this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)

Asklemmy

44462 readers
1879 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I mean, we all hear about people thinking what they think only because the people around them think it too. So how do you avoid doing that?

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 10 hours ago

Well you have to relate to what you do know. The more definitive a piece of knowledge is the greater its significance if something does not jive. I have in discourse mentioned something akin to X does not make sense to me because Y. I often get a your not an expert response but thinking for yourself means you do need to act as the expert for what you know. You should be ready to learn that something you knew was false but not on the drop of a dime but if someone has good sources and logic then certainly. Then also try to be informed by as many reputable sources as possible. So anything that is an academic subject you should see what PhD professors from reputable institutions (universities that have been around for at least 50 years and of course accredited) have written or said. If you have not I would consider it something you need to look into. If your talking about political and societal things though and you have to just do the best you can to make sure the information you are getting is accurate and use what you currently know to see if it makes sense. Ok so lets take a decisive topic. trans rights. So you have to look at what you know about human rights to begin with. gay rights, womens rights, the fact of slavery and how we have dealt with it. So you have to decide how you feel around the philosphy of human rights. Do all humans deserve equal treatment and is that even enough. You have likely seen the equality/equity memes and that compares treatment to outcomes. Ultimately you have to engage in the ideas and decide what is right for yourself and then move that forward to the particular modern thing.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I go on reddit and read the comments

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 0 points 8 hours ago

You can’t.

[–] Tenkard@lemmy.ml 11 points 22 hours ago

Read books, it's the poor people version of traveling to broaden your mind. Sometimes even more effective since some things cannot be experienced irl. They don't need to be recent, the old classics are good. Think about the moral/ethics/philosophies you want to live your life on, then you can interpretate events according to those.

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 7 points 23 hours ago

Not sure. What do you guys think?

I have a couple good rules of thumb.

What are the experts saying? Not the loud people, the experts. Incredible news would have them talking.

Would the reverse of an idea also be true? If the president is responsible for high gas prices, do people agree he’d be responsible for low ones?

Does the idea try to make me feel? If there’s clear emotional intent in a story, the facts are probably being shaped to fit the narrative.

Do I see evidence of the widespread problem here? Should I? I remember an article about a couple who flew short hops across the US, and they said at every stop the story was “things are horrible everywhere, we’re just lucky they’re good here.”

Do I hear people using the same talking points, but they get confused when you ask for details? Often this is a story made to make you feel, not think.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Learn, understand, challenge, repeat.

Learn as much as you can about all sorts of topics, even if you don’t have specific plans for those topics

Learn enough that you don’t just know the facts, but that you actually understand why things are the way they are. You should be able to predict things you haven’t yet learned if you understand the concepts. If you don’t understand something yet, keep learning.

Learn your fundamentals: language skills, math, logic, statistics, the science of research, history, politics, basic psychology, and the physics of whatever realm you’re operating in (meaning that in today’s day and age, you should learn about both real-world physics and about how information flows on the Internet).

A lot of people don’t know how to teach themselves, so it’s probably important to point out that learning to do so effectively is a big part of thinking for yourself. Learning how information is presented, as well as what’s often left unsaid, is important. Learn how to read graphs and charts and statistics. Improve your information literacy: Learn how to find credible sources, how to judge the credibility of a source, and what “credible” actually means. It doesn’t mean infallible.

As a general rule, don’t accept a fact until you have multiple credible confirmations of it. That might not be possible, but when information comes from untrustworthy sources, remember that. Learn the difference between something that you’ve learned and accepted and something that you’ve just heard on social media a few dozen times. This is easier when you have an understanding of what you’re learning. True things fit in better with other true things.

Don’t assume things are false just because the source isn’t credible, either. Just do extra research to verify. Do your own experiments to confirm, if possible.

Sometimes you’ll realize something you’ve accepted might be wrong, possibly because it conflicts with something else that you learned. When facts don’t add up, challenge them. You’re not infallible. Replacing a fact you accepted long ago isn’t a failure; it’s a victory. Many people are incapable of doing so.

Learn to distinguish between facts, inferences, theories, and opinions. (Note that established, accepted scientific theories often fall into the “fact” category.) Facts are verifiable. Inferences are based on facts; they’re evidence-based conclusions that can help to build theories. Theories are explanations, and they can be disproven but haven’t been proven (else they would be facts). Information presented as facts can be false. Theories and inferences can be poorly formed, even if the facts are sound (and especially when they are not). “Opinion” is a word people use to defend flawed theories. If the opinion isn’t a preference, there’s a good chance it isn’t an opinion at all and is just intentional misinformation. “You can’t argue with my opinion” isn’t applicable when the “opinion” is provably false - then it’s just a failed fact, inference, or theory. And even when it is an opinion, it can still be criticized.

Learn about logical fallacies. Even if you don’t call out the person using them, try to notice them in the wild, both by people you agree with and people you disagree with. But especially by people you agree with. Learn how to notice other ways people are misled.

[–] Preflight_Tomato@lemm.ee 2 points 9 hours ago

Note that established, accepted scientific theories often fall into the “fact” category.

For example the Theory of Gravity.

[–] sunbather@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

to add a more narrowed-down starting point, i recommend everyone to look into epistemology. much of this follows from there

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I might add, "become comfortable with uncertainty". Because nothing drowns you in a swamp of bullshit like an excessive need for certainty.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

By constantly asking “why”. Certainly, by asking why something is popular and ponder that for as long as needed until you come to a reasonable conclusion.

