ANSES bonus: everything you need to know about the $70,000 reinforcement and April 2026 payments - by cronywell

🏦 SOCIAL SECURITY

ANSES bonus: everything you need to know about the $70,000 reinforcement and April 2026 payments

The National Social Security Administration (ANSES) confirmed the updated amounts for April 2026: minimum retirement of $380,319, extraordinary bonus of $70,000 and a single payment of up to $476,268 for adoption. Find out who is paid, when and how to process it.

📅 March 28, 2026 | ✍️ Journalistic writing | ⏱ Reading Time: 5 minutes

⚡ THE ESSENTIALS: 4 key takeaways from this article

▸ ANSES applies a 2.9% increase in April 2026 (February inflation, according to Decree 274/24).

▸ The minimum retirement rises to $380,319.31 and the $70,000 bonus brings the total to $450,319.31.

▸ The bonus is proportional for those who earn between the minimum and that ceiling; those who exceed $450,319 are excluded.

▸ The APU for adoption pays $476,268 for registered workers, monotributistas, AUH, unemployment and ART.

📌 Context: why pensions increase in April

The April 2026 increase responds to the current pension mobility formula, established by Decree 274/24. This mechanism takes as a reference the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by INDEC with a two-month lag and automatically transfers it to all assets – without the need for additional processing by the beneficiary.

INDEC reported that inflation in February 2026 stood at 2.9%, a figure that defines the adjustment applicable in April. Although this is a slowdown compared to previous periods, analysts warn that the purchasing power of retirees continues to be one of the main concerns, given that they allocate most of their income to health and basic products, items usually more inflationary than the general index.

With the 2.9% adjustment, the minimum guaranteed pension goes from $369,600.88 to $380,319.31, while the maximum retirement rises from $2,487,063.95 to $2,559,188.80.

💰 The $70,000 bonus: who gets paid and how much

ANSES confirmed the continuity of the extraordinary bonus of $70,000, a reinforcement focused on lower-income sectors within the pension system. Its distribution logic is staggered:

• Full bonus ($70,000): retirees and pensioners who receive the minimum salary ($380,319.31), bringing the total income to $450,319.31.

• Proportional bonus: those who receive an intermediate salary (greater than the minimum but less than $450,319.31) receive the complementary amount to reach that ceiling.

• Without bonus: beneficiaries with assets greater than $450,319.31, holders of special regimes or privilege pensions, and those who accumulate more than one asset that exceeds the limit.

The reinforcement is credited together with the monthly credit, without additional management. The follow-up can be done from the My ANSES platform (mi.anses.gob.ar) or the official app, by logging in with CUIL and Social Security Code.

📊 UPDATED AMOUNTS — ALL BENEFITS (APRIL 2026)

⭐ PERFORMANCE	💰 BASE CREDIT	💎 WITH BONUS
Minimum retirement	$380,319.31	$450,319.31
Maximum retirement	$2,559,188.80	No bonus
PUAM	$304,255.44	$374,255.44
PNC Disability/Old Age	$266,223.52	$336,223.52
PNC Mothers 7 children	$380,319.31	$450,319.31

(*) The PUAM and the PNC also receive the $70,000 bonus. Those who receive the PUAM reach a total of $374,255.44.

👨 👩 👧 One-time payment of $476,268: the APU for adoption

Among the payments confirmed for April 2026, the Single Payment Allowance (APU) for adoption stands out, whose amount exceeds $476,000. This benefit is intended for a specific group and is paid only once, unlike the monthly bonus for retirees.

✅ Who can receive the APU for adoption?

▸ Workers in a relationship of dependency included in the SUAF.

▸ Monotributists.

▸ Holders of the Unemployment Fund (unemployment benefit).

▸ Beneficiaries of an Occupational Risk Insurer (ART).

▸ Holders of the AUH and/or Pregnancy Allowance (for social protection).

The procedure must be initiated within two years of the court ruling of adoption and requires submitting: ID of the holder, birth certificate of the minor and the corresponding judicial documentation. It can be done online (mi.anses.gob.ar) or in person at an ANSES office with a prior appointment.

👶 AUH and Family Allowances in April 2026

The Universal Child Allowance (AUH) also received the 2.9% adjustment, raising its total amount to $136,666 per dependent child. However, the agency continues to apply the 20% withholding, crediting 80% monthly ($109,332.80). The withheld percentage is released once the AUH Booklet is presented, which certifies health, vaccination and school attendance controls.

An important point: according to Resolution 1170/2025, beneficiaries whose children up to 4 years of age have health checks automatically registered by the Ministry of Health will be able to collect 100% of the salary without the need to present the Booklet.

📊 AUH AND APU AMOUNTS — APRIL 2026

👶 CONCEPT	APRIL 2026 AMOUNT
AUH per child	$136,666 (total)
Direct monthly payment (80%)	$109,332.80
Amount withheld (20%)	$27,333.20
AUH with disability	$445,003
APU by Adoption	$476,268 (one-time)

⚠️ AUH 2025 booklet: can it still be submitted?

▸ The original deadline to submit the AUH 2025 Passbook expired on March 31, 2026.

▸ Those who have not filed it on time may lose the 20% accumulated during 2025.

▸ It is recommended to check the status of the procedure in My ANSES or in the official app urgently.

▸ The deposit is credited within 60 days after the validation of the procedure.

📅 ANSES Payment Schedule — April 2026

The collection schedule is organized according to the completion of the holder's DNI. Below are the dates for retirees, pensioners and beneficiaries of allowances:

🏛️ NON-CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (PNC)

🏛️ NON-CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (PNC)
📅 COLLECTION DATE	DNI ENDS IN
Friday, April 10	0 and 1
Monday, April 13	2 and 3
Tuesday, April 14	4 and 5
Wednesday, April 15	6 and 7
Wednesday, April 15	8 and 9

💰 RETIREES WITH MINIMUM INCOME (UP TO 50,319.31)

💰 RETIREES WITH MINIMUM PENSION — up to 50,319.31
📅 COLLECTION DATE	DNI ENDS IN
Friday, April 10	0
Monday, April 13	1
Tuesday, April 14	2
Wednesday, April 15	3
Thursday, April 16	4
Friday, April 17	5
Monday, April 20	6
Tuesday, April 21	7
Wednesday, April 22	8
Thursday, April 23	9

📈 RETIREES WITH A SALARY HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM

📈 RETIREES WITH A SALARY HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM
📅 COLLECTION DATE	DNI ENDS IN
Friday, April 24	0 and 1
Monday, April 27	2 and 3
Tuesday, April 28	4 and 5
Wednesday, April 29	6 and 7
Thursday, April 30	8 and 9

Source: ANSES. The amounts and dates can be consulted in mi.anses.gob.ar or by calling 130.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

❓ Do I need to do any paperwork to collect the $70,000 bonus?

No. The bonus is automatically credited along with the monthly credit for those who qualify. It does not require any additional management by the beneficiary.

❓ What happens if I receive more than the minimum retirement but less than $450,319?

