What do people mean exactly when they accuse someone else of not thinking/deciding for themselves?

It’ not always an unrealistic acusation. Some people really don’t think for themselves. They listen to one idea and believe it’s true without even thinking about it. Than tune out all arguments to that idea. In the case of religion, people do this all the time, for example the pope says god hates gays, there an abomanation, people will believe that without questioning why.

People like to leap to conclusions about the process by which others come to adhere to traditional viewpoints such as those represented by religion or political party.

To be fair, such affiliations do encourage people to offer prepared “talking points” whenever central beliefs are questioned. I’m referring to a kind of “group think.”

No matter how frequent we hear the standard responses to any issues related to core beliefs, we are incorrect to assume that no adherents of a religious or political belief or value system gave the matters critical thought and careful evaluation before accepting that political or religious belief or value system.

In other words, arguing from the general to the specific however probabilistically correct is not logically correct.

On the other hand, if someone labels themselves as a “Christian Conservative”, we can logically deduce the values and beliefs to which they adhere. We cannot correctly logically conclude how they came to hold those beliefs.

Following leaders and influential persons unquestioningly is one way. Another is letting someone else (such as a parent, sibling, friend, or significant other) tell you who you are and what to think, either overtly or indirectly.

Adolescents also do this all the time: M— expresses a strong opinion, and J— just automatically agrees with her and adopts her view without giving it a moment’s thought herself.

M—: He’s a dork.
J—: What an idiot.

M—: I love that song (dress, show, flavor, color, movie).
J—: Me too!

M—: Algebra sucks.
J—: Big time.

J— is not thinking for herself, wouldn’t you agree? Approval, acceptance, conformity, lack of self-confidence—whatever reason you choose, the outcome is that one mind is idling while the other decides.

Some people are still doing this when they’re grown up and married. Maybe they think it’s how to get along. If somebody did this with me (agreed with everything I said), I would probably want to throttle her or him. In fact, this is exactly why I broke an engagement back when I was 20: he agreed with me too much. I couldn’t stand it. Sometimes I had to blatantly contradict myself just to make him disagree with me. He was not thinking for himself.

This accusation can quite often be made, without implying that one should not listen to advise or read ancient books. I, for instance, have read the bible and I would advise anyone to do the same. To me, that could only lead tot the conclusion that I reached: I am not religious. But I still find the topic interesting, so I continue to read on it, for instance books by Karen Armstrong and Dawkins.

To illustrate:
I agree with many concepts and ideas in the bible, be it not all. However… as soon as people tell me that something is true, just because the bible says so, then I sincerely feel they have earned the above remark that you refer to.

That’s like telling me that you really like the boots that you just bought, because the salesman said that they looked great on you.

I don’t get it either, as essentially, non religious people all follow something or another somewhere.

“I don’t let a [pre written] book tell me what is right and wrong, I decide that for myself.”

It means they can’t or don’t like to read.

What is meant by the concept of “Not thinking for yourself” ?

The phrase is usually used by those who find themselves on the losing end of an issue.

It don’t mean squat.

Is it possible that this is ultimately an oversimplified and unrealistic accusation against someone else?

Yes. There’s an even greater possibility that you’ve given way too much significance to an insignificant phrase.

When people say you’re not thinking for yourself I think they mean that they don’t think you have asked why enough.

1) I want to know.. what are people really trying to say in such cases (as i quoted above)
What they are actually saying is they had to have read it or heard it from someone that it would be better to say “I don’t let a [pre written] book tell me what is right and wrong, I decide that for myself.” and by saying that is actually acknowledging this past interaction.

2) What is meant by the concept of “Not thinking for yourself” ?
Thinking, acting or behaving as you would expect another or others would expect you to think, act or behave.

3) Is it possible that this is ultimately an oversimplified and unrealistic accusation against someone else? Everything and anything is possible, but I will leave this one up to you….think for yourself! ;)

1.In the examples that you have given I would say it is their way of saying. “You can’t be serious, because I am right and what you chose to believe is wrong.”
2.Not thinking for yourself would be to give in to peer pressure instead what you believe to be true. (Of course always best to give in if it is the law. Then it doesn’t matter what you believe. You should just believe it is better to stay out of jail)
3. Oversimplification? Maybe. It depends on if you are really giving in to peer pressure. Then the accussation stands. Its not quite the same as taking advice from the weather channel. You can always choose to go out without an umbrella on a rainy day however like everything else in life don’t cry when you get wet.
I find most people will ask for advice only to ignore the ones who tell them they are wrong and go with the ones who agree with their point of view.
Most of the time I would say that peer pressure is most noticable around the teen years because in becoming an adult one looks to their peers to see what is the most likely action they should take or how should they behave to be acceptable to their peers. Its a confusing time of self discovery. Of course it does also tend to repeat in the corporate world in order to get ahead.

