct is to either go along with it or reject the idea, we pause, take a deep breath, and say to ourselves, “Let me think about this for a moment.” Then make a list of the pros and cons of the idea.

“We need to ask ourselves whether we have fully considered all aspects of a problem, including possible counterexamples and counterarguments. By challenging our assumptions and testing our hypotheses, we develop a mindset of judgment that is both rigorous and open-minded,” says Landau.

This requires a certain level of intentionality in our thought process. It’s the opposite of making hasty decisions, which are instinctive for many of us. Mike Elias is the director of administration, strategic planning and communications at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts & Sciences. He says, “Critical thinking—especially in a leadership role—involves an intentional process of examining the ways in which projects and initiatives align with institutional goals, meet the evolving needs of diverse audiences, and contribute to organizational efficiency and synergy.” That’s a lot of thinking, but when you’re in a leadership position, your decisions matter. There’s no substitute for taking the time to thoroughly consider an issue.

3. Consider our own prejudices

Three prejudices hinder our critical thinking.

The first is our penchant for making quick decisions. This penchant stems from an overconfidence in our own opinions. Elias suggests that we should ask ourselves the question “why” more often. “We need to challenge our preconceived notions about our professional environment and – perhaps most importantly – be open to change,” he says.

The second bias concerns the source of the information we hear. Certain people in our network suffer from what we call the “halo effect.” We give their opinions more credibility than those of others. Other people are on our internal “don’t trust” list. We automatically roll our eyes when they express an opinion. While both categories of people deserve their labels, suspending that judgment while listening to that person is important to your ability to evaluate issues. Ask yourself if you would react the same way to that idea if it came from someone you respected more—or less.

We would also be well advised to try to control our facial expressions and body language. As soon as we disapprove of or enthusiastically agree with someone else’s idea, we find it more difficult to change course after analyzing it. This stubbornness does us no good.

Finally, we have a bias toward the information itself. When we think we “know” something, we have chosen to “believe” that fact or assessment. “Believing” something requires a certain level of intellectual commitment. When we are open to changing our attitude toward an idea or fact, we can evaluate that fact or circumstance from a more reasonable and nuanced position. Being open to opposing views does not always mean we will change our minds. Sometimes that openness helps us learn why we believe what we do and makes us even more convinced of our position. When that happens from a position of thoughtfulness, that’s a good thing.

In summary, becoming a more critical thinker takes time, energy and humility. There are no shortcuts. We need to be more skeptical of our sources of information and the information itself, as well as our own biases toward both.