You will receive a proportional bonus that will complement your income until you reach the cap of $450,319.31. The calculation is carried out automatically by ANSES.

❓ How do I check how much I am going to get paid and on what date?

You can check the exact amount and the date of accreditation by entering mi.anses.gob.ar with your CUIL and Social Security Code. It is also available in the My ANSES app for iOS and Android.

❓ Does the AUH with disabilities also receive the 2.9% increase?

Yes. The AUH with disability amounts to $445,003, with a direct payment of 80% ($356,002.40) and withholding of 20% until presentation of the Passbook, except for children under 4 years of age with registered automatic controls.

❓ Is the $70,000 bonus updated for inflation?

No. The bond remains at $70,000 without updating for more than two years, which implies a real loss of purchasing power. Only the base salary is adjusted monthly by the mobility formula.

📝 Journalistic analysis

The April 2026 pension scheme consolidates a double mechanism: automatic monthly mobility for inflation for all assets and a fixed reinforcement focused on minimum income. The combination allows the most vulnerable retirees to receive $450,319.31, but the freezing of the bonus at $70,000 for two years eroded its real weight in the face of accumulated inflation.

The main question raised by specialists is whether the update of 2.9% – a reflection of slowing inflation – is enough to preserve the purchasing power of those who allocate most of their income to food and medicines. For the moment, the Executive gave no signs of modifying the scheme of the extraordinary bonus or extending it to new groups.

For AUH beneficiaries, the most urgent piece of information is the cut-off date for the 2025 Passbook: those who have not yet submitted it on time (deadline: March 31, 2026) must verify with ANSES if they can still recover the 20% withheld or if they need to start a claim process.

📚 Sources consulted

• ANSES (anses.gob.ar) — Resolution 55/2026 and Resolution 1170/2025

• INDEC — Consumer Price Index, February 2026 (CPI: 2.9%)

• Financial Area — Coverage of pension amounts April 2026

• El Cronista — APU Adoption Bonus and AUH Calendar

• Decree PEN 274/24 — Pension Mobility Formula

⚖️ This article is for informational purposes only. The final amounts and dates must be verified in anses.gob.ar or by calling 130.

THE ADORNI SCANDAL - by cronywell

🔴 POLITICAL RESEARCH · NATIONAL GOVERNMENT · ARGENTINA

THE ADORNI SCANDAL

Flights on the presidential plane, an undeclared country and judicial complaints

📅 March 23, 2026 · Political Writing · Ongoing case

⏱ Estimated reading time: 8–10 minutes

⚖ Judicial status: ACTIVE CASES in Comodoro Py

🏷 SEO · META TITLE (≤60 characters)

Adorni scandal 2026: undeclared country, flights and legal complaints

📝 META DESCRIPTION (≤155 characters)

Cabinet Chief Manuel Adorni faces criminal complaints for his wife's trip to New York in the Tango 01, a private flight to Punta del Este and an undeclared luxury house in the Indio Cuá country club in Exaltación de la Cruz.

⚠ THE MOST DIFFICULT WEEK FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

In just ten days, Manuel Adorni, chief of staff of Javier Milei's government and former presidential spokesman, went from being the most visible official of the ruling party to becoming the epicenter of an unprecedented judicial and political storm within the libertarian space. The trigger was multiple: the trip of his wife Bettina Angeletti to New York aboard the presidential plane Tango 01, a private flight to Punta del Este valued at about 10,000 dollars, and the discovery of a two-story luxury house in the country Indio Cuá Golf Club, in the Buenos Aires district of Exaltación de la Cruz. which did not appear in his sworn statement of assets before the Anti-Corruption Office.

The case shook the government at a politically sensitive time. Unlike other previous controversies, this one involves an official of the maximum line of trust of the "sister" Karina Milei, and could not simply be neutralized with the usual denials of X. The force of the scandal forced the president himself to come out to publicly defend his chief of staff, while quietly, according to cabinet sources, some ministers mocked the "amateurism of the former spokesman."

📊 THE CASE IN NUMBERS

3

active cases in federal jurisdiction

US$48,720

Declared savings, unchanged over 2 years

US$150K

Estimated value of undeclared property

✈ CHAPTER 1: THE TRIP TO NEW YORK AND TANGO 01

It all began during the so-called "Argentina Week", the largest investment road show organized by Milei's government in Manhattan, with the aim of attracting international capital. Adorni himself, as part of the official entourage, traveled on the presidential plane Tango 01. What generated the controversy was that his wife Bettina Angeletti, an ontological coach without public office, was part of the delegation. According to the official himself in statements to A24: "I come for five days to get out of my way". Forty-eight hours later, he apologized publicly.

Angeletti's ticket cost was estimated at more than $5,000. National Deputy Marcela Pagano – a former member of La Libertad Avanza, today the Coherence bloc – filed a criminal complaint with Federal Court No. 11, which was registered as file CFP 1003/2026. The initial complaint focused on the possible misuse of state assets.

💬 THE PHRASE THAT SANK HIM

"I've come for five days to go all out," Adorni said on A24 when justifying his wife's presence in the official entourage that traveled to New York on the presidential plane. 48 hours later, he published a public apology on social networks, something – according to related media – unthinkable in the style of the former spokesman.

🛩 CHAPTER 2: THE PRIVATE FLIGHT TO PUNTA DEL ESTE

Before the controversy over New York died down, a second episode transcended. During the Carnival holidays, Adorni and his family traveled to Punta del Este, Uruguay, aboard a private jet valued at approximately $10,000. The destination was the Maldonado airport (Uruguay), and the cost was striking compared to the public salary of the official: according to official figures, in 2025 Adorni received about $2,800,000 per month, an amount that climbed to around $4,500,000 after the unfreezing of salaries in January 2026.

The calculation is eloquent: the cost of the air taxi to Punta del Este represents more than two monthly salaries of the chief of staff, valued in dollars. The question that began to circulate in the corridors of power and in the media was simple and direct: with what income is this lifestyle financed?

🏡 CHAPTER 3: THE UNDECLARED LUXURY HOUSE IN EXALTATION OF THE CROSS

The third and most serious chapter of the scandal broke out on March 19, 2026, when Pagano expanded his judicial complaint and incorporated a new element: a two-story house in lot 380 of the Country Indio Cuá Golf Club, located on Route 6, kilometer 173, in the Exaltación de la Cruz district. province of Buenos Aires, approximately 100 meters from the 17th hole of the golf course, which does not appear in any affidavit filed with the Anti-Corruption Office (OA).

The most conclusive evidence came through the newspaper La Nación: journalist Hugo Alconada Mon made public the response of the General Directorate of the Buenos Aires Property Registry to a request for cadastral information. The answer was unequivocal: Bettina Angeletti has been listed as the head of the country's Functional Unit 380 since November 15, 2024. The date is key: the property was acquired during Adorni's tenure as minister, and the last affidavit filed with the OA — dated August 4, 2025 — does not mention any property in Exaltación de la Cruz.

