Почему умные люди думают чужими мыслями

Explores the difference between intelligence and independent thinking, emphasizing the importance of questioning assumptions and seeking true answers.

Key Takeaways

High intelligence does not ensure independent thinking.
Independent thinking requires questioning the premises, not just the logic within them.
Erudition can lead to confusing others' ideas with one's own, hindering true independent thought.
Relying blindly on authorities or traditions risks accepting false or outdated ideas.
True independent thinking seeks the best answer regardless of existing frameworks or beliefs.

What the video covers

Intelligence is often confused with independent thinking, but they are fundamentally different.
Highly intelligent people can effectively work within established worldviews without questioning them.
Independent thinking involves choosing and questioning the information itself, not just processing it.
Erudition or extensive knowledge does not guarantee independent thinking.
People often mistake memorized ideas and accepted authorities for their own thoughts.
Following traditions or authorities without question limits independent thought and traps people within rigid templates.
Independent thinking rejects faith in authorities and traditions, focusing instead on finding real, workable answers.
Historical authorities were limited by their era's knowledge, so idolizing them can obscure truth.
Confusing authority hype with actual ideas leads to misunderstanding and false beliefs.
Independent thinking requires examining ideas critically and without attachment to preconceived positions.

Chapters

What is the main difference between intelligence and independent thinking?

Intelligence is the ability to process and work within known information and frameworks, while independent thinking involves questioning the premises themselves and seeking new, unbiased answers.

Can a highly educated person lack independent thinking?

Yes, a well-educated person may have extensive knowledge but still lack independent thinking if they only memorize and accept others' ideas without critically examining or questioning them.

Why is relying on authorities potentially dangerous for independent thought?

Relying on authorities can lead to accepting rigid templates and outdated ideas without question, limiting the ability to explore new perspectives and find real, workable answers.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

It so happens that many people very often confuse intelligence with independent thinking. In reality, these are not the same thing. So, for those interested in this topic, get ready. I will examine it, at least in part, right now. And for those who aren't

Speaker A

interested, well, there's a time for everything, and not everything happens at once. So, what is the difference between a developed mind and independent thinking? Well, the first difference. If a person possesses high intelligence, they can perfectly serve someone else's worldview. This doesn't

Speaker A

necessarily mean they are actually thinking very well. They are simply smart, and therefore, they can very effectively prove conclusions they once accepted without verification. For example, because that is how they were raised. They are accustomed to it. They

Speaker A

have a certain range within which they think. At the same time, their honed mind and sharp intellect are exactly what sort through the blocks already set within that range. Hence the conclusion: they will use all this perfectly, but may never step outside

Speaker A

their range because the question never even occurred to them. Their main question was how to build logic within the range they were accustomed to. This is easily seen in the example of people who, say, adhere to certain traditions

Speaker A

or frameworks of a specific culture, perhaps a religion, or a set of knowledge. In any case, despite these people having very high intelligence, they are not explorers. And in this sense, they are not thinkers. Or more precisely, they are incapable of

Speaker A

thinking independently. All they do is learn to justify the very premises they were taught to consider correct from the start. This is where the contradiction lies: high intelligence does not in any way guarantee independent thinking. Another difference between a developed mind, or

Speaker A

intellect, and independent thinking is that the mind is responsible for the quality of processing known information. And independent thinking is responsible for the choice of the information itself. To the mind, just like in the first point, it is

Speaker A

important to find correctly structured logic within what it is accustomed to and what it defends. But to independent thinking, it is important to find the right answer. In this sense, independent thinking is manifested in the fact that such a person does not

Speaker A

tether themselves to the boundaries of any range. They don't need to. They are simply looking for the answer that will allow them to make the best possible use of it. Plus, he doesn't have this need to be defensive, because, again,

Speaker A

it's not important for him to uphold some position or a range of views, but rather to simply find the right, workable answer. And just because of this simple point, these are two completely different types of thinking.

Speaker A

They set different goals for themselves. They solve these problems in different ways, and they move toward different things. And it may well turn out that, say, a person with a highly developed intellect, but trapped in a specific position, will find fewer

Speaker A

correct answers than a person with independent thought who isn't constrained by such a position. Another typical and important point is that erudition is not the same as independent thinking. Because a person who is, well, let's say, well-educated—that is, in our tradition, I mean

Speaker A

our general human tradition—a well-educated person is one who has completed a certain number of higher education institutions, who has read a considerable number of books, and perhaps watched a lot of good films, although we generally associate such information more with books, which are

Speaker A

more serious than films, since films are mostly a form of entertainment. And yet, such a highly developed erudite person may possess absolutely no ability for independent thought. He has spent his whole life accustomed to operating with other people's ideas.

Speaker A

This is also very easy to see. Just look at the reactions of different people. They very often refer to authorities. They very often refer to things they are convinced are true. But they have never actually thought about them. At some point, they simply

Speaker A

decided that these things were true for them. They accepted them as some sort of correct starting point, some sort of correct frame of reference. From then on, they just automatically work from that base and also cannot step outside

Speaker A

of it, I mean, beyond those limits. And it turns out that they may know a great deal, and they may have possibly read a great deal. But independent thinking there is, well, worth almost nothing.

Speaker A

Now, there are, of course, some symbioses, but there is still another paradox here: the more a person knows other people's ideas, the more they get used to confusing them with their own.

