I often write as a result of the triangulation of various thoughts and meditations swirling around in my head at any given time. It is common for my mind space to be simultaneously filled with several overarching themes. The sources of these ideas vary — usually a combination of my reactions to current events in politics, culture, and education; new and/or challenging circumstances in my personal life; and what I am consuming through books, social, and other forms of media. It’s an exciting moment when these thought resources converge and synthesize into a better understanding of myself and the world around me.
Lately, my mental casserole has been revolving around three main topics: the nature of empathy, what it is to be a critical and independent minded thinker, and the humanistic aspects currently impacting politics in our nation. These impressions are responses to the following specific stimuli:
A series of articles I’m working on in retort and deconstruction of Allie Beth Stuckey’s book, Toxic Empathy.1
A book I just finished reading entitled Our Own Worst Enemy: the Assault from Within on Modern Democracy by Tom Nichols
My own visceral response to the recent fiasco between Trump, Vance, & Zelensky2
I am writing this article after arriving at the nexus point of those three different, yet related subjects. The connection revealed itself as I pondered the role of both thought and values formation in each of those arenas. For Allie Beth, it is my understanding of how high control religion prohibits her from critical or independent thinking. Nichols’ book is a deep dive into the impact of societal values and norms on independent thought and accountability…and vice versa. Then there is the disastrous Trump-Vance-Zelinsky press conference,3 which presented a masterclass in mental manipulation, bullying, and gaslighting. The route through my cerebral landscape brought the path for each of these subjects to an intersection to consider a broader question — one that is a crucial part of the story for each scenario…
What does it mean to be an “Independent Minded” thinker and how might someone know if they are one?
The commonality of this question may not be immediately obvious in each of the areas that captured my attention. It is certainly an important part of the so-called “30,000 foot view” which attempts to look deeper into the human conditions that are so unsettling in each story. For Allie Beth, what is it about a religion that uses fear and illogic to control not just her behaviors, but her entire world view? For society at large, how does the narcissism and selfishness so expertly described by Tom impact its ability to move beyond its biases and prejudices to think more critically about its views? For the responses to the press conference, why are there so many who accept the gaslighting and bullying by victimizing the abusers, not the abused?
As previously stated, I am addressing the religious question of Allie Beth in a separate series of essays. The specific questions and concerns related to both Nichols’ musings as well as in response to the press conference have been addressed by any number of eloquent thinker-writers. I’m not going to spend time here addressing those specific narratives, Rather, I submit to you, the reader, the opportunity to engage in self-reflection regarding the type of psychology that allows the atrocities mentioned in these stories not only to exist, but to thrive. My hope is that you will have a deeper understanding of what it is to be an independent minded thinker and whether or not you fit into that category.
I offer the answers to both of these questions below in the form of a simple self-assessment tool that can be used to determine how much of an independent thinker you might be.
Types of Thinking
Dependent Minded Idea Genesis vs. Independent Minded Idea Generation
There is a difference between the concepts of idea genesis vs. idea generation. Genesis implies an origination that is not your own. It has a starting point and a source, but the idea is not original to you. More often than not, idea genesis is any new idea or different way of thinking that is adapted and/or adopted from a thought authority. Thought Authorities are any persons, dogmas, codes, etc. that influence, inform, or create your world view. These can be religious leaders, beliefs or texts, professional codes or expectations, political ideologies or philosophical beliefs, parental or other familial authority figures, etc. Idea genesis can be either critically or non-critically obtained, but an important distinction is that they are shared between you and your thought authority. In other words, idea genesis is a result of dependent mindedness, which is the clearest distinction between that and idea generation.
Ideas and beliefs for the closed-minded, non-critical thinker are created through INDOCTRINATION.