EVENT / DATE	DESCRIPTION
Country	Indio Cuá Golf Club: 18 holes of golf, 14 tennis courts, 2 paddle courts, 3 soccer courts, equestrian sector, club house, gym, internal supermarket and computerized security.
The property	Two-story house, lot 380, located ~100 meters from the 17th hole. The entrance fee to the country is around 5 million pesos.
Market value	Between 129,000 and 249,000 dollars, according to estimates by Deputy Pagano based on similar properties in the private neighborhood.
Expenses	$699,637 pesos per month registered in the name of Bettina Angeletti. According to neighbors, 70% corresponds to security.
Date of writing	November 15, 2024, according to the Buenos Aires Property Registry, during the exercise of the position.
At Adorni's DJ	Only 50% of an apartment in CABA and 100% of another in La Plata received by donation. No real estate in Exaltación de la Cruz.

⚖ PATRIMONIAL INCONSISTENCY — Pagano's complaint

The deputy points out that Adorni's public income "is manifestly insufficient" to simultaneously finance: the previous rent in the same country, the construction of the house, the private flight to Punta del Este (~US$10,000), his wife's ticket to New York (~US$5,000) and monthly credit card expenses under investigation. All while his savings declared in dollars remained unchanged at US$48,720 during two years of public service.

📁 CHAPTER 4: THE ACCUMULATING WHISTLEBLOWING NETWORK

The Adorni case is not limited to the three most visible episodes. An analysis of active court files reveals a map of alleged irregularities that exceeds travel and assets.

🚢 Training contracts with YPF's supplier shipping company: The shipping company Foggia – a supplier of YPF, a company whose board of directors Adorni has been a member of since January 2026 – would have hired the services of the consulting firm +BE, owned by Bettina Angeletti. The parties pointed out that the contracts with YPF have existed for 28 years, and that Adorni was appointed director later.

📱 Mass SMS tenders: Complaints from Pagano and Peronist Deputy Rodolfo Tailhade point to anomalies in tenders for the mass sending of messages from the Secretariat of Communication and the Secretariat of Innovation, which depend on Adorni. According to a source cited, the approval of these tenders responded to the need to execute 50 million dollars of credit from the IDB and the World Bank that were close to expiring.

🏢 Tecnópolis concession: The complaint also incorporates the tender for the Tecnópolis property, valued at 183,000 million pesos, under the orbit of the AABE – which depends on the Chief of Cabinet. Among the shortlisted companies would be DirecTV Argentina, linked to the Foggia Group, which could constitute another possible conflict of interest.

🗣 THE REACTIONS: DEFENSE, SILENCE AND CRITICISM

🛡 THE RULING PARTY DEFENDS

✅ Karina Milei: published in X her unconditional support for the official, spoke of "media garbage" and ended the controversy.

✅ Javier Milei: came out to deny versions of resignation, attacking the journalist who disseminated them. "Another filthy pen lying?" he tweeted.

✅ Santiago Caputo: he backed Adorni from his official account despite the fact that some sectors pointed to him as a possible author of a political operation.

✅ Lilia Lemoine: she downplayed the importance of the country: "It is a renovated house in a middle-class country. It's not a mansion on the island."

⚠ CRITICAL VOICES

🔴 Marcela Pagano (Coherence): presented and expanded the criminal complaint. He described it as "illicit enrichment" and remarked that Adorni is a public accountant.

🔴 Patricia Bullrich (PRO): striking silence. He did not dedicate any personal posts to the scandal; he only reposted messages of support from the Milei brothers.

🔴 Rodolfo Tailhade (UP): co-filed a complaint for the SMS tenders and expanded the judicial scope of the case.

🔴 Sector of the cabinet itself: anonymous sources described the episode as pure "amateurism" of the former spokesman and admitted internal discomfort.

📅 CHRONOLOGY: HOW THE SCANDAL BROKE OUT

EVENT / DATE	DESCRIPTION
Feb 2026	Carnival: Adorni and his family fly by private jet to Punta del Este. The cost of the transfer (~US$10,000) does not match his public salary.
Mar 10–11, 2026	"Argentina Week" in New York. It is leaked that Bettina Angeletti traveled in the Tango 01 with the official entourage despite not being an official.
Mar 11, 2026	Adorni admits to A24: "I've come for five days to get off my back." The phrase generates immediate repercussions in networks and media.
Mar 13, 2026	Adorni publishes public apology in X. Karina Milei supports him and speaks of "media garbage".
Mar 16, 2026	Pagano files a criminal complaint in Federal Court No. 11 (Expte. CFP 1003/2026) for the trip to New York.
Mar 19, 2026	Pagano expands the complaint: he incorporates the property in the country Indio Cuá, without declaring before the OA.
Mar 19, 2026	Milei denies versions of Adorni's resignation. Adorni publishes: "Fake". The president attacks the journalist who published the version.
Mar 20, 2026	La Nación publishes response from the Property Registry: Angeletti has been listed as the owner of lot 380 since 11/15/2024.
Mar 23, 2026	The case is still active. Multiple files are being processed in Comodoro Py. The government maintains public shielding on Adorni.

👤 PROFILE: WHO IS MANUEL ADORNI

Manuel Adorni was born in 1979 and is a public accountant. Before entering the government of Javier Milei, he worked as an economist and communicator, with regular appearances on news channels. His direct and confrontational style made him one of the most recognizable spokesmen in Argentina. In January 2026, Milei promoted him to chief of staff — a position he already held — and added the presidency of the YPF board of directors.

According to his affidavit filed with the Anti-Corruption Office in August 2025, Adorni declared a net worth consisting of: $2,500,000 in pesos, more than US$48,720 in dollars, an apartment in CABA (50%) and an apartment in La Plata (100%, received by donation). No property in Exaltación de la Cruz.

📌 THE POLITICAL KNOT — What is at stake?

Beyond the legal cases, the Adorni case puts in tension one of the founding values that the Milei alliance used to win the 2023 elections: the denunciation of the political "caste" and its lifestyle supposedly distant from the common citizen. The paradox of an official who preaches austerity and accompanies presidential plane trips with his wife, flies to Punta del Este in a private jet and builds a house in a high-end golf country does not go unnoticed by public opinion or by the opposition.

⚖ LEGAL CONTEXT: THE CAUSES AND THEIR SCOPE

The complaints filed with the federal jurisdiction of Comodoro Py potentially involve three figures of the Argentine Penal Code: illicit enrichment of a public official (art. 268.2), breach of the duties of a public official (art. 248) and possible irregularities in tenders. The figure of illicit enrichment requires demonstrating that the increase in assets is not justifiable by the legitimate income of the official. In this sense, the comparison between Adorni's official salary and documented expenses – real estate, flights, expenses – is the central axis of the judicial investigation.

The judicial investigation is in the initial stage and Adorni has not been formally charged. The Federal Court can order evidentiary measures – consultation of the Property Registry, review of account statements, analysis of affidavits – before moving towards an eventual summons.

