The problem with the idea that unorthodox ideas should only be adopted after deep thought, is that if it takes years of deep thought to convince yourself of the

The problem with the idea that unorthodox ideas should only be adopted after deep thought, is that if it takes years of deep thought to convince yourself of the idea, you'll never convince anybody else of it. What I've come to understand is that a good unorthodox thinker is not one that is a deep thinker. A good unorthodox thinker is one that puts their theories into practice, experiments, self-promotes, and plays politics. Sometimes their ideas work out, sometimes they don't, but heterodoxy is the engine of change, liberalism, and progress. The problem with orthodoxy is that you can virtually always make a case that it's better to go with the tried and true. The orthodoxy is going to be correct more often than the heterodoxy, regardless of the subject. The problem is that setting all these high standards people must pass before challenging the status quo, like only having a new idea after thinking about it for years, results in society getting staid, stagnant, behind the times, and poorly adapted to changing circumstances.