Using “Meaningful, Actionable, and Helpful” To Improve Critical Thinking
We have a recurring (every other Friday) show called, “Practicing Critical Thinking.” Anybody can send in an article, social post, video, or really anything. The live audience and I break it up, ask questions, determine if it’s factual, and judge its value.
Some of that is subjective. But for the show, we use a little framework (you might call it): Meaningful, Actionable, and Helpful. What do these mean, and how can you apply them when considering if content is worth the like, share, or reply?
Content of little value should be ignored. Responding to it teaches sites and systems to amplify it in algorithms. Instead, let it sink to the bottom of the algorithm ocean.
Should I boost content if I don’t love it but I think it’ll help other people? Up to you, but remember that many sites learn what you “like” from the time you spend on the content and what you do next (liking, commenting, sharing, etc.). Just spending time on it can signal positive vibes to the algorithm. If you like or share something you don’t love, be prepared to see a lot more like it since the algorithm might imagine you love this stuff!
Does all content need to be meaningful, actionable, and helpful? Not necessarily. This is just a short and simple approach for improving critical thinking. You might decide that something that didn’t meet two or three of these was still great content.
My framework is just a start. You can certainly customize this or add to it. I’m folding a few things into each of the three criteria to keep it simple (three things!), but you can always break more criteria out separately if you find that more meaningful, actionable, or helpful. :)
Meaningful
Does this have meaning? Does it make sense? Is it factual? A good true story? Can we apply logic and reasoning to determine if some or all of this is true or good ideas?
This is a bit subjective. Something I find meaningful you might find meaningless. For example, my day is rarely changed because of an inspirational or motivational post. You might decide to try something fresh today just because of that post. It had meaning for you that it didn’t have for me.
If I mostly ignore the motivational post or mark it as something I don’t want to see, many sites will “learn” that I don’t want to see something like this. Will the content site hide this from other people because I didn’t like it? It depends on how the algorithm works. For example, LinkedIn kills your post in the algorithm if someone blocks you that day. But if I unfollow someone on LinkedIn or signal that I want less of their content, you still might see all of their content.
The criteria are important for our critical thinking. Is the content wholly or partially true? Can anything being said be verified? Does the writer or content creator have a source, or is this an opinion? Opinions are welcome, but they should be presented as opinions, and should not be presented as fact or “everybody knows this is true.” Opinions should come with the sources or reasoning for why you believe something, or why you think your perspective is true or meaningful.
Example: An article says that customer-centricity is killing businesses, but offers not even a completely biased and cherry-picked example of this. The author says it and expects that you believe them. This doesn’t pass my “meaningful” test since it might not be true for many or even any business. Whether or not there is evidence or an example, the author should explain how they came to that conclusion. They should include sources, if there are any.
Example: A podcast says that UX is misunderstood in most companies. They give five true reasons why this tends to happen. This can be meaningful. The content is factual. The podcaster makes good points. But if they don’t offer ideas or advice, it might not be actionable, which we’ll examine later.
As another example related to “meaningful”: An article says, “If remote work is the answer, why are most tech companies laying off people?” Is it true that remote work is “the answer?” Is it true that “most” tech companies are laying people off (in Nov 2022, when I found this in an article)? And if both are true, are they connected? If remote work is “the answer,” does it solve everything? Does remote work being the answer mean that companies don’t need to sometimes lay people off? This one doesn’t pass “meaningful” for me.
Do we require evidence? Evidence and reasoning always strengthen any article, video, or media. Demanding “hard evidence” or “solid data” is sometimes used as a poor arguing technique: Person X doesn’t believe you unless you can find 12 university studies that pass Person X’s unstated standards. It’s a trap and a no-win situation. We don’t want to play that game, so I will just say that evidence and data — or at least your reasoning and logic — should be a part of what you’re saying. Offer the why and not just the what.
Note: If I find something to be racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, ableist, etc., it doesn’t pass “meaningful” for me. I might be able to see how or why the author took that perspective, but anything leaning on stereotypes, marginalizing people, unfairly grouping people, or appropriating a culture immediately loses meaning for me. Also note that the author might be writing something “edgy” or inflammatory for the engagement and algorithm. Don’t fall for it! You can walk away and not comment to agree or disagree.
Actionable
After reading or watching it, do you know what to do? Is there something you can change or try?
Non-actionable content could be clickbait, which feeds algorithms but rarely passes this framework’s standards. It might be educational and entertaining, but not actionable, which could be OK depending on your expectations. As examples, I think about the YouTubers I watch. Some share recipes, which are actionable: I can cook that! Some share vacation advice, which I can use next time I plan that type of trip. Some are historians and scholars. I can learn things I didn’t know or hear about some research they uncovered, but there isn’t much I can do about or with that info. It’s interesting and entertaining without being actionable, and that works for that content.