Speaker A

But at the same time, other people's thoughts are not theirs at all. And here he is deeply mistaken. In other words, he hasn't developed his own independent thinking, but simply memorized a large amount of other people's information. And the fact that

Speaker A

he thinks he navigates it quite well, sees its logic and builds upon it, it isn't his own logic, it isn't his own way of thinking. Of course, this doesn't mean that other people's thoughts are always wrong. No, of

Speaker A

course not, but in this situation I am talking about developing independent thinking. And from this perspective, of course, such a person does not develop any independent thinking at all. Is that a bad thing? Well, let's say it is

Speaker A

his personal choice. Here, that choice is very easily defined by the question: what do you want? I mean, if a person is satisfied living within, say, the range of someone else's thoughts, well, he will live in that range his whole

Speaker A

life, but he is guaranteed never to go beyond its limits. That is precisely the danger, for example, of following established traditions or certain authorities. The authorities, perhaps, were not fools. What they told someone at some point, and then it turned into

Speaker A

many centuries-old traditions. It likely means only one thing: the authority probably understood what they were saying, but it was their own personal knowledge. And when this knowledge starts being repeated by those who lack independent thinking, they aren't just following the

Speaker A

authority, the knowledge turns into rigid templates. And templates almost never, with some exceptions, fit reality. That is, in fact, their weak point and their danger. Independent thinking is the flip side of this. It is when nothing is simply taken on

Speaker A

faith. At the same time, you aren't arguing with anyone. You simply examine it, filtering it through the ability to consider it independently—that is, to think for yourself. You have no authorities. You don't cling to any particular traditions because that is

Speaker A

not what is important to you. What matters to you is the real answer. That's it. And yet, for us, for instance, today—we didn't have this possibility before—we have a magnificent opportunity to examine a huge number of authorities that existed

Speaker A

throughout human history over the centuries. When we look at these authorities and what they said from the distance of many centuries, it is quite easy to see the mistakes, because even the smartest people of their time, who later became authorities, were actually

Speaker A

limited by the views of their era, even if those views were advanced—it just meant they went a little bit beyond their time, beyond that information layer they lived in back then. From our current position, everything looks quite different. The one thing that is

Speaker A

often misunderstood is that people turn an authority figure into an idol. That is, the fact that they are hyped up everywhere you turn. And naturally, this mass of hyped-up information about an authority figure slowly obscures what they actually said. And so, for

Speaker A

those who start to engage with this information, it's quite difficult to sort it out. Basically, they aren't looking into what the authority figure actually said—who might have been right—but rather into this huge ball of hype.

Speaker A

upon the advertising created for that authority figure. Often, when we start looking into the reality behind an authority figure who has been hyped up like this over the centuries, it turns out to be fairytales and myths, that things weren't as they seemed, or that

Speaker A

everything was distorted. That is a normal stance in human history. But if you are truly interested in the answers , you must take this into account.

Speaker A

Otherwise, there is a risk of simply repeating the mistakes of others in a highly intellectual way, which ultimately leads nowhere. If you want to verify this, it’s quite easy.

Speaker A

Start carefully studying any authority figure that you happen to like. Buddha, Christ, I don't know, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin—it doesn't matter who. You will see that these were ordinary, real people who were quite capable of saying very wise things, sometimes even

Speaker A

brilliant ones, especially for their time, but what was made of them later is not very comparable to what they actually conveyed. By the way, if it were possible—unfortunately it isn't —to show each of these authority figures, who later became a

Speaker A

centuries-old tradition, what their original teachings were turned into, I think most of them would be surprised.

Speaker A

Some might even get angry and say, "You are all such fools. I tried to give you the best, and you turned it into some kind of circus." That is also quite possible. So, for independent thinking, it is, of course, very important not

Speaker A

just to follow the framework of someone else's information, but to be able to analyze it yourself and look beyond it.

Speaker A

The next point is the ability to argue a position. Many people have it, and smart people always do. But this ability to argue what a person says, even for someone smart, does not at all mean that they have the ability to

Speaker A

re-examine the very foundations of what they are talking about. So, what usually happens is that some block of information is taken, a smart person approaches it, and—I’m taking an extreme case—they don't examine the basis of this information, or they

Speaker A

examine it superficially, shallowly, and are even more likely to be swayed by the authority of that information.

Speaker A

And then, on the basis of this information, they begin to build their own logical structures. Since this person is, as we know, intelligent from the start, they build good, confident semantic constructs. And if you don't look at the foundation, these

Speaker A

constructs look quite convincing indeed . They can look convincing to the very same intelligent, erudite person. And they can look convincing to some audience that isn't trying to figure anything out at all, but suddenly they hear someone telling them something

Speaker A

confidently, and since it's confident, they probably know what they're talking about. That's it. That is how a huge number of false concepts and false constructs are built, on the basis of which, again, everyone later gets false answers, but they believe in these

Speaker A

false answers, and they start spreading these false answers further. There is a small key element there that could quickly put all of this into perspective. That is the effectiveness of the information being applied. That is, if we start trying to apply any

Speaker A

information, it very quickly becomes clear whether it actually works or not. For instance, in my time, I was also a big fan of esotericism; everything there was beautiful, wonderful, and I liked it all very much. It inspired me,

Speaker A

it motivated me, and I was sure that I possessed great knowledge until one simple moment, when I started checking it all. And then everything fell apart.

Speaker A

I am sure that those esoterically inclined people who hear what I have just said will, of course, take the position: "It's just that it didn't work for him, that's not how it is at all, and this knowledge is very cool,

Speaker A

it works." But I can say for myself that all the options I tested in my life from that field—not a single one worked. Well, not a single one at all.

Speaker A

And hiding behind the idea that it just didn't work for me, while somewhere out there are cool people for whom everything works, is always in the category of "someone is out there somewhere, and they are doing something , and they are very successful at it."

