People who have their own mind. Yes, what about them? What does it mean to have your own mind? Thinking differently from the crowd is usually associated with originality, and sometimes, rebellion.
Think as you like, but act as others do is a flip version of the same dynamic between the individual and collective.
For me, where I draw the line between both is when it comes to independence, as in wrestling with this dependence around social validation and material security being needed or not on a fundamental level.
As much as the crowd seems irrational, swayed by emotion, or doesn't have a single, unified intelligence, the wisdom of the crowd still somewhat applies at some levels.
From what I've gathered, this is a concept first demonstrated formally by Sir Francis Galton in 1906, who observed a county fair contest where people tried to guess the weight of an ox.
Galton found that the median (or mean) of the independent guesses made by a large, diverse group of people was closer to the true weight than the vast majority of individual guesses, and even closer than the guesses of livestock experts.
The basic point is that under the right conditions a collective group can have superior judgment or knowledge compared to any single expert or individual within it.
Sometimes, doing what the crowd does isn't totally a bad idea since it often represents the most efficient, socially acceptable, lowest-friction path forward (e.g., adopting a widely-used software).
I would very much prefer that over doing things differently for the sake of signalling that I'm different. As a proverbial lonewolf, blending with the crowd can be an act of pragmatic self-preservation that helps conserve energy for the battles that truly matter.
But then, who decides when and where that energy should be spent, if not the individual who possesses their own mind?
Intersections of Thinking and Doing
The dynamic between thought and action tends to be what determines whether an individual's "own mind" results in meaningful contribution or isolated contemplation.
Innovator’s Dilemma
A single person conceives of a radically new idea, say, a new technology.
This thinking is necessarily independent and non-conforming. However, for the idea to become real, the individual must convince the crowd (or a critical mass of the crowd) to do it, which requires blending the non-conformist thought with conformist action.
A historical example is Nikola Tesla conceiving of the alternating current (AC) power system. At the time, his thinking was utterly against the established direct current (DC) system (the crowd).
A sort of massive collective action was needed for his vision to transform the entire electrical infrastructure and gain widespread adoption. Thomas Edison fought too and nail against that, if I remembered correctly.
Ethical Dissenter
A bit of an inverse of innovator's dilemma is the ethical dissenter, which is a position where the individual acts against a prevailing collective thought or norm.
The majority accepts a certain status quo, rule, or belief as correct (e.g a commonly held prejudice like discrimination based on social class).
One seemingly rational person, after having done their own deep thinking, performs an action that actively defies the collective norm, partly because their thought aligns with a higher ethical or moral principle, and their action is a solitary, high-friction choice against the tide.
Here, I'm thinking more of white hat hackers, but whistleblowers fit the description more. More power to them.
Strategic Blending
Sometimes, the truest path to non-conformity in action is through temporary conformist thought. One deliberately studies the crowd's wisdom to understand its patterns, biases, and limitations.
Then after understanding the collective pattern, the individual acts at a strategically opportune moment to gain an advantage or create a breakthrough. They blend with the crowd just long enough to identify the weak spot or the coming trend.
In some shape or form, a successful investor has to have this quality. For how else could they identify undervalued assets or anticipate market shifts before the majority realizes what's happening?
No. 3 is by far the most sophisticated approach, requiring both humility to learn from the crowd and courage to act independently when the moment demands it.
Good luck to those who dare to think for themselves while remaining grounded in the wisdom of the collective, may you find the courage to act when it matters most!
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.