3 ms·

To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote

To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc) To answer the question, how do I know if I’m just one of the convention minded? - I don’t think you can know with certainty, so you should question yourself, but there are a few signs: - if your ideas are nuanced and don’t quite fit on an axis, sign of a good thing - if you read original sources, and reflect on your own experience to form theories, good sign - if you have gotten deeper on opposing views, and can articulate them well, good sign - if you notice most people in your social circle wouldn’t agree with some of your ideas, could be a good sign (conventionally minded folks are often conventionally minded to gain support of their immediate peers)

newacct583 6y ago
> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life. - Do you do anything about it? If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess. But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.
- stopachka 6y ago
  Yes to both: I was a staff eng at big co, where the way I wrote the ideas above would have been trouble. I didn’t kow tow during my tenure, and now I’m building a company.
- stopachka 6y ago
  Re: political or identity point I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively
  - peregrine 6y ago
    > I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? Because freedom cannot be untied from politics and society. The initial constitutional congress defined freedom for those who owned land. Obviously with time it expanded to all white men, then all white women, and so on, but not with out a inherently political fight. A fight which we may not encode into law, but which is effectively encoded into law by uneven enforcement of law.
  - ptd 6y ago
    Whether or not you believe America was built on freedom has a strong correlation to your political affiliation.
    - hnal943 6y ago
      That has only been true for a few years. In any previous century, that claim was not political.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        That's really not true. For the last 60 years or so (basically since the civil rights movement) the conventional understanding of "freedom" on the educated American left has been significantly more nuanced. It is, after all, a nation with the institution of slavery enshrined in its constitution, so people tend to talk carefully about which freedoms they mean. On the right, that never took hold (we probably don't want to get into why). So when someone says something like "freedom is a foundational ideal of America" they're effectively making a declaration of identity as an American conservative. And coming back to the upthread point: if I hear that statement as "I'm a conservative!" in the context of "I'm an independent thinker!", then I'm going to be a little dubious about how independent that thought is when it's defined in terms of a political identity. Political orthodoxy is perhaps the SAFEST form of (to use the terminology from the article) conventional-minded thought.
- bitcurious 6y ago
  You are mixing thought and values, in both of your questions. Independent minded people can find themselves agreeing with people in power; the independence of mind is about the “why” not the “what.” If you independently, critically evaluate an issue and settle on the common belief that doesn’t make you conformist. Likewise, if you settle on the opposite side and don’t act on it, it takes nothing away from your independence of thought, rather it’s a question of values. The answer to “is this worth my time?“ is yes or no independently of whether you agree of disagree with the zeitgeist.

newacct583 6y ago

> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life. - Do you do anything about it? If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess. But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.

stopachka 6y ago
Yes to both: I was a staff eng at big co, where the way I wrote the ideas above would have been trouble. I didn’t kow tow during my tenure, and now I’m building a company.
stopachka 6y ago
Re: political or identity point I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively
- peregrine 6y ago
  > I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? Because freedom cannot be untied from politics and society. The initial constitutional congress defined freedom for those who owned land. Obviously with time it expanded to all white men, then all white women, and so on, but not with out a inherently political fight. A fight which we may not encode into law, but which is effectively encoded into law by uneven enforcement of law.
- ptd 6y ago
  Whether or not you believe America was built on freedom has a strong correlation to your political affiliation.
  - hnal943 6y ago
    That has only been true for a few years. In any previous century, that claim was not political.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      That's really not true. For the last 60 years or so (basically since the civil rights movement) the conventional understanding of "freedom" on the educated American left has been significantly more nuanced. It is, after all, a nation with the institution of slavery enshrined in its constitution, so people tend to talk carefully about which freedoms they mean. On the right, that never took hold (we probably don't want to get into why). So when someone says something like "freedom is a foundational ideal of America" they're effectively making a declaration of identity as an American conservative. And coming back to the upthread point: if I hear that statement as "I'm a conservative!" in the context of "I'm an independent thinker!", then I'm going to be a little dubious about how independent that thought is when it's defined in terms of a political identity. Political orthodoxy is perhaps the SAFEST form of (to use the terminology from the article) conventional-minded thought.
bitcurious 6y ago
You are mixing thought and values, in both of your questions. Independent minded people can find themselves agreeing with people in power; the independence of mind is about the “why” not the “what.” If you independently, critically evaluate an issue and settle on the common belief that doesn’t make you conformist. Likewise, if you settle on the opposite side and don’t act on it, it takes nothing away from your independence of thought, rather it’s a question of values. The answer to “is this worth my time?“ is yes or no independently of whether you agree of disagree with the zeitgeist.