In Rortyan fashion, John and David (Siegfried and Colander 2022, 71-84) declare that the critical thinker will "try to learn from others rather than argue with others in order to dominate them." It amounts to saying that critical thinking is more a matter of character than of method, more a matter of ethics than of technique. John and David "divide the analysis into 'little-think' and 'big-think.'… That might be used 'inside' and 'outside'" (78) of the profession. They argue that "the goal is to have students learn both aspects of critical thinking" (78)--the definition of elasticity and the critique of utilitarianism, the IS-LM model and the limits of equilibrium thinking. Their distinction is good and important, and articulating it in a way that economists can grasp and even perhaps adopt is the big-think contribution of their article, for which there are heartfelt thanks. "Critical thinking," they continue, "is the study of arguments, distinguishing good reasoning from bad reasoning, understanding the logical connections between ideas, knowing the difference between premises and conclusions, factual claims and inferential claims, and deductive and inductive reasoning" (73). John and David list the "little-think" that ought to be taught in the economics they favor, their economics is properly called Samuelsonian--not "neoclassical," as they call it, which in historical fact applies to people like Menger or Marshall or indeed Keynes who would not have entirely approved of their list. In this article, the author argues a bit on the other side.