✍ FINAL ANALYSIS: THE MYTH OF AUSTERITY AND ITS CRACKS

The Adorni scandal is not just the story of an official facing legal complaints. It is, in a broader sense, a stress test for the central discourse of the libertarian movement: the idea that its representatives are different, more austere, and more transparent than traditional politicians.

The combination of a presidential plane used to transport the spouse without official charge, a charter flight to a luxury resort and a property in a golf country that does not appear in the affidavit is exactly the type of episode that Adorni himself – as presidential spokesman – would have capitalized on to attack the Kirchnerist or Macrista "caste".

The official defense was quick and forceful. But shielding Adorni has political costs that the government credibly pays. And in a context of adjustment, tariff hikes and salaries that have not yet recovered pre-inflation purchasing power, the image of a Cabinet chief building a house in a country with an 18-hole golf course is not exactly the postcard that the libertarian government needs to show.

The case is still open. The files are advancing in Comodoro Py. And the question surrounding the "lopsided" Adorni is no longer only judicial: it is profoundly political.

🔍 SEO KEYWORDS — Target density: 1.7%

Manuel Adorni scandal · Undeclared country adorni · Adorni illicit enrichment · Adorni Exaltation of the Cross · Adorni New York plane · Adorni Punta del Este Private Jet · Indio Cuá Golf Club · Bettina Angeletti · Marcela Pagano denounces Adorni · Adorni affidavit · Chief of Staff Argentina 2026 · Milei government: scandal

📚 SOURCES CONSULTED

🔗 Infobae: "Red circle: the Adorni case, from enthusiasm in New York to anguish in Buenos Aires" — 15/03/2026

🔗 Profile: "Manuel Adorni is awarded a house in a country house in Exaltación de la Cruz" — 19/03/2026

🔗 La Política Online: "They reveal that Adorni built himself a house in a luxurious country" — 19/03/2026

🔗 El Diario AR: "Pagano expanded complaint for illicit enrichment" — 19/03/2026

🔗 Latin American Roundup: "Suspicions multiply about Adorni's heritage" — 03/20/2026

🔗 Minuto Uno: "How much is the luxury house that Adorni would have in a Premium country house valued" — 03/19/2026

Retirement that is not enough - by cronywell

PENSION CRISIS | UPDATED DATA FEBRUARY 2026

Retirement that is not enough: in February 2026 the minimum pension is below the individual poverty line

With $429,254 of minimum retirement with bonus and a Total Individual Basic Basket of $452,321 according to the INDEC of February 2026, older adults face a monthly deficit of $23,000. Between 17.1% and 34.7% of those over 60 years of age continue to work out of necessity, a trend that accumulates 25 years of real deterioration with no structural solution in sight.

✍️ Social 📅 Journalism Newsroom March 18, 2026 🏷️ #JubilaciónMínima2026 #ANSES #CrisisPrevisional #AdultosMayores #Argentina

⏱️ READING TIME

7 minutes

📅

March 2026

Updated data

📊

Approx. 1,400 words

Level: General / Informational

🔍 META DESCRIPTION SEO

In February 2026, the minimum retirement in Argentina is $429,254 with a bonus, compared to an individual Total Basic Basket of $452,321 (INDEC). Between 17.1% and 34.7% of those over 60 years of age continue to work out of necessity, according to data from INDEC 2025 and estimated 2026. A historic deterioration that has spanned five governments.

BUENOS AIRES, MARCH 18, 2026 — Every February, the same humiliating calculation is repeated. Older adults who receive the minimum pension receive $429,254 pesos from ANSES. The National Institute of Statistics and Census (INDEC) certifies that, in order not to be considered poor, an individual needs at least $452,321 per month. The difference: $23,000 that separates the pension guaranteed by the State from the poverty threshold measured by the State itself. A deficit that millions of retirees are trying to cover with their bodies, returning to the labour market.

💰 How much do retirees receive in February 2026: the official ANSES amounts

Through resolution 21/2026 published in the Official Gazette, the National Social Security Administration (ANSES) made official the 2.85% increase in all pension benefits for February, in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for December 2025 published by INDEC. The update follows the mechanism established by the Decree of Necessity and Urgency (DNU) 274/2024, which replaced the quarterly adjustment system with a monthly mobility scheme tied exclusively to past inflation.

Rendering (Feb. 2026)	No Bonus	ANSES Bonus	With Bonus
Minimum Retirement Agreement (SIPA)	MX$359,254	$70,000	MX$429,254
Maximum Retirement (SIPA)	$2,417,441	—	$2,417,441
Universal Basic Benefit (PBU)	MX$164,342	$70,000*	$234,342*
Universal Pension for the Elderly (PUAM)	MX$287,403	$70,000	$357,403
Non-contributory pension (disability/old age)	MX$251,453	$70,000	$321,453
AUH per child	MX$129,082	—	MX$129,082

(*) The extraordinary bonus of $70,000 is granted to those who receive salaries up to $369,600. For assets between that value and $439,690, it is paid proportionally. It has not been updated since March 2024. Source: ANSES Resolution 21/2026 and Decree 109/2026.

🚨 ALERT: THE MINIMUM RETIREMENT IS BELOW THE INDIVIDUAL POVERTY LINE (Feb. 2026)

Minimum Retirement WITH BONUS (ANSES, Feb. 2026): $429,254

Basic basket Total adult equivalent (INDEC, Feb. 2026): $452,321

MONTHLY DEFICIT: -$23,067

The retiree who receives the minimum is, technically, POOR according to the State's own data.

Source: ANSES Res. 21/2026 | INDEC Basic Basket Valuation Feb. 2026

👷 ≈34.7% of those over 60 are still working: the human face of statistics

The data comes from the statistical dossier published by INDEC based on the Permanent Household Survey (EPH) of the first quarter of 2025 and a private survey on the first quarter of 2026: 34.7% of people of retirement age – between 60 and 74 years old – are still active in the labor market. The vast majority do so out of economic necessity. according to the Colsacor Foundation report that raised the alarm in 2024, 83% of older adults who work do so driven by the insufficiency of the pension fund, not by vocation or desire to stay active.

Of the approximately 4.5 million retirees who received the minimum pension (including bonuses) in September 2025, a significant proportion do not have family support or accumulated savings. For them, the equation is straightforward: the pension is not enough to feed themselves, access medicines and pay for services. The solution – forced, informal and without legal protection – is to go back to work.

"The Minimum Retirement with bonus for February 2026 is 7.1% below November 2023, and 3.6% lower than February 2025."