You may never conclude why some things are the way they are but by keeping this in mind, you’ll pick up the habit of thinking independently.

Actually, one of the things I’m always wondering is how I became an independent thinker. I have a hard time understanding how so many people are so gullible and what I can do to help them.

I can’t help by attributing my independent thinking to being somewhat isolated and poor as a child. I’m self sufficient and reject most things that are popular.

I also worked in advertising as a graphic artist for a few years. It became apparent that I am not cut out for thinking like everyone else. Advertising still annoys the heck out of me.

[–] Preflight_Tomato@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago

I’m always wondering is how I became an independent thinker. I have a hard time understanding how so many people are so gullible

You may not think this way, but I'll comment just in case: Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are too smart to fall for a lie. The smartest people in the world have blind spots, and only the blind think they have none.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 4 points 1 day ago

That's the best way

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 day ago

If someone is proposing a simple solution to a complex problem, there is a good chance they don't understand it or they are trying to control your opinions.

If you receive some information (no matter how) and you feel a strong emotion, be extra skeptical.

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There is the theory that we feel emotions first and then we think only to justify the emotion.

This would imply that it isn't the thinking that needs to be managed but the emotions.

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Although some feelings are malleable through thinking, but yeah, others come from (and can only be worked by) different places (including the health of our body).

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We're human beings, not machines. Emotions are good, actually.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Emotions aren't good (or bad). They're often like a heuristic. Fast but inaccurate. This is great when it's like "a bear wandered into the house" and emotions say "RUN" and cold logic would be like "what? Why? How?" until you get mauled. It's not good when it's like "climate change makes me feel bad so I don't believe in it"

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

heuristic

That's a very fancy word, and I'm sure you're proud of using it.

Now can you tell me how this word has importance in your everyday life?

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

It comes up in software development sometimes, which is my day to day. It also is useful for any "fast but inaccurate approach" scenario, which comes up sometimes.

I wouldn't say I'm proud of using it. It was already in my lexicon. (So was "lexicon")

Here's an article about them https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235

Why do you ask?

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Deliberately expose yourself to information and opinions outside your bubble.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago

But don't consider that maybe the migrants really are the biggest problem just because so many others are convinced.

[–] Majorllama@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Pay attention to when people tell you what to think and be extra suspicious of that kind of behavior. Question everything. Trust but verify.

Now don't fall into the trap of just being a contrarian. Just because everyone is telling you the same thing doesn't mean it's ALWAYS some big conspiracy. It could actually just be the right thing.

Basically just be curious and don't form opinions purely based off people you look up to or admire.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Find a topic in the news, try to read up both sides of an argument, then pick which side makes most sense.

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

When both sides are full of professional liars, that won't work.

We might have to settle for not knowing.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 1 points 17 hours ago

I would recommend reading up on historical and dialectical materialism. It isn't called the immortal science for nothing.

[–] TheWolfOfSouthEnd@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

True. I was assuming it was a situation where you could find reliable sources. Bit thick there really.

[–] NONE_dc@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

This is what helps me with that:

  1. A healthy amount of Scepticism is always good.
  2. Fact check any new information by yourself and make your own conclusion.
  3. Discuss your ideas with others and make questions (just like you are doing right now).
  4. Be open to be corrected if you're wrong in something.
  5. NEVER assume you know everything you need to know about anything.
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I got old and bitter and now no longer feel impacted by the people around me. It feels quite freeing to finally be myself in any situation.

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 1 points 8 hours ago

I think that isolating oneself in a cave might be best.

Imagine an illusion, the matrix, built not of scifi machinery but of habit, maintained by the presence of others.

Get alone and the habits dissolve. And then the invisible becomes visible.

[–] Glasgow@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your default should be try to disprove, or at least verify any claims.

And surround yourself with good people.

I’ve spoken to a lot of people who can’t think independently and I can’t figure out what’s wrong with them tbh. I understand it on paper. Cognitive dissonance, emotive narratives re-enforced by echo chambers that have blinded them. But how do you deny basic facts when they’re explained to you 1 on 1. I used to think they were lying but it’s clear to me now most aren’t.

[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort people experience when holding conflicting cognitions. It is a signal that our thinking doesn't make sense and we need to change something to make that feeling go away. It is not hypocrisy or having contradictory thoughts. It's a feeling we all experience. IMO exploring our cognitive dissonance is a useful way to better critical thinking. The people you are talking about are probably not experiencing cognitive dissonance as they have long since rationlised it away.

[–] Glasgow@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

Yes but it's still there when I reintroduce some rational. I can see the anger emerge as I get closer to hitting their internal contradictions. Mike Pence and his words on what happened on Jan6 is an easy shortcut to constitution-loving patriots who didn't have an issue with the coup.

[–] Papanca@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Stop comparing yourself to others. You are you, and you can't possibly please or displease everyone anyway

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Comparison is the thief of joy.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

There is no such thing a "independent thinking" our thoughts are given form by language and vocabulary. The only independent thinker would be someone completely alienated from society at large.

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago

You reminded me of something I think no one has mentioned yet:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

From: Principle of charity.

Applying this, I think we can interpret the *independent thinking" not as thinking without conditioning factors but as what is known as "critical thinking".

[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 1 points 1 day ago

our thoughts are given form by language and vocabulary

And our experiences, and our intelligence, too. Right?

Which makes the challenge one of navigating that mess.