How to Think for Yourself

Like many of PG’s essays about psychology or society, the problem is that this essay is basically an aphorism or a self-help book: there’s no logic here, no citations, no connection to facts. It’s just a bunch of feel-good BS for libertarian-minded tech workers. I get the impression that the length is (at least unconsciously) making up for the absence of rigor.

A few paragraphs of “stuff that has no real argument but basically sounds right to PG” is a fine short essay as a “maninfesto of independent thought”.

But when the essay is full of detailed “analysis” of “facts” such as “it seems that independent thought is a matter of nature rather than nurture,” then PG is just wasting his readers’ time. This essay is a genuine clunker.

I don't think there is a need for "thinking for yourself" for those to whom it doesn't come naturally.

I believe that the human population produces certain number of people with contrarian attitudes as a defense against too much conformity, which can trap the population in local maximas or even wipe it out of existence if it fails to adapt to the changes. When the natural environment is changing, there is a bigger need for contrarians because there is a possibility that the changed environment is detrimental to the population or there could be better opportunities because of the changes to the environment. However, in stable times, contrarians are a nuisance or even a threat to the stability of the society. It's much more valuable most of the time for most of the people to do what you know and keep it at that.

As a contrarian, I am fortunate enough to be in the current time and place where I'm less likely to be executed for my "wrong" views because some of it is applied in places where it is very useful and I'm a net benefit to the society. If and when things become stable again, our kind will be silenced and curbed.

I would want to have a future where it is understood that the human population is bigger than the individual... and these variations exist because it is beneficial to the the population in the long term... and these differences should be celebrated... but maybe the effort required to maintain this understanding in the population is not worth it overall over getting rid of us by silencing or executing us. So, my kind will make do by understanding that this is happening and learn to shut up and stay low until when things change and we're needed again.

Keeping quiet about things only helps so much. People can feel if you question them or not. I mean, there are two workers, A is always excited about everything his manager suggest and do while B mostly keeps his thoughts to himself. Who is more likely to get promoted?

>The twitter example seems more like those Nobel prize winners that later reconvert to crackpots.

That's the point. They were always "crackpots". You need to be a crackpot to generate ideas that people aren't generating, otherwise everyone would generate them. This means you'll generate wrong ideas, but it also means you'll generate right ideas that people think are wrong.

>I definitely agree that conspiracy theorists reject authority and are contrarian, but most don't strike me as curious except for a superficial level.

They are definitely more curious than most people, as evidenced by the fact that they were attracted to the conspiracy theory in the first place. It's also not uncommon for an intelligent conspiracy theorist to be able to outargue a conventional person on a subject they care about, i.e. the Earth being flat or not.

>As for the list of things those people may or may not enjoy, the sheer amount of things polled and the small sample size give me doubts.

I think this field is pretty well established and this paper in particular is well cited, so among peers it doesn't seem to be contentious.

The very premise of this article is an oxymoron. "How to Think for Yourself" (by reading instructions on how from someone other than yourself)