— Chequeado.com, Verification of pension data, January 2026

📉 25 years of deterioration: the picture that no government wants to show

The deterioration of the purchasing power of pensions is not a novelty of the current administration. It is a structural trend that crosses five governments, three different mobility formulas and a single result: older adults are losing more and more purchasing power in the face of inflation. The following table summarizes the real evolution of the Minimum Retirement by presidential term, at constant values (August 2024 pesos, according to data from the Eforo Foundation and the CEPA Center):

Period	Management	*Jubilee. Min. (actual value)**	Inflation acum.	Var. real
2011-2015	Fernández de K.	$421,846 const.	177%	+21%
2016-2019	Macri	$330,509 const.	295%	-22%
2020-2023	A. Fernández	$216,778 const.	690%	-9%
Jan-Dec 2024	Milei (1st year)	Min. History	117,8%	-13,6%
Feb 2026	Milei (current)	$429,254 w/bond	33.1% per year	-7.1% vs 2023

(*) Values in constant pesos for August 2024. Sources: Eforo Foundation, CEPA Center, Chequeado.com, INDEC. The real variation considers INDEC CPI inflation by period. The $70,000 bonus was frozen since March 2024 without an update.

⚖️ DNU 274/2024 and the paradox of the adjustment for inflation

Since April 2024, the current retirement mobility formula – established by President Milei's DNU 274/2024 – adjusts pensions monthly according to the inflation of the month prior to the previous one (i.e., with a two-month lag). This implies that pensions, at most, will be able to maintain their purchasing power constant, but never recover the lost ground. The CEPA Center's analysis concludes that, under this formula, retirees will not be able to improve their purchasing power in the long term.

Added to this is the freezing of the extraordinary bonus: set at $70,000 since March 2024, this supplement did not receive any update during the following 24 months. The effect is that those who earn the minimum wage – the most vulnerable segment – are the ones who lose the most relative purchasing power, since the bonus represents an increasingly smaller fraction of the total income as inflation advances.

💊 THE DRUG CRISIS: THE LEAST MENTIONED FACT

PAMI's basket of medicines increased 361.6% from December 2023 to January 2025 (CEPA Center).

That is equivalent to 191.7 percentage points above the increase in the Minimum Retirement with bonus in the same period.

38% of working older adults reported having postponed the purchase of medicines or medical consultations (Colsacor 2024).

In 2025, PAMI reduced the number of medicines covered to 100% and tightens the criteria for accessing free medicines.

🌎 In context: Argentina doubles the regional rate of older adults working out of necessity

ECLAC places the proportion of older adults who work out of economic necessity at around 8-10% in countries with more stable pension systems in the region, such as Chile, Uruguay and Brazil. Argentina, with its 17.1% (First quarter 2024 and current estimate 34.7% doubles or triples that average. The difference does not lie in the age of the population or in its demographic structure, but in the historical inability of the system to preserve the real value of the contributions in the face of recurrent inflationary cycles.

"In 2024, 19.2% of the adjustment in State spending was explained by the loss of purchasing power of retirements and pensions. The fiscal surplus was built, in part, at the expense of retirees."

— Center for Argentine Political Economy (CEPA), Pension Mobility Report, 2025

💡 What is being debated: the possible reforms and their limitations

Congress tried in 2024 to sanction a new mobility formula that would contemplate a real improvement in salaries. The project, approved with the support of the opposition, was totally vetoed by the national Executive Branch. The Supreme Court of Justice has a series of cases pending resolution in which retirees claim the recomposition of historically liquefied assets. Among specialists, there is consensus on the necessary reforms, although not on their financing:

• Update of the extraordinary bonus: the $70,000 bonus frozen since March 2024 should be updated at least by CPI so as not to lose its compensatory effect on the lowest assets.

• Formula with a salary component: a mobility that combines CPI with the evolution of wages (RIPTE) would allow retirees to participate in economic growth, not just survive inflation.

• Basket of the elderly as a floor: define the Minimum Retirement based on the real cost of living of the elderly (including medicines, health and differential food) instead of based on the general CBT.

• Labor formalization: reducing labor informality, which exceeds 40% of the active force, is a necessary condition for the system to have a sufficient contributory base in the long term.

🔎 JOURNALISTIC CONCLUSION

The February 2026 Minimum Retirement with bonus ($429,254) is not enough to cover the Total Individual Basic Basket certified by INDEC ($452,321). In real terms, it is 7.1% below the value of November 2023. The Argentine worker who contributed all his life reaches old age with an income that technically places him in a situation of poverty. While the State continues to postpone a structural pension reform, it is the elderly who pay the cost of the adjustment with their own bodies.

Why does it hurt us to be taken against us? - by cronywell

🧠 Neuroscience · Behavior · Well-being

Why Does It Hurt When Someone Disagrees With Us?

What happens in your brain when someone doesn't think like you

📅 2026 · Neuroscience of Well-being · University of Seville 📖 Science communication article

⏱ Reading time: 5–6 minutes · 🧠 Level: General audience · 📖 ~1,100 words

Disagreement activates brain systems designed to detect conflict and maintain internal coherence. Neuroscience explains why hearing a contrary opinion can feel like a real threat — and what we can do to respond with greater calm and openness.

When we hear a contrary opinion, the brain activates regions linked to pain processing and threat detection.

Hearing an opinion that contradicts our own is rarely a neutral experience. Although we often attribute this difficulty to cultural factors or personality traits, neuroscience shows it has far deeper roots — they are written into the basic workings of our brain.

For decades, research in cognitive and social neuroscience has been uncovering the mechanisms behind that familiar discomfort: the knot in your stomach, the urge to respond, the feeling that a conversation has turned into a battlefield. Understanding what happens in the brain during disagreement is not merely an intellectual exercise — it is the first step toward developing a skill that is increasingly valuable in the 21st century: the ability to truly listen.

🔬 Key concepts

🔴Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC): The brain's radar for detecting inconsistencies and conflicts between beliefs.

🟠Amygdala: The brain's emotional alarm center, triggering threat responses to perceived dangers.

🟡Insula: Region linked to bodily discomfort and the subjective experience of unease.

🟢Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: The executive center responsible for impulse control and decision-making.

🔵Cognitive dissonance: The mental tension of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

🟣Motivated reasoning: The tendency to seek arguments that confirm what we already believe, rather than pursuing truth.

⚡

The brain detects conflict before it reasons

When we hear an idea that contradicts how we think, the brain does not start by evaluating arguments. It first detects that a conflict exists. This happens in milliseconds — before we are even consciously aware of it.

One of the central regions in this process is the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a structure located in the midline of the brain. The ACC acts as a sophisticated radar, identifying inconsistencies between our expectations and reality, as well as conflicts between responses or beliefs. Once that alarm signal fires, the rest of the brain enters high-alert mode.

What is most revealing — and what explains why disagreement can feel physically uncomfortable — is that the ACC is part of circuits involved in both cognitive control and the processing of physical pain and social pain. In other words, a contrary opinion can activate the same systems that process harm or exclusion. This is not a metaphor: it is neurobiology.

Understanding how the brain works is the first step toward learning to regulate it in the face of disagreement.

Alongside the ACC, the amygdala — the brain's emotional alarm center — activates in response to what it perceives as a threat, even when that threat is symbolic or ideological. The insula, in turn, translates that alert into concrete bodily sensations: chest discomfort, muscle tension, a diffuse sense of unease.

