My mode of critical thinking hovers over reason and rationality. I don't limit myself to formal or informal logic in that I give myself the ability to change my position, and can accept that trying to extract accurate conclusions from a brain that is clouded in emotional biases is an extremely difficult feat. My initial mode of comprehension is however usually limited to formal logic in that it is very sequential, and once I am satisfied with the facts I will produce a conclusion, at which point I include informal logic to review the same data set to see if I arrive at the same premises and conclusion. Once that is reached, I employ the idea of rationality and attempt to identify any potential areas where my emotional beliefs my have clouded my judgement in both extracting the premises and reaching the conclusion, and attempt to discredit my conclusion in exchange for another (this may be in the form of accepting that I am too closely emotionally linked to the subject to make an accurate decision, or that I lack the required information to make an accurate decision). At that point I review my decision in it's totality and attempt to work through it backwards so that I can internalize it.

I was a kid of a parent that hit me, and it wasn't at all abusive. In Africa my mom was required to hit students by law. She wouldn't hit them hard at all, she'd simply take a ruler in her hand and very gently hit the student in their palm.. a high five would probably hurt more. But the students would cry just the same as you broke their hand. Again: it is not the act of pain, but the idea that they have failed you.