Speaker A

But there is no real-world application. Moreover, when I managed to reach those "someones," at least some of them, nothing worked there either. It’s all just a game. There are two variations of this game. Either these are scammers , or they are people deceived by their

Speaker A

own fantasies. Well, there are fewer scammers, though they do exist. But those who have been deceived by their own fantasies believe in them sincerely , even if they have no results; they often hide behind the idea that, well,

Speaker A

it’s not happening yet, but in the future, maybe in the next 5,000 years, I’ll train a bit more, keep working, and it will actually all work out. All of this is, of course, both deception and self-deception. This is perhaps a

Speaker A

little sad. But on the other hand, it’s their own personal problem. If they want to sit in that trap. For heaven's sake, let them. The next point is similar to the previous one: any person, even a smart one, starts

Speaker A

thinking from pre-established axioms. That is, an axiom, I remind you, is a truth that requires no proof. But in reality, such axioms practically do not exist. There might be some mathematical ones, perhaps, but even then, one must understand that humanity is at a

Speaker A

certain level of development anyway. There is no guarantee that in a couple thousand or tens of thousands of years, something else won't be discovered, and those axioms won't turn out to be not entirely correct. Nevertheless, fine, one can accept them to some extent, but

Speaker A

independent thinking does not accept even an axiom just like that, because it is very easy to hide ignorance, lack of knowledge, manipulation, or deception behind an axiom. And accordingly, someone who possesses independent thinking does not allow themselves such things. But someone who

Speaker A

is simply smart can very well combine all these axiomatic things and believe that they possess some sort of knowledge. There are nuances here in that the real answer, as a rule, is contained not at the end of a logical

Speaker A

premise and reasoning, but at the beginning. Therefore, if there is an error at the beginning, it stands to reason that everything else will also be an error. But the problem with a smart person, the problem with a highly

Speaker A

developed intellect, is that they can veil this error so well that someone who does not possess more precise vision or a higher degree of clarity simply won't see it. And a huge number of deceptions are built on this as well

Speaker A

. As always, these deceptions fall into two categories. Either the deceiver knows they are deceiving, in which case they are a scammer. And they have some specific goal. Most likely, it is the realization of some personal gain. Or

Speaker A

they don’t know, in which case they are a dreamer, because their information is not confirmed by real-world application. So there is a very important difference here as well.

Speaker A

The next point is what so interestingly separates, as it were, a smart person from a person who possesses independent thinking. By the way, this doesn't mean that someone who possesses independent thinking isn't intelligent. No, they can be intelligent too, perhaps

Speaker A

slightly less so, but there is a very strong difference in quality here. In other words, the independent thinking of even a slightly less intelligent person means more than the non-independent thinking of a very intelligent one. Well, of course, the

Speaker A

ideal is when this independent thinker is also more intelligent than others who are simply smart. That would be wonderful. But what is at play here?

Speaker A

The higher the intellect any of them operates with, the higher the potential for self-deception. Again, there is an immediate distinction here. Someone who develops their independent thinking is not interested in self-deception. That is not their primary goal to begin with

Speaker A

. They don't have the task of defending a specific position. Their task is to find the correct answer. This is a simple but very precise separation of the difference between these tasks. But someone with a highly developed intellect may very well be solving a

Speaker A

task other than finding the real answer —which would have to be applied later , and that's all so difficult—instead , they might simply be solving the task of self-defense, or gaining some social benefits, or monetizing whatever it is

Speaker A

they are talking about. Moreover, smart people don't just divide themselves into those who are "smart" and those who aren't quite as smart, right? Very often, smart people who lack independent thinking start to simply exploit those who don't really possess

Speaker A

any independent thinking at all. These highly developed intellectuals understand perfectly well that if they want to gain some benefits, the easiest way is at the expense of those who don't understand anything. And since these people are smart, they naturally

Speaker A

start building semantic chains— logical ones, I mean—that can look quite convincing to those who don't understand anything at all. But at the core, if we look not at what such a smart person has built, but at their task, it turns out they just wanted to

Speaker A

get some benefit at the expense of those who won't bother to analyze their words, delivery, texts, or anything else. By the way, there is one more good way to distinguish a smart manipulator from a person who actually uses what they know. A smart

Speaker A

intellectual, as a rule, does not use their own information at all. And that, in fact, is a very clear indicator that they don't really know what they are talking about. They have simply memorized a certain amount of information. They are an erudite, after

Speaker A

all. He has memorized a certain number of semantic connections. Moreover, since he is also intelligent, he can maneuver quite well within these semantic connections and create new constructs, but he does not actually use this information. And by this sign,

Speaker A

it is very easy to determine whether a person really knows something or not. Simply put, someone who truly knows something and thinks it is best lives by those very rules, principles, and guidelines—by that knowledge— because it is logical; he knows what is

Speaker A

best and applies it in his life. But someone who only declares it, while living completely differently, is, at best, a dreamer. So, intelligence does not save you here either. It is very important here to possess precisely this independent thinking. The next

Speaker A

point that very well distinguishes high intelligence from truly developed independent thinking is the ability to ask: "Why do I even consider this—the thing I'm looking at—obvious?" That is, this is partly about the need to go to the very foundation, because any

Speaker A

information does not start from zero. Furthermore, for example, the majority of all errors are found not at the end of a logical construction, say, or at the end of some action a person is engaged in, but in the very foundation,

Speaker A

in the base. As a Tai Chi instructor, in particular, I can say that Tai Chi usually doesn't go well not for those who have been practicing for many years and can't grasp something, but for those who have poorly worked on the

Speaker A

base. That is, the very basics. Regarding thinking, everything is exactly the same, since thinking is a construction; it is thoughts, concepts, and relationships built on the basis of some information. So, if a person has not gone to the foundation of this

Speaker A

information and has simply decided that , well, everything here is obvious anyway. Well, for example, an authority said this, the Buddha said this, how can I not trust the Buddha, who am I?

