When we receive new information, a rapid cognitive process begins: we interpret, evaluate, and integrate the new input into our existing understanding of the world. Much of this happens unconsciously and is shaped by prior experience, emotional reactions, and cognitive biases.
What happens if we learn to actively question our first reaction and deliberately take in information without judging it immediately?
This article explores how we typically receive information, the pitfalls we are prone to, and how deliberate practice can cultivate a more flexible and nuanced mindset.
How we typically receive new information
When we encounter something new, the following process often unfolds:
1. Immediate categorization
- The brain links the new information to something already familiar.
- It relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) to construct a quick understanding.
Risk:
If the new input resembles something we already know but actually differs in meaning, misinterpretation happens fast.
2. Emotional response
- The information can trigger feelings based on past experiences.
- If it challenges existing beliefs, we may experience cognitive dissonance, an inner conflict between what we believe and what we are hearing.
Risk:
We may dismiss information not because it is wrong but because it produces an uncomfortable sense of uncertainty.
3. Confirmation bias is activated
- We give more weight to aspects that confirm our existing understanding.
- Information that contradicts our beliefs may be ignored or scrutinized more harshly.
Risk:
We become selective in what we notice and miss new perspectives.
4. A quick conclusion forms
- We draw an initial conclusion based on our own understanding rather than first analyzing the content objectively.
Risk:
We miss important nuances and context, leading to simplified or misleading conclusions.
Example: When lack of information leads to faulty conclusions
Imagine hearing a colleague say:
“I think our company should stop using the new software. It only causes problems.”
An unconscious, bias-driven process might look like this:
- You have had a positive experience with the software and assume your colleague is wrong.
- You feel irritated and label the person as negative or unwilling to adapt.
- Without further inquiry, you dismiss the opinion as exaggerated or inaccurate.
A more deliberate process might look like this:
- You ask why they think so instead of judging the statement right away.
- It turns out their experience is shaped by a bug that affects their specific workflow.
- With that new information, you realize the issue is not resistance to change but a concrete limitation you were unaware of.
Acting on ignorance leads to misjudgments
People who draw conclusions quickly from limited information risk making decisions that are inaccurate or misleading. Acting on ignorance means deciding without first ensuring a sufficiently broad understanding of the situation.
By practicing how to receive new information neutrally, without immediately valuing or comparing it to our own position, we avoid common traps in human decision-making.
How to train yourself to receive information more objectively
Working deliberately to reduce bias and develop a more flexible thinking strategy is possible through the following techniques:
1. Separate impressions from interpretation
- When you hear or read something new, first identify the facts without adding an evaluation.
- Try to describe what is being said objectively before considering what it means to you.
2. Challenge the first impulse
- If you feel strong resistance or quick acceptance, pause and ask:
- What is this reaction based on?
- Do I have all the information I need?
- Could there be another perspective?
3. Make active room for new information
- Adopt an exploratory stance. Instead of focusing on what you already know, seek to understand what you do not know.
- Accept uncertainty as part of the learning process.
How this changes understanding and decision-making
Training yourself to receive information more objectively transforms how you understand and act in different situations:
Increased mental flexibility
- You become less locked to initial impressions and can reassess more quickly.
- This supports better problem-solving and more balanced decisions.
Reduced cognitive stress
- Letting go of the need to defend a preconception reduces stress reactions in conversations.
- You can engage in dialogue without feeling threatened by new perspectives.
Better communication and conflict handling
- You learn to understand others without immediately comparing everything to your own experience.
- Difficult conversations become easier to handle without defensive reactions.
More effective decisions
- By separating emotional impulse from analysis, decisions become more grounded.
- This is particularly valuable at work and in complex decision environments.
Example: Receiving feedback more objectively
Imagine you receive criticism from a manager or colleague. A natural reaction might be:
- “This criticism is unfair.”
- “I need to defend myself.”
- “This means I am bad at my job.”
Using the methods above, you can instead:
- Separate impressions from interpretation: What exactly is being said, in objective terms?
- Challenge the first impulse: What is my reaction based on?
- Make room for new information: Is there something useful in this feedback?
This approach helps you absorb feedback without letting the initial emotional reaction take over.
Summary
This article outlined how we receive new information, the biases we fall into unconsciously, and how we can train a more flexible and open thinking strategy.
When we understand that we do not know, we can learn.
Recognizing that we do not know everything is key to developing a more nuanced understanding of the world around us.
By deliberately separating information from interpretation, challenging our first reactions, and creating space for uncertainty and new perspectives, we improve decision-making, understand other people more clearly, and develop a critical yet open view of the world. Critical thinking is not only about questioning incoming information, but also about questioning our own processing of that information.
Sources and further reading
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Penguin Books.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
- Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