On the other hand, idea generation implies a sense of originality ascribed to one specific thinker. Other terms for this type of thought include "divergent” or “creative” thinking. While idea generation can be inspired by a thought authority, it is not a shared belief between a person and that thought authority. It may be an expansion of the thought authority’s ideas. More often than not, it is a rejection or rebellion against ideas established by the thought authority and its adherents. As with idea genesis, a person can generate a new idea through either critical or non-critical thinking. However, unlike the dependent minded nature of idea genesis, idea generation is a direct result of independent mindedness.
Ideas and beliefs for the open-minded, critical thinker are created through IMAGINATION.
Non-Critical vs. Critical Thinking
Non-Critical Thinking
Non-Critical Thinking describes any idea originatting from subjective emotions, instincts, biases, or any other false/misinformed/uninformed resources. Beliefs that rely on these types of thought processes are influenced via the following actions:
CAPITULATION - Choosing to align actions with the beliefs of thought authorities in an act of deference, cowardice, or self-preservation. Unlike CONFORMITY, the ideas acted upon do not accurately reflect the thinker’s true beliefs, but only those he/she believes will be either rewarded and/or not punished by their thought authority (ex: institutions of higher education and the private sector eliminating DEI programs to appease the Trump administration)
CONFORMITY - Choosing to align actions AND beliefs of thought authorities for the same purpose as that of CAPITULATION. The difference being that the thinker performs exercises in illogic and self-gaslighting in order to assuage a guilty conscience from acting against previously held beliefs — beliefs that were changed for no other reason than for political gain and/or self preservation (ex: victims of Stockholm Syndrome)
CONTORTION - The act of gaslighting, a psychological manipulation that uses the repetition, distortion, and audaciousness of lies to convince a thinker that truth is lie and lie is truth. CONTORTION frequently begins with insidious, or frankly idiotic, thought authorities whose own self-delusions are passed on to the thinker (ex: January 6 riot history revisionists)
CONCESSION - A complete act of surrender. There is no change of thought by the thinker under the pressure of thought authorities, but only an unwillingness to push back. Rather than concede in order to join or remain part of the group favored by the thought authorities, the act of CONCESSION is about leaving the conversation and group altogether (ex: former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan)
COMPROMISE - An act of diplomacy in which a certain segment of thought authorities believe that the best way to respond to a different, more offensive thought authority is to avoid any actions or conversations that reject their information, regardless of how incorrect or immoral it might be. The COMPROMISER’s intent is not to change or manipulate ideas, but only to appease the more powerful thought authority (ex: every talking head and Republican politician criticizing Zelensky’s refusal to be bullied or lied to)
CLOSE-MINDEDNESS - The act of cherry-picking ideas that only align with pre-conceived biases, prejudices, or world views. This involves a rejection of any new information that contradicts those views, regardless of logic or empirical observations. The close-minded thinker has surrendered all idea genesis to their thought authorities and is incapable and/or unwilling to engage in any activity or thought that might lead to idea generation. (ex: Allie Beth Stuckey)
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking, on the other hand results in ideas based on objective, measurable, and replicable approximate truths. Beliefs (or a better term — theories) resulting from critical thinking come from the following behaviors:
INTERPRETATION - The act of gathering and analyzing a robust amount of data, both qualitative and quantitative in order to achieve the closest approximate truth possible.
SKEPTICISM - The act of approaching all information and belief from the perspective of the null hypothesis. That is to begin with the assumption that your hypothesis is NOT true and work through experimentation to determine the validity of that assumption. In other words, refusing to believe something is true until evidence overwhelmingly says it is.
EMPIRICISM - The act of accepting truth only through things that can be observed or experienced via the senses. In other words, “show me, don’t tell me.”
OPEN-MINDEDNESS - An act of humility that allows the viewer to trust that he/she may not have all the knowledge, may change their view with the advent of new or better knowledge, and recognizes that their perspective on any matter is theirs alone.
RATIONALISM - the act of establishing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. The approximation of truth is achieved through logic and debate.