Speaker A

Laozi said this. And then he simply follows this conformism with the source , without trying to figure out if there are any errors in it. With Laozi, for example, very often many erudite people , when they lack arguments—and I

Speaker A

personally encounter such people very often—when they lack arguments, they recall a phrase by Laozi and use it as a defense. And it says something like: "Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know." And these people

Speaker A

who have no arguments, that is, they sort of have to protect their ignorance somehow, they immediately start acting like Laozi, pretending to be the "wise" who don't speak only because they are so knowledgeable. To them, silence is a

Speaker A

sign of great knowledge. If they had just thought for themselves a little, they would have seen that this phrase of Laozi contains a brilliant mockery of all "know-it-alls"—an intentional error, specifically planted. Laozi said this phrase, so by his own definition,

Speaker A

since he was speaking, he must not have known what he was talking about. If he had known, he wouldn't have spoken about it. So, it turns out to be a paradox. But Laozi, I assume, was definitely not a fool, judging by what

Speaker A

he wrote. And he clearly understood people quite well, so he could easily, even back then, 2,500 years ago, troll all those who would later follow his path. As a rule, people with well-developed independent thinking understand others quite well. Notice

Speaker A

that such people with developed independent thinking often moved away from society because they began to realize that almost all of humanity, or a very large part of it—a very large part, one might even say all of humanity—thinks based on templates.

Speaker A

That is, they don't try to figure out what their thinking is actually based on. They simply accept things on faith.

Speaker A

Accordingly, someone who understands what such a shaky structure is built on , and doesn't want to fight humanity, simply steps aside and says, "In much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." So, in reality, they just move aside

Speaker A

because they don't want to deal with, figuratively speaking, a mad elephant that could just accidentally step on you and crush you. Well, that's a fairly common position. Therefore, those who, for example, develop independent thinking must also consider that the better your independent

Speaker A

thinking is developed, the further you move away from humanity. If that doesn't scare you—in fact, a person with such a mindset shouldn't be scared by it at all. Well, what does it matter . If you're not scared, everything is

Speaker A

fine. If it does scare you, well, think about it, because sometimes for some people, it is a greater blessing to live and remain in illusions than to suddenly find out how things are actually structured. Because the knowledge of how everything actually

Speaker A

works inevitably destroys all previous illusions and fantasies. And not everyone can handle the destruction of their own illusions and fantasies. So, you need to take precautions here, so to speak. Or, do as you like, you don't have to take precautions. The next

Speaker A

point that distinguishes developed intelligence from independent thinking is that, say, social authority can very easily replace the verification of an actual position. For instance, the phrase "This has been proven by science ," or "The holy scriptures say so," or

Speaker A

"Our authority said this" is very often in use. Meaning, in reality, all these sciences, holy scriptures, or authorities of certain concepts are, in essence, social authorities. These are the sources of information that society recognizes as significant and knowledgeable by default. And since

Speaker A

they are recognized as such, then, conditionally speaking, whatever they say becomes authoritative. But that is far from the truth. Even with science itself, which is, generally speaking, the most inclined among human concepts to verify what it declares. Even then,

Speaker A

you know perfectly well that at one time science said one thing, then learned that it didn't, saying the absolute opposite. So, there should be no such thing as bowing down to authority for independent thinking. Any authority is, well, either right or it

Speaker A

isn't. If it is correct, then it was correct in a certain situation, for a certain level, and for a certain time.

Speaker A

Perhaps that time has long since passed , so, let's say, the philosophers of the past were wonderful guys back then, but are completely useless now. This is also quite easy to check. Or this authority is, in principle, deceptive.

Speaker A

Well then, it's just pure manipulation, no matter how beautifully they are named or what authorities they use to cover themselves. Therefore, the distinction of high intelligence and the ability to think independently is also the ability to recognize the

Speaker A

weight of social authority. Ideally, there shouldn't be any social authorities at all. You should simply focus on obtaining an answer. Nothing more than that. No answer, no need for authorities. If authorities provide false answers, then neither the authorities nor those answers are

Speaker A

needed. Another interesting point, which is also a sign of independent, developed thinking, is that you are capable of remaining without a ready-made answer. That is, despite the fact that you might seem to be looking for a ready-made answer, since you are

Speaker A

a researcher, nonetheless, if you are left without one, you don't remain in a weak position. A person who relies on template thinking or on authorities, if you take all that information away from them, they are left defenseless. It's

Speaker A

like they've had their skin peeled off, right? So it won't be able to withstand any impact because now it has nothing left to defend itself with. It wasn't defending itself against informational influence through independent thought, but solely through reliance on

Speaker A

authority. Of course, there won't be an experiment where, say, a person is completely stripped of all their authoritative informational defenses.

Speaker A

But if someone wants to test such things on themselves, to give it a try.

Speaker A

It's not complicated, actually, and it's very useful. Just imagine that everything you knew—everything you learned from outside sources, everything you were taught—you suddenly don't know, and see what you're left with. Of course, you still have some of your own life experience.

Speaker A

That is, it will most likely be a rather unstable structure in how you respond to environmental influences.

