In the Tarot deck, the realm of the intellect is assigned to the suit of swords, a powerful weapon for both good and evil. Thinking alone, critical or otherwise, won’t get the job done. One can think their way to any position.

I would add a few qualities that, while closely related to what has been suggested here, address, not technique and method, but, rather, attitude.

Most essential: honesty. All the qualities mentioned can be present, but if someone is predisposed to see a cat and call it a dog, all their critical thinking will be marshaled in defense of the deception.

Another essential quality similar to the objectivity mentioned by @KeithThorp would be respect for opposing views and those that hold them. That would imply an assumption of good will on the part of those who, using those same mechanics of critical thinking, arrive at different conclusions.

Another would be a lack of attachment. Here, most falter. We believe what we believe, we tend to like what we believe, and if we feel we’ve arrived at our beliefs through a process of critical thinking, we will be all the more attached to those beliefs. The danger this poses to critical thinking and an objective world view is that belief is not too far removed from faith and religion. It is a paradox of our intellect that, while we can arrive at such a state using the mechanics of critical thinking, it’s exponentially more difficult to retreat from it using those same methods.

My instinct has always been to indict the left on the basis of the points I’ve raised. They appear to be ruthlessly dishonest in not only how they frame their arguments, but in the way they gather evidence in support of them. A lack of respect for opposing views is not just a characteristic, it is their basic M.O. And as for their attachment to their beliefs, there is no more a faith-based belief system to be found, given their unrelenting adherence to an ideology with a track record of utter failure every time it’s been given a chance to control things.

And yet, I must ask myself, am I any more flexible where my own positions are concerned? More to the point, am I willing to grant the left a measure of respect and an assumption of goodwill? My critical thinking leads me to respond with a firm “NO.” The riots in Portland, the coup attempt against Donald Trump, the effort to erase our history and undermine our founding principles, to say nothing of the 100,000,000 corpses sacrificed to their secular god convince me that they are undeserving of any such gesture. I may have reached that conclusion by thinking critically, but my unwillingness to see otherwise is a belief.

It’s a conundrum. I don’t have an answer to it. But I don’t believe thinking alone will get us past the divide.

Common sense.

"IMHO there is one major requirement before we can exercise 'Critical Thinking' That would be to have an objective outlook - some would call this 'an open mind' on whatever the subject happens to be."

Does such a description of "critical thinking" preclude a person's arriving at settled convictions about particular issues? Must one forever have "an open mind" about any particular issue? Your description could be understood that way without further qualification.

Also, how does such a description allow for the recognition of one's own presuppositions and the role that such presuppositions play in assessing arguments or evidence? In my experience, recognizing one's own presuppositions and the role that they play helps to potentially check or correct those presuppositions. Those who are unaware of such things are usually not very good "critical thinkers," in my own humble opinion.

Jordan Peterson described it very well.

It is the ability to argue two opposite view points at the same time while accepting that both could be wrong.

What you described is similar to the scientific process...

Key is the acceptance that you could be completely wrong and being able to understand the opposing view point to the point that you are able to defend it to some extent. Or at least being able to explain the other viewpoint to someone else.

If you cannot do that, how can you argue against that?

Over half the population are not "thinkers." And of those who are thinkers, many have never attempted the disciplined process required to think objectively and thoroughly through any issue.

"Critical" thinking is an unfortunate term, because being "critical" is part of the Left's bag of tactics to destabilize society, and thereby convince the public that Constitutional Republicanism is not legitimate, and that socialism might be a viable alternative.

Part of making that work is to destroy the true record of history, because actual history proves the illegitimacy of socialism.

Wouldn't a better term than "critical" thinking, be "Objective thinking," or "Logical thinking"?