So where does the concept of Independent Minded Thinking fit in with non-critical vs. critical thought? The truth is, that it can be found in both types of thinking. It is possible for the non-critical thinker to possess self-generated, if delusional, thoughts. These ideas range anywhere from foolishness to outright insanity. On the other hand, independent mindedness in the critical thinker manifests itself only through courage and conviction. In other words, while a critical thinker may be more aligned with truth and reality than a non-critical thinker, the results of his/her thought processes are more or less useless if not acted upon. It requires courage and conviction, not just divergent or rebellious ideas, for someone to become a true independent thinker. This is particularly true in situations when creative/divergent opinions gained through critical thinking are deemed unpopular/provocative, and especially when expressing them brings some modicum of risk.
So are you an Independent Minded thinker? I’ve devised a brief quiz to help you discover the answer:
The Independent Minded Quotient (IMQ)
The following quiz will help you determine your level of Independent Mindedness in what I have termed your Independent Minded Quotient. Please rate yourself to the best of your knowledge for each statement using the following scale:
1 = strongly disagree
2 = somewhat disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = somewhat agree
5 = strongly agree
I hold opinions or views that are contrary to, or in contradiction of, an established thought authority in my life.
1 2 3 4 5
I am generally unconcerned about keeping those opinions or views to myself which contradict those of my thought authorities in order to protect me or people I care about.
1 2 3 4 5
I believe that it is impossible for a human being to know complete truth, but we should keep questioning and researching so that we get as close to it as possible.
1 2 3 4 5
I have some opinions/beliefs now that are completely different than ones I used to have when I was younger.
1 2 3 4 5
I spend significant amounts of time and thought considering the things I believe AND why I believe them.
1 2 3 4 5
I have experienced, or am open to the possibility of experiencing, a time when I changed or reconsidered an opinion when presented with irrefutable empirical evidence or logic that disproves or weakened a belief I once had.
1 2 3 4 5
I am generally able to defend my beliefs using logic and reason rather than emotional or subjective rationales.
1 2 3 4 5
I approach new or conflicting ideas presented by my thought authorities with skepticism and will research reputable sources before agreeing with them.
1 2 3 4 5
I am comfortable and open to the idea that any belief or opinion I currently hold, even my most dogmatically held convictions, can change with more or better information in the future.
1 2 3 4 5
I am unafraid about publicly expressing my opinions/beliefs.
1 2 3 4 5
Upon completion of this quiz, add up the total points then divide that number by 10. The resulting Independent Mindedness Quotient (IMQ) number can be interpreted as follows:
1-2: You are a dependent thinker whose beliefs and world views are developed via idea genesis adapted or adopted from thought authorities. Your critical thinking skills are likely low, and you are more susceptible to group think and likely to hold many subjective/emotionally based opinions. You are also more likely than not to operate with caution, deference, and in fear of those thought authorities who you feel will be a threat should you cross them.
3-4: You are likely a dependent thinker in most areas of your life, but are experiencing some thought generation in opposition to one or more of your established thought authorities. You are still too uncertain of either your ideas and/or the consequences you might face should you express them. You tend to rely more on critical thinking skills, but have yet to develop enough courage and/or conviction to openly express your ideas enough to be considered a true independent thinker.
5: You are an independent thinker through and through. Virtually every idea you possess has been vetted through the filter of your values and empirically-based reasoning. You consistently express your views and why you believe them with courage and conviction, regardless of the consequences.
Final Thoughts
If current events teach us anything, it is the importance of being able to think critically about the messaging and experiences that are part of our daily lives. This skill is necessary to be able to operate based on facts and reality, and to avoid the influence of liars, charlatans, and fools. But this is only a weapon of defense. One must also learn to become an independent minded critical thinker in order to go on the offense against illogic, foolishness, and deception. Stay tuned for a follow-up essay in which I will describe how to develop your own independent mindedness.
And the ensuing responses by disingenuous talking heads and politicians