Speaker A

But it has a huge plus. It is at least yours. If you go further, you will begin to refine this structure of yours toward the ability to think independently, and naturally, bit by bit, it will also be filled with

Speaker A

knowledge. Moreover, when a person knows how to think independently, they can quite capably use the thoughts of others. Because, unlike a conformist who was simply raised on others ' thoughts, someone who can think independently critically examines any outside thought. And that means they

Speaker A

distinguish whether this thought is truly effective and applicable for action, or if it is not. So when they begin to operate their thinking even with outside thoughts, ideas, and concepts, it is already verified information. They will never allow

Speaker A

themselves to be deceived by blindly accepting others' thoughts or by accepting them just because some authority figure stated them. Therefore , their knowledge grows, but at the base, the core remains the same. They are capable of thinking independently;

Speaker A

they have well-developed critical thinking. And based on this, they add chosen, verified outside thoughts and knowledge to themselves, and then things work out quite well for them.

Speaker A

For someone who simply possesses high intelligence, a well-developed mind, but lacks this trait of independent thinking, the picture is the exact opposite. In their core, it's not their own independence; in their core is someone else's thinking. Remove the

Speaker A

core, and the fellow will simply collapse without such support. Another point is that intelligence does not cancel out conformism, that is, it does not cancel out a certain compliance, again, with some authority. Not necessarily with people, for example,

Speaker A

but with a certain professional environment. So, say, a person who even possesses high intelligence but is within the framework of a specific environment, and the environment has its own patterns, its own authorities, and its own fixed beliefs. And if this

Speaker A

person doesn't step outside that environment, they can very easily accept these conformist options—that is, inaccurate or even mistaken ones— as the norm, simply because they are dictated by that environment. And they will accept this norm. And since they

Speaker A

have a well-developed intellect, a sharp mind, they will justify this norm so that it seems significant to them and provides the maximum possible protection. But at the core, there will still be that original source that causes them to be fundamentally

Speaker A

mistaken from the start. For example, I am an instructor, specifically an instructor in Chinese practices. Well, let’s take Tai Chi, for instance.

Speaker A

What happens in Tai Chi practice? It is a Chinese practice. And that means in China, there are quite a few traditions in this field, in Tai Chi, that the Chinese themselves might follow. Then come various Westerners—Russian, American, European—who are also

Speaker A

interested in all of this. They start to see the benefits, and at the same time, they begin to adopt the traditions of an environment they have absolutely no connection to. For example, a sort of worship of the teacher. Honestly, when I see these

Speaker A

Westerners start bowing to someone, well, it’s ridiculous. I mean, this isn't your tradition; you’re just choosing it only because you decided to follow the information itself, this practice. But actually, this practice and the traditions established by those same Chinese people within their

Speaker A

cultural environment, their social relationships, and their historical development are not necessarily something...that you actually need. If you practice Tai Chi, just practice Tai Chi. Why all these offerings of tea to the teacher? It’s a symbol that you’ve been accepted into the family

Speaker A

and so on. For them, this is very serious. As for me, it’s a cheap game , really, because true respect, at the very least, is not about blindly following someone else's traditions.

Speaker A

But this is exactly the example I mentioned, which even very smart people fall for, like saying "I’m learning through this lineage of information, I studied with this teacher, that teacher ," and so on. They start using their— let's say, developed—intellect to

Speaker A

hide behind someone else's authority. Only in this situation, it’s not necessarily the teacher's authority, but rather the authority of this tradition—a large block of information—and if you hide behind it , you feel like you gain a certain strength from this block. But in

Speaker A

reality, you aren't gaining any power at all, except for the imagined kind. Or maybe the "we're all from the same core, the same Taiji school" type of thing. That’s not necessary at all. I mean, you just take the information; if

Speaker A

it works, you apply it and grow as a master. If it doesn't work, well, then there's nothing to talk about. And that , by the way, happens quite often, including in these Chinese stories.

Speaker A

Meaning, people pass themselves off as masters who aren't masters at all. But, as you understand, in any field—and this is exactly the same—how do you tell if you're dealing with a master or just some opportunistic village guy who

Speaker A

showed up from God knows where? Say, in Russia or America, deciding to just make some quick money, which is actually quite common and normal for the Chinese. And that really is normal, on a purely human level. I mean, he

Speaker A

arrives, he sees that someone is taking these "tradition" games seriously. Well , why shouldn't he start a school? At the very least, he has two strong advantages. First, his slanted eyes; he’s already, sort of, a Chinese semi-master. And second, he might

Speaker A

actually know something. But that " something" doesn't necessarily mean he's a master. Maybe it’s just some very simple, basic things. I've seen this many times with many different people, but even so, it’s not just that they play at being masters; the

Speaker A

worst part is that people with well-developed intelligence also fall under this social influence. And, consequently, everything turns out very badly. The next point, which also relates to the difference between a highly developed mind and independent thinking, is that almost any foreign

Speaker A

system of concepts subtly creates boundaries for your conclusions. I’ve touched on this before: when you stop thinking broadly and searching for the right answers in general, you start thinking within a fixed position— within a specific range. The biggest

Speaker A

problem here is that the boundaries of this range are usually invisible to those trapped inside it. Especially if the person trapped inside that range lacks independent thinking. And even more so if they also lack critical thinking. They will act within the

Speaker A

confines of that range. They will look for answers there. If they have high intelligence and don't find the answers there, they will invent them. One way or another, in fact, one of the positive traits of a developed mind and

Speaker A

one of its very serious negatives is that you can basically cobble together a plausible concept from almost any information, and then start sincerely believing in it and convincing others that this is the absolute truth. And those who don't possess, let's say,

Speaker A

intelligence at least at your level, they can get caught up in it, right? They will look at it and think, "Well, it's true, it's logical, why not?" But it may contain errors, not always. But the alternative, which in my opinion is

Speaker A

much more interesting, is independent thinking. That is, in this case, a person who even reaches the limit of some range, the first thing they will consider is, where exactly is the boundary of this range? Or have I hit

Speaker A

some invisible informational wall that I can't break through, while for some reason there are no answers. And secondly, since such a person with independent thinking has no task to build some kind of invented concept, that is, to create a fantasy that is

Speaker A

logically justified, they will, of course, look not only at whether there are answers within this range, but also whether this range is limiting them, causing them to miss the answers they need. And, of course, such a person cannot be kept within the framework of

Speaker A

such a range. They will simply break free if they don't find the answers there. If they do find them, it doesn't mean they will belong to that range.

