ok, i'll break it down a little:
a) humans tend towards stereotyping other humans into groups.
b) we stereotype because our brains are small and need simple,
compressed patterns to handle all the uniqueness in the
universe, including among people.
c) these cues, however they were derived, help us sort out
people (and potential threats/friends/clan members/whatever)
very quickly.
d) when someone belongs to a stereotyped clan/group/etc, that
imples LESS independent thought because it implies that people
of a particular group/clan/etc think similarly to each other.
e) this means, people "of group [x]" think alike.
f) this means, people "of group [x]" lack independent thought.
So, it's easy to recognize lack of independent thought in others
because of our stereotyping behavior.
But it's also possible to be WRONG about it.
This fact that we can be wrong about it means that it's very
difficult to recognize our OWN stereotyping patterns.
It is also likely that our stereotyping patterns are VERY
SIMILAR to the patterns used by other people to stereotype
groups.
If the way you stereotype someone is same/similar to how SOMEONE
ELSE stereotypes someone else...
...that means you MAY BE lacking independent thought by using
the same thoughts as others.
One common example is people that use the same style of logic to
determine truth-values.
If 10 people use the same system and ask the same questions and
come to the same conclusions, they're not independently
thinking. They are dependent upon the system they use to derive
the conclusions. Systems of behavioral patterns. Systems of
inquiry. Imagine a maze. There's Start. There's Finish. There's
tunnels inbetween with many doors.
10 people each follow the same path to get to the finish.
2 people follow their own paths to get to the finish.
The 10 people who use the same system that causes them to follow
the same path to get to the finish are not independent thinkers.
Rationalizing processes for one. Inner dialogue for example.
Intuitions. It's not just semantic reactions - it could also be
emotional reactions. It could be an intuition that's the same,
etc. Unfortunately, as you've witnessed, being an "independent
thinker" sometimes poses a communication problem.
I have my own way of seeing things. I'm not special. I just am
how I am. It's normal and everyday to me.
But then I find myself surprised when I'm not understood at
first. So I have to explain. Provide examples. Break things
down. Provide metaphors, analogies, a b c d e f g, stuff like
that.
It's very very frustrating for me because I'm not extra
intelligent nor special. It's just a roadblock I come across in
communicating with others. The good thing about it for me is,
with practice, it gets easier and easier to explain my thought
processes to a large variety of people.
The roadblock is mine of course; I sometimes think I have a
cognitive flaw where i can't guess what someone else is thinking
or inferring. Some people seem to have what seems like a magical
ability to 'know' what someone else is thinking/feeling.
I don't have that, so I have to depend on patterns, plunge
ahead, and hope someone is willing to take the time with me
until I'm speaking their language a little better. Well I'm not
well read in general semantics - just a few videos on youtube
and some wikipedia stuff. It "felt at home" to me though, so I
suspect, given some of my favorite authors as a child and TV
show producers were heavily influenced by General Semantics
themselves, I've absorbed its way of thinking or its processes
throughout my life. In short, I don't precisely know what
enumeration means but I'm guessing it has to do with how I break
stuff down. Well yes, I expect murphy's law. I expect to be
misunderstood, so I'm always prepared. I'm always a little
surprised when I'm understood. Other people's minds are a
mystery to me. Group dynamics have always been a particular
mystery to me that I've been trying to unravel from the days of
meangirls in 3rd grade. I've made some progress thankfully.
