Ah, yes, he's writing an article about how to think for yourself to the people who already think like him. So if we don't think like him, but rather in an independent way, then it makes sense that we wouldn't agree with this article. Got it!
Do you value independent thinking? If so, what part of the article did you most disagree with?
The irony may have been intentional on the author's part, but I still won't read the essay. Bad juju.
Now, some numps decided that they would then teach people to be better thinkers by having them step through this loop deliberately. i.e. We will teach you to reach your goals but first you must Observe. Next Orient, blah blah blah. This is not what John Boyd was teaching. Everyone does the OODA loop naturally. But if you break down goal-directed behavior into the OODA loop, as an analysis tool, you can find the techniques that are particularly effective versus those that aren't working very well. And if you can find things that speed up an OODA loop, or compromise your opponent's OODA loop, you can have outsized success with an otherwise "dull tactic".
PG's essay is kind of like that. He's saying: here's how I think about independent thinking, how to recognize it, where it works, and where it doesn't. It's mostly descriptive and analytical, but nuggets of prescription are sprinkled in there as well. It's written for himself, in that it helps him organize his own thoughts, but primarily it is written for the benefit of his audience. It will glance off people uninterested in accepting its ideas but benefit those are similar to him in important ways. He's not "telling them how to think independently" but helping them be more effective in the use of that tool.
I wholeheartedly value being creative and coming up with fresh ideas, but I don't see how this is in any way connected to an innate property of being either "conventional-minded" or "independent-thinkers".
You could take his first four paragraphs (about scientists, investors, startup founders and essays) and continue as follows:
This is why it's important to be creative and be able to come up with new ideas — even in the most well-established places. In this essay I will share various techniques I use to stay creative.
But no, instead he divides the world into two categories ("independent-mindedness seems to be more a matter of nature than nurture"), says that you'll be most happy by doing your predestined work ("which means if you pick the wrong type of work, you're going to be unhappy"), and also outright says there are certain jobs that one of these groups can't do successfully.
New ideas, like speech, are good or bad on their own merit.
is there somebody on earth that doesn't value independent thinking?