Speaker A

They will simply make use of that information. We use the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 just fine, but that doesn't mean we are all mathematicians or professors of mathematics. Well, it's roughly the same story, actually. Another important

Speaker A

element is that independent thinking requires the ability to deconstruct the question itself. Meaning, don't just hear a question and have everyone immediately run off to find some answers. No, in fact, any formulation of a question is already a very large

Speaker A

block of information. That is, when a person forms any question, they are already basing it on something; they are already structuring their question with a certain type of interconnection.

Speaker A

So, by this question, they are already revealing certain limitations. If there is no independent thinking, the person may very well not see the boundaries of this very question and the concepts embedded in it, and simply will not step outside of them. And from here, it

Speaker A

is clear that they may already fall into the trap of the question itself. This is, well, a fairly typical trap for very many people. For example, this could very well be used by investigators, for instance. Or lawyers —that is, when a person is asked a

Speaker A

question with certain constraints, they start thinking: "What actually happened within these specific limits?" Although , in reality, they’ve just been automatically coerced into feeling obligated to answer. But what was actually within those limits? Maybe it wasn't even there at all. So, instead

Speaker A

of simply stepping outside the bounds of that question, they start trying to find a way out from within. And, of course, in broader contexts, when people truly try to find answers, they can just as easily fall into the trap

Speaker A

of thinking they must answer within the scope of that question. For example, the question loved by Advaitins: "Who are you?" Or rather, they usually ask: "Who am I?" Answer the question: "Who am I?" And a person starts spending a

Speaker A

long, long time trying to find the answer to: "Who am I?" In reality, this is a trap question. You shouldn't even try to answer it. Or you could answer it with so many variations that the very point of asking it would turn out

Speaker A

to be completely unnecessary. The question isn't actually meant for you to ponder who you are, who I am, and so on. It's meant to actually confuse the person, to show them that any answer they give will be incorrect. At the

Speaker A

very least, it can be done to boost the authority of some proverbial guru who, for some reason, asked you that question. For example, I sometimes thought—if I were asked such a question, and I have been—that theoretically, I would want to just

Speaker A

walk up to them, hit them firmly in the jaw, and ask: "Now, who is it that's feeling the pain from that?""Go ahead, explain." Essentially, this means I will not accept the constraints of a question just because someone asked it.

Speaker A

I will examine why they asked it, where they are trying to lead, what reason they had for asking, what task they are solving, and what lies behind it all.

Speaker A

In other words, try to get as much information as possible rather than living within the boundaries they are trying to force you into. Therefore, independent thinking always, first and foremost, examines the question itself.

Speaker A

Moreover, I think it's no secret to many that very often, if you examine a question closely, two-thirds of the answer is already there. Or, at the very least, there is a very good hint as to what you should focus on when

Speaker A

someone hooks you with a question, rather than just answering it. That is, they might be using that question to point out weaknesses in your reasoning, or something else; perhaps, conversely, it contains valuable information or some kind of hint. So, you don't

Speaker A

necessarily have to stay within the framework of the question asked. But, I repeat, in order not to fall for this, you need independent thinking. Another point, which actually fits into the same category, is that a certain logical impeccability does not at all

Speaker A

guarantee the truth of the result, because logic is a very dual tool. In fact, you can prove a great many things with logic. Logic is based on words, concepts, and specific thought patterns . If a person's intellect is truly

Speaker A

developed, they can operate with this so broadly and deeply that they will prove that black is white. One way or another. Well, for example, something like: "Why is black actually white?" And how do you know how your perception

Speaker A

works? You think—you are used to thinking—that white is white and black is black. But if you thought about how your perception works, a chain of reasoning follows where a person starts to doubt: "Is it really true that it’s not about what’s

Speaker A

black or white, but about how I perceive it all? There must be some error hidden there." But in reality, even though that might also be true, they have simply been elegantly and logically deceived, led astray, and through logic, brought to a point they

Speaker A

cannot prove, confirm, or refute. And because of this, it turns out they are wrong, and the person who led them there is, in a way, right. This is exactly the scenario where logical impeccability does not guarantee that very truth. Yet we know of many cases

Speaker A

where things were not like that at all. Well, for example, let's say, science was previously absolutely certain that the Earth was at the center of the universe and the entire universe revolved around it. Why? Because it was logical. We stand and look at the

Speaker A

starry sky. The stars move across the sky around us. Naturally, we are standing still, we are motionless, and they are moving, which means they must be revolving around us. Everything would seem to be impeccable logic, but you already know the result of that

Speaker A

logic. Or, let's say, something more mundane. It is said in the holy scriptures like this. And from there, everything is examined exclusively within the framework of this position, again. Meaning it’s already a limited range, a trap where you cannot step

Speaker A

outside its boundaries. And accordingly , all of this can be logically constructed within what the holy scriptures said, but there is just one problem. And who said that all of this must be limited to the holy scriptures?