The result is familiar to all of us: a knot in the stomach, physical rigidity, and an instinctive urge to defend ourselves or shut down the conversation. Finally, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — the brain's executive region — enters the picture. Under optimal conditions, it can regulate those automatic responses and guide a more thoughtful reply. The difficulty is that this requires cognitive resources that are not always available.

📊 What the science says

⚡< 200 ms — the time it takes the ACC to detect a cognitive inconsistency.

🔥Same circuit — social pain and physical pain share neural pathways in the brain.

📉Up to 30% reduction in prefrontal activity under sustained stress, limiting emotional regulation.

🧘8 weeks of mindfulness practice produce measurable changes in emotional regulation.

🧩

The cognitive and emotional cost of integrating another perspective

Accepting a view that opposes our own demands considerable effort. The brain must simultaneously hold two incompatible mental models: what I believe and what you are saying. It must then compare them, evaluate their validity, and decide whether either needs to be revised. From an energetic and cognitive standpoint, this is a demanding operation.

On top of this effort comes a well-documented mechanism: cognitive dissonance. When new information threatens the coherence of our worldview — or our identity — the brain experiences internal tension that it seeks to resolve. In many cases, that tension is not resolved by listening to the other person or revisiting our own ideas, but by justifying and reinforcing what we already believed. Researchers call this motivated reasoning: we are not searching for truth; we are searching for confirmation.

The key is not to eliminate discomfort, but to learn to regulate it so it does not turn into automatic rejection.

Neuroscience of Well-being, University of Seville

There is also a social dimension that amplifies these mechanisms. Many of our beliefs are not merely abstract ideas — they are deeply tied to group belonging, collective identity, and our sense of who we are. Changing perspective can be experienced — even unconsciously — as a social risk: losing status within the group, looking bad, or being perceived as someone who has betrayed their values. The social brain is especially wired to avoid those kinds of threats.

Changing perspective can feel like a social risk: many beliefs are tied to a sense of group belonging.

This combination of factors — the cognitive cost of holding two mental models, the threat to identity, and the risk of social exclusion — explains why disagreement can be so strongly resisted, even by people who genuinely value listening and dialogue. This is not about bad intentions: it is about biology.

🌡

Stress as an invisible obstacle

A critical and frequently underestimated factor is stress. When physiological arousal is elevated or prolonged, the autonomic nervous system enters defense mode. In that state, the prefrontal cortex — the region that allows us to reason, regulate emotions, and take perspective — loses effectiveness. Its activity decreases, and more automatic, reactive systems take over.

The outcome is predictable: under high emotional load or chronic stress, listening becomes especially difficult. Not because a person is less intelligent or less empathetic, but because the brain resources that make active listening possible are temporarily compromised. It is an adaptive response to perceived threat — though in everyday conversation, it tends to be counterproductive.

Stress activates the nervous system's alert mode, making it harder to listen with calm and openness.

🌱

Neuroplasticity: listening can be trained

The good news is that these systems are plastic. The brain regions involved in conflict, emotion, and executive control change with experience and deliberate practice. Neuroplasticity — the brain's capacity to reorganize itself in response to learning — opens a concrete window of possibility.

Practices such as mindfulness and biofeedback have been shown to reduce automatic reactivity and increase the ability to observe disagreement without responding impulsively. Studies on resting-state brain networks show that sustained meditation practice modulates circuits involved in emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility, fostering more adaptive responses to disagreement.

Research from the Neuroscience of Well-being group at the University of Seville provided evidence along the same lines: training physiological and emotional regulation is associated with a greater capacity to pause before responding, listen with less reactivity, and navigate difficult conversations with more clarity and lower emotional cost.

✅ Strategies for better listening

🧘Practice mindfulness daily: even 10 minutes reduces automatic reactivity to disagreement.

🌬Use conscious breathing before responding: inhale for 4 seconds, exhale for 6, to regulate the nervous system.

⏸Take a deliberate pause: silently counting to 5 before replying gives the prefrontal cortex time to engage.

👂Listen to understand, not to refute: paraphrasing what the other person said before responding activates cognitive empathy.

🪞Identify your own emotional content: asking "what is activating me here?" helps separate perceived threat from the actual argument.

🔄Reframe disagreement: view it as an opportunity to expand your mental map, not as an attack on your identity.

🌐

Polarization, technology, and the challenge of the 21st century

The difficulty of listening to contrary opinions has taken on a new dimension in the context of digital societies. Social media algorithms are designed to maximize emotional engagement — which in practice means amplifying content that triggers threat responses, outrage, and in-group belonging. The result is an information ecosystem that reinforces cognitive dissonance at a massive scale, making genuine encounters with different perspectives increasingly difficult.

In this context, the capacity to listen to opposing views becomes more than an interpersonal skill: it is an essential civic competence. Understanding that discomfort in the face of disagreement is a universal brain response — not a character flaw — may be the first step toward approaching it with more awareness and less judgment.

Listening does not mean conceding or abandoning your own values. It means holding discomfort long enough to widen the frame from which we make decisions.

In an increasingly polarized world, the ability to listen is also an act of resistance: resistance to the automatic mechanisms that trap us in cognitive bubbles and distance us from one another. A skill that, as neuroscience shows, we can all cultivate.

What is critical thinking? - by cronywell

🧠 CRITICAL THINKING

Thinking, Choosing, Deciding: The Art of Inhabiting the Truth

E N S A Y O F I L O S Ó F I C O

✒ PHILOSOPHICAL-JOURNALISTIC ESSAY | Ideas & Thought Writing

⏱ Reading time: ~11 min

◆ To think critically is not to distrust everything, but to learn to choose and decide when the world is filled with competing stories to be true.

Choosing and deciding are, at first glance, the most common verbs in the language. We use them every day without seeing beyond their apparent function. But if we open them, if we extract the etymology and put them in the light of philosophy and ethics, we discover that they are the deepest articulation between thought, freedom and morality.

This essay proposes a journey: from the origins of critical thinking in Socratic Greece to the engine room of digital post-truth; from the distinction between ethics and morality to the question that returns like a philosophical boomerang: are choosing and deciding the articulation that is needed between the two?

🏛️ I. The Origin: Socrates and the Scandal of Asking

There is an image that sums up, better than any definition, the birth of critical thinking: a man in the public square of Athens, barefoot, asking questions.

That man is Socrates (470-399 B.C.), and his crime was the most subversive of all that a society can imagine: to make people think for themselves. His method, maieutics – from the Greek mayéin, 'to give birth' – did not offer answers but shed light on the contradictions hidden in the certainties of others. With a finely calculated irony, Socrates feigned ignorance in order to lead the interlocutor to examine his own assumptions. And when he discovered that these assumptions were fragile, the interlocutor was faced with the only philosophical task that matters: to think again.

The Socratic gesture is, in essence, the first historical formulation of critical thought: not the denial of all truth, but the demand that every statement be examined. As Plato summed it up in the Phaedo, the unexamined life is not worth living.

