There’s endless arguments about everything if you look for them. My advice is to really consider what you feel to be your “guiding principles” and use them to well, guide you. This gives you a kind of framework to evaluate arguments you encounter, and can keep you grounded when you might otherwise get overwhelmed.

ADHD. My mind is racing at all times for my entire life no matter what. Probably every person with ADHD ends up thinking more than a few things which are completely original because the sheer volume of involuntary thoughts which are so cognitively specific to that person and nonsense to everyone else.

Why would you want to think independently? I am a collective thinker. I ask other people their opinions and discuss it with them. That’s how I learn and form my own opinions, and how you end up with good solutions to problems. You don’t have enough time to form good opinions on lots of topics, but you have time to curate your sources and who you discuss things with. You should aim for a good signal/noise ratio.

Thinking independently / being a free thinker is overrated in my opinion. A somewhat elitist way of describing oneself. “Not being a sheep” etc.

Identify your core values, sensible opinions can be derived from those. If there is a mismatch between your derived opinion based on one of your core values, then maybe you have to reconsider your core values. The best way to discover those is through discussion with others.

Being truly curious and discussing openly with others is one of the great joys of socializing. It can be done with people from all parts of the political spectrum. It’s much more enjoyable than small talk.

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.

I go on reddit and read the comments

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.

Not sure. What do you guys think?

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.

You can’t.

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.

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.

By being autistic

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.

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.

Deliberately expose yourself to information and opinions outside your bubble.