I remember that quote from another thread. The implication was that reading a (pre-written, as opposed to post writtten?) book automatically indicated a blind acceptance of every word and thought IN the book. Not a very sound basis for an argument, but it was too obviously over-simplified for me to bother with, so I ignored it. I read lots of books and find them interesting or not, sources for speculation or not. I have yet to read a book that has my concurrence from beginning to end.

The mind is a naturally lazy instrument—it’s evolved to be efficient, rather than precise. So it’s just more convenient to absorb the ideas around us than to challenge them and start from scratch. In addition, there’s a psychological predisposition to “fit in” with others of our peer group, and sharing their views is an important part of that.

So those forces tend to produce a condition of complacent groupthink. “Thinking for yourself” involves a recognition that the truth isn’t always compatible with what the peer group believes, and a willingness to challenge existing dogma. That process opens up new territory and allows one to see (potentially) with greater clarity.

But, in an argument on the Internet, “you don’t think for yourself” usually means “I don’t agree with you so I’m calling you an idiot” :)

We live in a time of specialization of knowledge. A couple of centuries ago, the well-educated man could keep abreast of the state of the art in many fields of knowledge, and extract his own conclusions from available evidence.

Today, that’s not possible. Each field of knowledge has become so voluminous that we all rely heavily on the authority of experts (real or imagined). Frankly, “thinking for ourselves” can be the worst way to go. Science has lead us to some very counter-intuitive bits of knowledge that the average guy “thinking for himself” would flatly reject. So when it comes to the objective and verifiable, often the best we can do is choose our experts wisely.

In matters of opinion or lifestyle or morality or religion or politics however, which all involve subjective interpretation to varying degrees, reliance on “experts” is more hazardous. These experts have no qualms about packaging the subjective component of their assertions as objective fact. It’s incumbent on the listener to use their own faculties to sort this out.

We should be very careful with these kinds of accusations, but there are exceptions. For example when teachers use plagiarism detection software while grading homework assignments.

Others have given you some great answers. There can be no question that failure to Think for Onself is a common malady of man, so the accusation could very well be true. But when said in a debate, it generally means, “What’s wrong with you, why don’t you just accept what I think instead of what you think?”

If a debater sees that their opponent is mired in blind acceptance of an ideology, there are more effective strategies to provide a path to a different view than to simply say, “You’re not thinking for yourself.”

@Cruiser I follow what you are saying and commented on a similar line right above.

But no, I don’t think it is always an oversimplification to say that someone else isn’t thinking for themselves. All mankind once totally understood that the earth sits motionless in space, and the Sun, planets and stars all revolve around it in differing patterns. It made perfect sense to think that. The Earth seems the most motionless of things. There is no sense, when standing on its surface, that it is hurtling through space, rotating, revolving around the Sun which is itself revolving around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is speeding away from the center of the Universe.

But finally Nicolaus Copernicus noticed that in the Northern Hemisphere, the North Star doesn’t appear to move and other stars close to it appear to move more slowly than stars at a greater distance, and he had an epiphany that in fact the revolution of the Earth was producing the apparent motion of the stars. From there, he worked out that the Sun apparently “rises” in the East and “sets” in the West because the Earth is rotating, and the Earth’s rotation produces the apparent rotation of the planets as well..

Galileo Galilei took his observations further, working out the math for the revolutions, the tilt of the Earth’s axis and its influence on seasons and such. All this was from direct observations anyone willing to try could easily duplicate for themselves.

And yet those around Galileo soundly rejected the new observations as heretical. Surely God meant man to be his prized creation, and therefore put the Earth and man at the center of his Universe. Everyone “knew” that the Earth is the center of the solar system and Universe. No need to go observe anything. Case closed.

Never mind that in this case, the Holy Book involved, written by the ancients, says no such thing. That’s a perfect example of people not willing to think for themselves, or more properly, to entertain even a remote possibility that a cherished meme might be wrong, and that there might be compelling evidence of that fact well within their reach should they only be willing to “Think for themselves.”

@ETpro Some people I believe consciously subscribe to the very mindset thinking you illustrated just to bring peace to their mind and soul thinking that we are the center of their Gods Universe and not simply a random event. That is an example of actually thinking for themselves.

Many people truly don’t want to think. They merely want a peaceful life and will agree with whatever seems to offer them that peace. Path of least resistance.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land I was thinking the very same thing! Now does that mean you thought that for me?? Or does that still qualify me as thinking for myself?? Or did I think that for you?? Now I am confused…..

@Cruiser I’ll concede co-authorship.

