Understanding apparent paradoxes seems like an important place to start.

The best history/government teacher I had in school had a recurring throughline for our classes. Paraphrasing: "It is better, in the long run, to be for something than against something."

To be against something is to highlight a problem. To be for something is to offer a possible direction for the future.

That belief is directly hostile to critical thinking.

Critical thinking is the ability to critique - specifically, to explain what is wrong or bad about a particular system.

Critical thinking is supposed to be just one tool, everyone should have more than that in their mental toolbox. It's useless on its own, we need the capacity to build systems more than we need the ability to tear them down. It's also even harmful when only applied selectively (e.g. never to one's own, or to popular, positions(s)).

I see it more as acknowledging limitations. Critical thinking is a filter as opposed to a source.

Besides because something isn't as good as another doesn't make something bad. A good new idea or appeoach and critical thinking is better than just a good new idea and can guide the approach. They aren't mutually exclusive.

o.0 I like that a lot.