It is worth stopping here. Socrates emerged in Athens during a deep political and cultural crisis. The Sophists – his contemporaries – had popularized relativism: if everything is a matter of perspective, if there are no universal truths, then any argument has the same value as its opposite. Socrates rejected this nihilism not from authority, but from method. He didn't say 'I know'; it said 'let's examine together'. That attitude is still today the most accurate figure of critical thinking.

"Critical thinking is having the desire to seek, the patience to doubt, the fondness to meditate, the slowness to affirm, the disposition to consider, the care to put in order and the hatred for all kinds of imposture."

— Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning, 1605

The philosopher Max Black would be the one who, in his 1946 book on logic, would use the term 'critical thinking' in a systematic and academic way – the paternity of the modern concept is attributed to him. But the practice already existed, in Socratic maieutics, in Platonic dialectics, and in Aristotelian rhetoric, centuries before anyone named it by that title.

Aristotle would add a crucial dimension to the Socratic project: phronesis, practical judgment, the wisdom that allows us to deliberate well about what we should do. For Aristotle, critical thinking is not an abstract exercise but the necessary prelude to ethical action. Here appears for the first time the link that this essay proposes to explore: critical thinking as a bridge between knowledge and moral decision.

🔤 II. The Words That Hide a World: Choosing and Deciding

Choosing and deciding may seem, by all accounts, to be a couple of the most common verbs. We use them every day and hardly see anything beyond themselves than their own function.

But etymology—that archaeology of language—reveals something unexpected to us. The word decide comes from the Latin decidere: 'to resolve' and, more literally, 'to cut'. Whoever decides cuts the ambiguity. It puts an end to the suspension of judgment and commits its its will to a path. It is not a minor act: it is the moment when reflection ceases and action begins. As the RAE defines it, deciding is 'forming the purpose of doing something, or making a choice, after reflection on something'. The cut is the result of thinking.

Choosing comes from the Latin eligere: 'deliberation and freedom to act'. The RAE complements it: 'to choose or prefer someone or something for a purpose'. Here appears a dimension that does not have such an explicit decision: freedom. Choosing presupposes real options, it implies the awareness that there is more than one possible path. Those who choose not only act: they recognize their condition of being free.

Together, choosing and deciding draw the complete map of the human act: free deliberation (choice) that becomes commitment (decision). And that map, drawn with precision, leads us to a question of great philosophical importance that critical thought cannot avoid: if choosing implies freedom and deciding implies cutting, what is the basis of both? In reason, in duty, in the common good? That is: in ethics or in morality?

📖 Etymology and Meaning: the key verbs of the critical act
Decide	From Latin decidere: 'to cut'. Resolve after reflection. Committing the will to an action.
Choose	From Latin eligere: 'deliberation and freedom to act'. Choose with awareness of the available options.
Critical	From the Greek krinein: 'to separate', 'to judge', 'to discern'. Those who think critically separate the true from the false.
Mayeutics	From the Greek mayéin: 'to give birth'. The Socratic method that illuminates knowledge through questions.
Phrónesis	From Greek: prudence or practical wisdom. For Aristotle, the virtue of deliberating well about action.
Post-truth	Context in which the influence of objective facts is less than that of personal emotions and beliefs.

⚖️ III. Ethics and Morals: The Articulation That Is Needed

Decision and choice: are they the articulation that is needed between ethics and morality? The question is so dense that it is convenient to start by undoing a frequent confusion.

In everyday speech, ethics and morality are used synonymously. In the philosophical realm, however, distinction matters. Ethics – from the Greek ethos, 'way of being' or 'character' – is the philosophical discipline that reflects on the principles that should govern human conduct; Analyze the rational foundations of right and wrong, look for principles that guide action beyond custom or authority. Morality – from the Latin mos, moris, 'custom' – is the set of norms, values and conventions that a particular society considers correct or acceptable; it is constructed, transmitted and socially reproduced.

In other words: ethics reflects; morality regulates. Ethics questions the rules from reason; morality lives them from habit. A society can declare 'moral' a practice that ethics, when examined rationally, condemns. Human history is full of these gaps. As the philosopher Gustavo Bueno points out, ethics refers to the behavior derived from the individual's own character, while morality refers to the customs that regulate the behavior of the individual as a member of a social group. One emanates from within; the other comes from outside.

"Ethics is not made by itself, it is born with us."

— Fernando Savater, Ethics for Amador

Now, where does critical thinking operate in this scheme? Exactly on the hinge. Critical thinking is the instrument that allows the individual to confront the received moral norms with the ethical principles examined. It is the ability to ask oneself: 'Is this norm that society imposes on me rationally justifiable? Do I commit to it because I understand and value it, or simply because I have inherited it without examination?'

Decision and choice are, in this sense, the dynamic articulation between ethics and morality. When I decide and choose with critical thinking, I do not limit myself to obeying the prevailing moral norm or abandon myself to pure individual whim. Deliberation: I put my reason, my character, my freedom and my responsibility towards others at stake. Free choice (ethics) and decision committed to the common good (moral) merge in the act of thinking critically and acting accordingly.

Kant formulated it with geometric precision in his categorical imperative: act in such a way that the maxim of your conduct can become a universal law. For Kant, moral action does not come from the fear of social sanction or the pursuit of pleasure, but from practical reason: the autonomous will that legislates itself. In this scheme, choice is the exercise of rational autonomy and decision is the commitment to the law that this autonomy generates. Without critical thinking, neither of the two steps is possible: those who act by inertia or social pressure do not choose or decide – they execute.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can will at the same time that it becomes universal law."

— Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785

Aristotle, from another shore, proposes eudaimonia – happiness as flourishing – as the horizon of ethical action. For him, knowing what the good is is not enough to act rightly: it is necessary to have cultivated the virtues, to have exercised character. Critical thinking, in an Aristotelian key, is not only an intellectual skill but a moral habit: the habit of examining before acting, of deliberating before deciding.

The tension between Kant and Aristotle—between formal duty and material good, between universal law and particular virtue—is not easily resolved. But both agree on something: without reflection, without the critical examination of one's own principles and of the norms received, there is neither genuine ethics nor morality. There is only automation.

🌐 IV. The World of Competing Stories to Be True

Critical thinking was always necessary. But in the 21st century, it has become urgent in a new and disturbing way.

We live in the post-truth era: a scenario in which the influence of objective facts on public opinion is given less weight than that of personal beliefs and emotional reactions. The term, chosen as Word of the Year by the Collins dictionary in 2017 and by the Royal Spanish Academy in 2016, names something that has always existed – manipulation, rumour, propaganda – but that digital technologies have amplified exponentially.

Social media has transformed the information ecosystem in a way that the Greeks could not imagine but that Socrates would have recognized immediately: the problem of the sophists back, with algorithms. Digital platforms are designed to maximize attention and engagement, not the truth. An MIT study (Vosoughi et al., 2018) showed that fake news spreads on Twitter up to six times faster than true news, because it is more novel and emotionally activating.

