> (Education + thinking critically and having educational credentials are not the same thing. At least, there needs to be some justification that they are related

It's ironic how often people criticise the lack of critical thinking in higher education while simultaneously not bothering to examine the hypothesis.

Cognitive development is associated with critical thinking [1], and the "number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life" [2].

So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well, as a bonus, not suffering dementia in their later-voting years. (Whether this is a selection effect or product of education is unclear. And it doesn't suggest everyone in academia is an excellent critical thinker.)

[1] https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/114/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/

This is not a valid argument. In a complex system (like the human body), you can't go from A related to B, B related to C, therfore A related to C.

It may be true that there's some A-C relationsip, but having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship.

> So yes, voters with educational credentials are more likely to be better critical thinkers as well

Not based on your argument, no.

> having two separate studies for A-B and B-C does not prove there's any A-C relationship

You're making a claim about the world. The evidence points in the opposite direction. If you have a problem with cognitive function relating to critical thinking, put forward some evidence about it. Because the link between those seems much more intuitive than your unsubstantiated hypothesis.

A-B - education/cognitive development

B-C - cognitive function/critical thinking

I don't have problem with either. But you're claiming A-C(education/critical thinking relationship) based on the above two without any justification other than your intuition.

B is not even the same thing in the two studies you mentioned. One uses "Lawson CTSR" measure secifically, the other uses nothing in particular, it's just a summary of research in which you didn't point to anything in particular. When it uses something it measures cognitive decline (which is not the same thing as the cognitive development measure in the first study, it's difference between two measures of cognitive development at different times).

Even the example table in the study pretty nicely disproves what you're claiming:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7425377/table/table...

Someone with 22 years of education has cognitive performance of 10 while someone with 10 years has performance of 15 at the same age in that table. Lower educated just decline faster over time, but are still "smarter" in the end.

You also cite no numbers for correlations. So if A-B has correlation 0.2 B-C has correlation 0.3, A-C will have correlation 0.06 in general, which is nothing that proves A-C has any meaningful relationship.

Again, I'm not saying there's no A-C relationship. If there is it just needs to be studied directly. Pointing to two random studies proves absolutely nothing.

42% of eligible Americans did not vote. That's the number I've seen bantered about everywhere in the last months. Whether they went to college or not, I don't know, but I would argue that critical thinking skills in that 42% are pretty much nonexistent. To think, of all cycles of POTUS elections, this is one to sit out is just mind boggling.

Note I didn't criticize either group that voted for or against POTUS. That's another discussion.

Sure, but that number has been pretty consistent for almost 100 years. Almost every US Presidential election sees turnout in the mid-to-high 50% range.

I'm not contesting that people should be more engaged, but the "back in the olden days, everyone thought about things better and more than now" doesn't seem backed by data. Hell, 100 years ago we'd only just barely allowed women to vote.

I never said "back in the olden days." My point is that if you can't bother to vote now, something is very wrong with your thinking.