Speaker A

Perhaps the holy scriptures themselves are actually confining things to a certain range; we need to examine why they do it, how they do it, what techniques they use, what the result is , and whether they have real answers or

Speaker A

only answers within the scope of what is stated in the scriptures. And from that point, independent thinking begins to shake these structures, even if to the intellect itself, it might seem that everything is arranged very logically. But another point, which is

Speaker A

partially biological, is that a person with a highly developed intellect— let's say, a smart person—is especially dangerous when they start defending their identity. That is, they start defending their position. Where is the danger here? Well, it's that for

Speaker A

them, again, it's not important to find the right answer; it's important to remain right. These are two absolutely different tasks. Because if the answer is important to a person, that means the chain goes further. Firstly, it doesn't matter what they themselves are

Speaker A

in this construct, because they need the answer. If it turns out they are wrong, it doesn't break them at all.

Speaker A

It’s perfectly fine. At least now I know the right answer. And secondly, they use all of this for application.

Speaker A

But the one who starts defending themselves, first of all, does not need the right answer. They need to protect their position because they are trying to preserve their own, again, psychological stability. And so it turns out that the smarter they are,

Speaker A

the more dangerous they are in this sense, because they will defend themselves much better. Meaning that outplaying them—outplaying in the sense of spotting their error—will be much harder. To do this, you need, at a minimum, to possess an intellect no

Speaker A

less developed than theirs, and perhaps even know more than they know. Or be as precise as possible, to strike at their weak points and, specifically, at the tasks they are actually trying to solve . A lot of information starts to fall

Speaker A

apart as soon as we can clearly see the task the speaker is trying to solve.

Speaker A

Then you don't even have to look at what they are saying, but you can, and you should look at why they are saying it and what lies behind it. And that is where a great many constructs start to

Speaker A

crumble again. Another important point that actually marks the difference between independent thinking and high intelligence is that independent thinking requires the ability to go against one's own past or yesterday's opinion. Again, for that very same reason, someone with developed

Speaker A

independent thinking cares about the truth of the answer, because they will be applying it, and they are responsible for it. If they get a false answer and apply it, well, they could end up breaking their own neck, so to

Speaker A

speak. Or at the very least, they will get results that they are absolutely not satisfied with. There. Accordingly, they couldn't care less about their own opinion or position, because, once again, a position is something that must be defended, and their task is

Speaker A

different. It's not the position that's important to them; it's the answer. But in the opposite case, it is clear that if a person lacks independent thinking and only has a developed intellect, then, of course, they will try their

Speaker A

hardest to defend that position. This includes the fact that if they said something yesterday, it will be very difficult for them to admit it, both to themselves and to any audience.

Speaker A

Especially if that audience looks at them in some kind of magical way. It will be very difficult for them to admit they were wrong. And that is how a huge amount of lies is piled up. That is, you make a mistake once, and then

Speaker A

it becomes difficult to admit it. Then it just starts piling up on top. Well, the hope is obviously that no one will expose you and that this deception will slip through. This especially works when dealing with fairly complex areas

Speaker A

where you can ramble and get sophisticated for a long time, and if your intelligence is well developed, it will be hard to pin you to the wall.

Speaker A

But nevertheless, there is actually one very bad piece of news for such people here. Logic can also be used to destroy all erroneous logical constructs. That is, if you look very carefully, demand responsibility for every word and every

Speaker A

concept, and break down every word and concept, you will very quickly find the weak points in any seemingly beautiful logical construct. The other issue is that this takes a lot of time. And again, it really depends on the task;

Speaker A

for instance, I could go through a huge amount of what I'm sent, but I don't want to precisely because it takes too much time. And I don't just look at what I'm being told, but also the reason behind it. And I see that, in

Speaker A

reality, even when someone says, "Oh, I really need this answer," they don't need any answer at all; they need something completely different. So what’s the point in wasting time on them? Therefore, it’s a personal choice for everyone whether they want

Speaker A

to expose someone or not, but that’s for each person to decide for themselves. Another important point is, of course, somewhat related to our biological brain—our wonderful biological one. It lies in the fact that true independence manifests not in

Speaker A

agreeing or disagreeing with the majority, but in searching for the answer. Very often we fall—well, we in the broad sense—very often many people fall for the trap of either just agreeing with the majority. As a rule, these are people who don't think very

Speaker A

well; it’s easier for them to agree with the majority because it’s a safer position, at least from that majority. That is, you hide behind everyone's back and it’s not too bad, apparently. There we go. But there is a

Speaker A

category of people who, conversely, play the game of being against the majority. In reality, it’s exactly the same position of dependence on the majority. Except they’ve struck a pose, like, "Well, I don't agree with Engels or Kautsky." And accordingly,

Speaker A

they start to build their position on that. For independent thinking, it’s not like that at all, because, honestly , they don't care about their own opinion, just as they don't care about the majority's opinion. That’s not what interests them. It doesn’t mean

Speaker A

they don't care in the sense that they are some kind of cynic. No, they just aren’t interested in that; they are interested in answers. Therefore, they won't fight the majority just because someone expressed a mass opinion, and even less will they disagree; they will

Speaker A

simply look at what lies behind that information. That’s it. If there is something worth using, they use it.

Speaker A

Whether this information came from the majority, some minority, or if it came in some other way doesn't really matter to them. It’s simply not the point.