Why do we believe them? Cognitive psychology offers uncomfortable answers. Confirmation bias leads us to consume information that reinforces our previous beliefs. Filter bubbles – generated by algorithms that learn our preferences – lock us into circuits where our ideas are not only reinforced but rarely questioned. The theory of 'lazy reasoning' (Gaozhao, 2021) suggests that we tend to be reluctant to develop critical thinking about news when we read it online; It's easier to share than to verify.

📌 Cognitive biases that critical thinking must confront

▸ Confirmation bias: we tend to accept as true what confirms what we already believe.

▸ Bandwagon effect: we adopt ideas because a majority holds them, without examining them.

▸ Lazy reasoning: resistance to elaborate analytical thinking on information received online.

▸ Reasoned reasoning: we evaluate as true news that is consistent with our ideology.

▸ Familiarity effect: what we have heard repeatedly seems truer to us, regardless of its veracity.

▸ Magical thinking: proven positive correlation between credulity in fake news and esoteric thinking (Redalyc, 2021).

Scientific research on susceptibility to fake news is conclusive on one point: poor analytical thinking performance is the most consistent predictor of credulity in the face of misinformation. In other words, those who have not cultivated the habit of examining ideas before accepting them are vulnerable. It does not matter their formal educational level, their political ideology or their access to information. The critical variable is the habit of thinking.

What is the antidote? Critical thinking. But—and this is a warning that researchers repeat—not as an abstract skill but as concrete practice applied to specific knowledge. As Mercier and Sperber (2017) point out, the best way to overcome cognitive biases and uncover fallacies is to debate with others who do not fully share our point of view. Critical thinking is not solitary: it is dialogical. It requires interlocutors, it requires friction, it requires the clash with difference.

🔬 V. What, then, is critical thinking?

The journey we have taken now allows us to propose a definition that integrates the philosophical, ethical and practical dimensions of the concept.

In its most basic dimension, critical thinking is the ability to analyze and evaluate the consistency of reasoning, especially those statements that society accepts as true in the context of everyday life. But this definition—correct but insufficient—omits something essential: critical thinking is not only epistemological (about how we know) but also ethical (about how we act).

Thinking critically is, at the same time, an intellectual disposition and a moral commitment. Intellectual, because it requires the cultivation of certain skills: identifying premises, detecting fallacies, evaluating evidence, distinguishing facts from interpretations, recognizing one's own biases. Moral, because it implies an attitude towards the other and towards the truth: intellectual honesty, epistemic humility, respect for evidence even if it contradicts one's own beliefs.

"The essential point of critical thinking is: I can be wrong. For this reason, critical thinking cannot be taught independently of knowledge."

— Faculty Research, Fake News in the Post-Truth Era, 2021

That phrase — I may be wrong — is the hard core of critical thinking. It is not nihilistic relativism: it does not claim that all ideas are worth the same. He affirms something more precise and more demanding: that the examination is permanent, that no belief is exempt from revision, that openness to correction is a condition of the genuine search for truth.

Critical thinking is also not generalized skepticism. It does not consist of doubting everything indiscriminately. It consists of doubting with method, in asking with criteria, in demanding evidence with humility. Francis Bacon formulated it four hundred years ago with a precision that no algorithm has improved: the desire to search, the patience to doubt, the slowness to affirm, the hatred for all imposture.

🔗 VI. The Articulation: Critical Thinking, Choice, and Moral Decision

We've come a long way. We can now answer the question we posed at the beginning: are choice and decision the articulation that is needed between ethics and morality?

The answer is: yes, but only if they are mediated by critical thinking. Without it, choosing is not freedom but whim, and deciding is not commitment but automatism. With it, choosing becomes the conscious exercise of rational autonomy – the ethical act par excellence – and deciding in the cut that commits the individual to the common good that the morality of his community – reviewed and examined – proposes to him.

Critical thinking is, in this scheme, the hinge between ethics and morality. It operates between philosophical reflection on principles (ethics) and the social norm that regulates conduct (moral). When I critically examine a moral norm, I elevate it from the level of custom to the level of principle: I ask myself if it is valid, if it is just, if I can make it my own not by inheritance but by conviction. And when I decide to act accordingly, I turn reflection into action.

This articulation has a practical consequence that goes beyond abstract philosophy. In a world saturated with competing narratives – fake news, confirmation algorithms, political and emotional post-truths – critical thinking is the only vaccine available that does not require a laboratory. It takes time, it requires habit, it requires the willingness to be uncomfortable with one's own ignorance. But it is possible to cultivate it, and cultivating it is an act that is both intellectual and moral.

"I just know that I don't know anything. And that awareness of one's own ignorance is the beginning of wisdom."

— Socrates (via Plato, Apology of Socrates)

Socrates died because of that conviction. In 399 B.C., he was sentenced to death for corrupting the Athenian youth—that is, for teaching them to think for themselves. The accusation reveals, with painful clarity, that critical thinking has always had enemies: those who benefit from the credulity of others, those who have an interest in not examining the rules, those who prefer comfortable consensus to uncomfortable truth. None of that has changed in twenty-five centuries. Only the mechanisms of thought control have been modernized.

That is why the question at the beginning – what is critical thinking, and how is it articulated with choice, decision, ethics and morality – is not an academic question. It is, in the fullest sense of the expression, a political question. A question about what kind of citizens we want to be, about what kind of community we want to build, about whether we are willing to be uncomfortable with complexity or prefer the instant relief of the story that confirms what we already know.

✍️ VII. Conclusion: Critical Thinking as an Act of Freedom

At the end of the tour, one thing becomes clear: critical thinking is not a technical skill. It is a way of inhabiting the world.

From Socratic maieutics to research on fake news in the post-truth era, the common thread is the same: the quality of our personal and collective life depends on the quality of our thinking. Not its speed, not its volume, not its ability to process data. Of their depth, of their honesty, of their willingness to review what we think we know.

Choosing and deciding are the verbs that translate that thought into action. To choose, with the awareness of the freedom that implies; decide, with the weight of the cut it demands. Ethics and morality are not separate territories but different planes of the same commitment: that of living according to examined principles, not simply inherited.

Critical thinking is, in short, the most everyday and most demanding act of freedom that exists. It does not require a public square like Socrates', nor a chair like Kant's. It requires only what was always necessary and always difficult: stopping, asking, doubting methodically, and then – with all that weight on one's shoulders – choosing.

🧠 CRITICAL THINKING · PHILOSOPHICAL-JOURNALISTIC ESSAY

Document for Intellectual and Educational Use · Reproduction with source citation

Main references: Plato, Apology of Socrates · Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics · Kant, Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres (1785) · Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning (1605) · Max Black, Critical Thinking (1946) · Vosoughi et al., MIT, Science (2018) · Mercier & Sperber, The Enigma of Reason (2017) · Redalyc, Fake News and Unfounded Beliefs (2021) · RAE · Iberdrola, The Value of Critical Thinking (2021)

Shift Pharmacies

List of local doctors

Blog - ArchivesPosts of 03/2026