I believe that nearly everything — especially in business-related media — should be actionable. But so much business-related media out there seems like fluffy clickbait. How often are you told to have more empathy, be more inclusive, design for customers, improve customer satisfaction, etc.? But you are rarely if ever told what that looks like. What does it look like to get that wrong? How do you do any of these things?
Even articles and videos listing “X steps to increasing customer loyalty” give general advice like have empathy (how?), send more emails (what kinds of emails? how often?), and improve Customer Service (what was going wrong with Customer Service? what should we improve?). These are non-actionable. If you are not sure what to do or how to do it after consuming the content, it was fluffy or a sales pitch.
Warning: beware of the sales pitches.
Content creators often offer vague content on purpose with the Call To Action of you will need my training to understand this better or do this. Recognize it when you see it!
For example, Adobe has a blog article on “effective” customer journey maps. You think you are going to learn how to make a more effective CJM and then take action on it. Nope! The article tells you that journey maps can increase customer engagement, create higher customer retention, optimize touchpoints, break down silos, and win you new business. SOUNDS AWESOME; GIVE ME THAT NOW. The article doesn’t tell you how to do any of those. But it does recommend some Adobe products.
Helpful
Does this raise you up? Does it help you?
Example: An author offers a “new framework” that is a derivative of an existing framework, but gives it a fresh name and is trying to make it their own. This doesn’t help me (and might help few or no people) if the derivative doesn’t offer something new or better. If it’s just repackaging the existing framework, it might make sense (meaningful) and you can try it (actionable) but it’s not really helpful. We already have whatever this is under another name. Sometimes these repackaged frameworks make concepts more complicated, which can feel like the opposite of helpful.
Are you the intended reader or target audience? Maybe not. Does the content help the intended reader? You might decide that the content isn’t helpful or relevant to you, but you can see how it might be helpful to others.
- I don’t use Sketch, but content around how to do something new and interesting in Sketch might be meaningful, actionable, and helpful to someone who uses Sketch.
- I didn’t need “Double Diamond” broken into more diamonds, extra circles, and a list of stuff under each shape. If this helps you, great. If not, sail on by.
Bonus: Possible Outcomes
Keep that critical thinking hat on for possible outcomes. Let’s say you find content suggesting the way things should be. If that outcome came true, would that benefit you? Your coworkers or profession? Society? Customers? Who wins if this happens?
Think out the possible outcomes since some content sounds great. You want to click like and share. But you didn’t think out what it would look like if this came true. You clicked like on the LinkedIn post promoting “Lean UX” or “just do really fast research.” If you want to be a problem finder or solver, is that really the message you want to send to companies and workplaces? What are the possible outcomes of those being how teams do things?
Think it out and decide if you still want to press like or share, or invite that person to speak at your event or workplace.
Bring It Together
To me, one of the easiest examples of something that’s not meaningful, actionable, or helpful is when Spool says that “everybody’s a designer” and he can come train everybody in your company to be “fluent” in UX. (Did you catch that sales pitch?)
Is “everybody’s a designer” meaningful? Is it true that everybody is a UX Designer? No, no more than it’s true that everybody is a parachute designer. Anybody can try doing UX design work, but few will do it well. Few will do it with correct techniques, knowledge, skill, and talent.
Warning: “Everybody’s a designer” is sometimes meaningful to people hoping to get their first job in UX. They hope that if “anybody” and “everybody” are designers, then they too can be a designer. This is where context is important. Spool doesn’t say, “Everybody’s a designer, so make sure you hire apprentices and newbies, train them, and get them into jobs.” He says (roughly), “Everybody’s a designer, we need to make them better designers, and I can come train your company.” This will actually keep newbies from being hired. Why hire the newbie when Spool can come and train existing staff to do UX tasks? Why should the company even open those jobs when they’ll just train others to do the work? And given what Spool charges per day for his training, there goes the budget for what would have been a newbie’s job. I hear he gets paid per day what Juniors make in half a year. I’d ask newbies to use their critical thinking and check if they really agree with “everybody’s a designer,” considering the possible outcomes.
Is “everybody’s a designer” actionable? No. After you hear that, there is nothing you can do or try. Spool doesn’t suggest a tool or technique that you can try to make everybody a great designer. It’s mostly a sales pitch. The Call To Action is: hire me.
Is “everybody’s a designer” helpful? Not if you want UX to be a specialized job. If you believe in dilution and “everybody’s a designer,” then it raises up what you hope to hear raised up. If you were hoping Spool would raise UX up, you will be disappointed, and his statements or claims aren’t helpful. If you’re not for the “democratization” or dilution of UX jobs or tasks, what he says works against your goals. It works against UX professions.
I hope everybody will use critical thinking more and more with everything around them, especially articles, books, videos, courses, and other media. Break it up. Ask questions. Consider possible outcomes. Amplify great content and ignore crappy content so it can sink to the bottom of the algorithm ocean.
Thanks to Cherish Clark for some content editing and critical thinking during the article’s writing!