Speaker A

One more moment that also relates to this little dilemma. A developed mind and the independence of thought that comes with a developed mind. It is that a non-standard thought can also be borrowed. In this sense, repeating the opinion of the minority is pretty much

Speaker A

the same thing as repeating the opinion of the majority. It's not about who you are repeating after. It is about the idea being not just unconventional, but independent in terms of its logical construction and its practical application. That's it. And then you

Speaker A

are no longer looking for standard template solutions or thoughts, or overly unconventional ones just to appear original. No, you simply look at what actually works. And, of course, this is exactly what truly separates a simply smart person from a person with

Speaker A

independent thinking. There is a more complex point here: a developed mind actually allows for building models, speculative models, very quickly. These models may seem very logical and well-founded if you don't examine them thoroughly, but nonetheless, the mind is capable of building such models. But

Speaker A

independence possesses a greater capability. It is not only capable of building models, but also of comparing them with reality. This is exactly what I keep talking about: if you want to verify some information, try applying it. Take esotericists, for example;

Speaker A

they never apply their information because they are enamored with it. In reality, they just get their internal cerebral narcotic pleasure from the feeling of being privy to this information. Like, "I spoke with aliens today,""I saw a UFO,""I had revelations

Speaker A

in lucid dreams," and so on, but as soon as this information is tested, it doesn't work. It's all just fairytales.

Speaker A

So, they have essentially built a model for themselves, or used someone else's fairytale model. But they didn't bother to verify it. A person with independent thinking wouldn't allow themselves that , because for them, any information is something they will rely on in action.

Speaker A

That is the key. Accordingly, if they take some fairytale for real information and then start applying it, and it sets them up, well, they made the mistake themselves. Strictly speaking, why were you so gullible?

Speaker A

Therefore, those who test all this information for effectiveness have a chance to get real answers. But those who test such information generally do not follow template options. They will not follow the majority. They will not take any concepts on faith, even if

Speaker A

those concepts are thousands of years old. It says so in the ancient Vedas— it makes absolutely no difference what is said in the ancient Vedas. What matters, what is important, is what actually works. And most importantly, can you apply it yourself? Because if

Speaker A

you can’t apply it, then what do you have to do with the Vedas? There is no connection between you at all. Not to mention that those same ancient Vedas were clearly created by people who were certainly not stupid, but they were

Speaker A

created in a different environment, with a different type of mindset, to solve different problems, and so on.

Speaker A

And you could go through any tradition like this. Therefore, a person with independent thinking will not take any tradition on faith just like that. This doesn't mean they are a rebel. They aren't rebelling against the ancient Vedas, sacred scriptures, or majority

Speaker A

opinions. No, they don't need that rebellion at all. They live in a completely different information environment. It means they are looking for answers, not just agreeing with someone else's thinking. And that is a very big difference, actually. Another

Speaker A

one of the key differences between a simply developed mind and independent thinking is that independent thinking requires one very specific skill. It is the ability to realize and change the very way you think. Simply put, the highest type of developed intellect is

Speaker A

one that is capable of analyzing itself . For most, this is an incomprehensible level; for some, it's difficult; for others, unnecessary—but in reality, it is key, because our perception itself, our analytics, and the basis of our information, including our senses,

Speaker A

our methods of perception, our methods of analysis, and what we compare everything to—all of this must also be subjected to analytical evaluation, because this is the foundation hidden deep inside us. Well, for example, how the brain works. There is a huge number

Speaker A

of different programs there. If a person doesn't realize them and just follows them, then they won't know that their brain is deceiving them. And that happens very often. So, when a person is able to be self-aware of their own

Speaker A

thinking and methods of thought, and is also capable of changing it all, that is a sign of a truly developed, not just intellect, but a developed intellect with the ability to think independently. This is also a very strong and very important position. If

Speaker A

someone doesn't have it, if they just follow what is given in the source, well, it means that, at the very least, it's not quite independent thinking, and possibly not independent at all.

Speaker A

You could say that a key sign of independence is the ability to reach a conclusion you didn't originally want to reach. Almost always, people use information to convince themselves or to convince others. They draw up a conclusion in advance, which their high

Speaker A

intelligence then works to support. They start defending this conclusion one way or another. But independent thinking doesn't cling to that at all.

Speaker A

It is capable of operating independently of any desired outcome; in fact, independent thinking doesn't pre-draw any conclusions. It can calmly accept a scenario where the conclusion turns out to be completely different from what you expected. There is a

Speaker A

duality here. Truly independent thinking doesn't even assume a conclusion from the start, because assuming any conclusion is self-limiting—it's boxing yourself in , because you’ll inevitably start fitting the facts to your desires, or rather, the actual to the desired,

Speaker A

excuse me. Right. And consequently, you get a convenient fabrication rather than a real answer. Right. Those who lack independent thinking, as a rule, draw up a conclusion for themselves in advance. A conclusion they need to arrive at. For example, who they need

Speaker A

to convince or how they need to defend their position because it's their original position, and someone is attacking it. This means they have to find errors in their opponent's position or in external information just to solve their simple task:

Speaker A

defending themselves. So, the key difference between a developed intellect—and an undeveloped one, but let's look at a developed one. The key difference between a developed intellect and independent thinking is that independent thinking is practically free of bias in the broad

Speaker A

sense. Everything I described before relates to different types of distortions—or biases—that trap those with high intellect but no independent thinking within the very information they use their intelligence to support. But as long as they stay within that information, sadly, they

Speaker A

will likely never receive real answers, let alone breakthrough ones. Yes.

Topics:intelligenceindependent thinkingcritical thinkingeruditionauthoritytraditionlogicworldviewcognitive biasreasoning

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries, speaker detection, and unlimited transcriptions.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools