independent thinking is disliked by persons and institutions (politicians, religions, narcissists) who want to rule over you. reason is to stop any opposition, because they are scared they will be replaced and taking accountable for misery they caused. They think anyone else is power hungry, and if they don't have power over you, you will kick them out of their power structure because you see their crimes.

Independent thinking has its price. For one, it requires more cognitive resources. While others, with the help of the group, form mediocrities or reach agreements, those who decide to think independently often find themselves alone or part of a minority. Minorities are excluded from resources, which in turn makes it difficult to muster the resources needed to achieve cognitive performance. Independent thinking rarely leads to rapid success because it involves abandoning familiar thought patterns. In addition to the factors already mentioned, namely that it is significantly more resource-intensive and has fewer members, the time factor itself is much higher. Not only because of the other factors, but also in itself. This makes independent thinking significantly less attractive in a performance-oriented society that wants to see quick results and success. But even from an individual perspective, a lack of resources, which extends into the private social sphere, can deter people from opting for this freer form of thinking.

Those who think independently may lose out on social advancement if success does not occur during their lifetime. There are many sad examples of this in history, such as Vincent Van Gogh (art) or Philo Farnsworth (development of TV), who died impoverished despite their culturally outstanding influences. And there are many other known and unknown examples. The well-known examples in particular do not necessarily serve as idols, but often have the connotation that this kind of thinking would probably not lead to success.

Independence comes with a much smaller scope of action. Depending on the social field, the pool is also quite large. And especially these days, even in research, considerable investment in marketing is required to even get noticed. Ideas alone are no longer enough, or even if they do receive recognition, they are rarely compensated accordingly, but are viewed as 'free knowledge'. Many independent thinkers experience the frustrating experience of having their ideas rediscovered years later in an easily digestible form by system actors, only then with reach, money, and applause. Then their idea is brought from the margins to the center, but without the original people behind it.

There is a paradox between true intellectual independence and the structural reality of a society that preaches innovation but rewards conformity. Independend thinking is romantic, but rarely sustainable unless it resonates in a society. Truth and independence are rarely a good business model in science.

Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. Independent thinking is indeed a complex process, which challenges the mind, pushes one's intellectual, creative, and psychological limits, as well as enhances self-awareness. I agree that self-directed reasoning may trouble them who want to rule, or mislead others. Critical analysis paves the truth-revealing path of objectivity, highlighting the meaning of deep understanding, and avoidance from surface-level thinking.