I personally dislike the term "critical thinking". For me, in many discussions it's a red flag.
I am sure we can all agree, intelligence and knowledge are not the same thing. And intelligence has nothing to do with manners, cultural differences, indoctrination etc. And if we say intelligence is the ability to "figure things out", as opposed to repeating or learning by rote (although that forms skill), then I reckon we can split intelligence into separate types We see how it works- fantastic at applying maths but can't work out how to assemble a flat pack cupboard.
So we have intelligence, knowledge, and skill. Memory can be slotted into knowledge here I think, but memories work different from person to person.
And these are all intertwined, categories sub divided, linked in different ways, in a pretty much infinite amount of combinations.
"You're all individuals"
"Yes, we are all individuals"
"You are all different"
"Yes we are all different"
"I'm not"
:-)
So for me, when I think of the premise of " critical thinking" and I apply "critical thinking" to my thought process of thinking about it, taking into account the variations mentioned above, I reach my conclusion that it is only a valid premise where the data input is complete and irrefutable, and the natural laws applied to the data are proven.
So, "critical thinking" works when debating a flat earther. But it appears to me to be practically useless for more abstract stuff, like economics.
And that is why I do not like the term " critical thinking". I think, but I am open to debate on it :-)
Critical thinking re blocking supermarket aisles ? Hmm. I need to think about that.