I think there’s 2 things about the phrase “you’re not thinking for yourself.”

The 1st thing is that, in my experience, “you’re not thinking for yourself” is sometimes shorthand for “you’re not thinking like me.”

Of course they never put it so blatantly or admit to it, but they’ll usually reveal in spite of themselves that this is the basic idea behind their actions. The idea is that their thoughts on the subject are so true that anyone who isn’t brainwashed, anyone who uses their brains, will agree with them. This kind of thinking is self-centred, naive, arrogant, and a denial of the plurality of the universe. I encounter this especially in atheists but in theists also.

The 2nd thing is that there are people who don’t think for themselves but instead blindly accept and apply whatever dogma (religious or secular) they’ve been told is true.

I encounter this a little more in theists but almost equally in atheists. I think the way to tell if a person is thinking for themselves isn’t by what they think but by how they express their thoughts/beliefs.

For example:
– Do they admit, on any level, that they could be wrong (i.e. that humans are fallible without exception)? (This is whether or not their fallibility interests or holds significance for them: the question is, do they admit it.)
– Can they explain the things they say (and not merely repeat themselves)?
– Have their thoughts/beliefs changed or developped over the course of their lives?
– Are they aware of the weaknesses of their arguments?
– Do they identify any weaknesses in their most trusted human authority, or any points of disagreement between that authority and themselves (as oppose to accepting a human authority 100%)?
– Has anything ever challenged their beliefs/thoughts (a life experience, for instance)?
– Can they answer questions about their thoughts/beliefs other than by rote?

@Harp : I think you make a good point, that the specialization of knowledge puts certain topics out of reach of “thinking for oneself”... without massive education, the average Joe is just not qualified to do more than try to choose respectable experts.

The global warming “debate” is a great example, where the scientists are pretty solidly in agreement about the basic conclusions, but the Internet is chock-full of self-taught “experts” who “know” that it’s all a crock.

But are those people really “thinking for themselves” and just not sufficiently trained? I don’t think so. I don’t think the problem is that they lack the Ph.D’s in climate science… the problem is that there are subtle forms of groupthink and conditioning going on. Person A hears something from Person B, and it resonates with their pre-existing (conditioned) worldview, and they trust Person B more than they trust Al Gore, so that idea gets a permanent seat at the table. They didn’t have to join a club, it’s more subtle than that.

Someone who is truly thinking for themselves challenges not only Al Gore, but Person B and their own pre-existing worldview, putting it all in a state of suspended conclusions. Someone who thinks for themselves on the topic doesn’t conclude either “the scientists are absolutely right” or “the deniers have exposed the conspiracy”, they just see the debate for what it is, and listen without bias.

In many cases, it’s a cheap attempt at discrediting the other person’s argument. Because surely, only original ideas are worth anything~.

Agree with @nicobanks that “you’re not thinking for yourself” may in fact be code for “you’re not agreeing with me”.

Many thanks to @Harp and @HasntBeen for excellent contributions to this thread!

Yea, really great stuff going on in here. I keep coming in to give GAs even though i haven’t replied. :) Actually, I think everything’s been said!

Given what everyone’s been saying, it seems to me the accolade “thinking for oneself” represents a caliber of research that an individual seems to have put into a recent conclusion they’ve come to. If a conclusion relies heavily on the testimony of an unsavory expert in the mind of the hearer/critic (such as the Pope might be to a militant atheist, or such as Dawkins might be to a creationists, or such as talking dog in a dream might be to most anyone) it is considered an under evaluated set of premises, a simple mistake that even a “little” more research ought to unveil.

Firstly, the accusation seems to be that one is placing too much weight on untenable evidence.

Secondly, the accusation seems to suggest that the “unthinking” individual lacks the interest to investigate deeper.

And there’s a third meaning that I’m realizing which I think is connected but perhaps “better” than the other two:

Thirdly, the accusation seems to suggest that the person in question doesn’t adequately comprehend the value in “attempting to learn” during group discussion and debate. It’s easy to see your debate partner as your enemy. Emotions, the desire to be right, the desire not to look like a fool, cloud one’s judgment making them want to “win” by intellectual (sometimes even physical) brute force, rather than “win” by collaboration. They have a different goal and purpose for that discussion or debate than does a person who fits the category of “thinking for one self.”

The fallacy isn’t really about the blind acceptance of an ideology rather, it’s in assuming there’s nothing to learn from the discussion. They don’t seem to think that they are right above all, they seem to think they are simply not on your “wrong” side. They’ll accept new information from the intellects they favor, but they’ll reject everything you say as their enemy.
—

hmm.. seems there’s a lot you can gleam about the convictions of your accuser and about their convictions about you, if ever you are accused of not thinking for yourself.