But you've got to do both. Doubting oneself is "critical thinking". Doubting other sources of authority is "independent thinking".

The thing is, nobody has enough expertise to be an independent thinker in every area. So you essentially MUST delegate your ideas in some areas (variable between people) to external authorities. At which point what you "believe" depends on which authorities you choose.

A related question is "how firm is that belief?". This also tends to vary wildly with little apparent (to me) reason behind it. This is one feature that *can* be related to IQ, but isn't always.

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.

I don't think it's directly related to IQ. I also don't think it's restricted to chatbots. A lot of people are willing to accept the opinion of any authoritative source that they've accepted. Think religion or political party. Once they accept it, they stop questioning it's proclamations.

Note that this also applied to those who accept the proclamations of scientists or compilers. Once you accept an authoritative source, you pretty much stop questioning it. It's been multiple decades since I really argued with a compiler...unless it was a known bug from a source I trusted. I generally just assumed that I misunderstood what the language meant by that construct. (Of course, the few times I really didn't accept it, I eventually turned out to be wrong. Oh.)

2) Police officer hides, catches unsuspecting driver speeding, stops driver, issues summons.

This is the very best approach. It's got the perfect tension leading to the greatest safety.

When you're expecting such an ambush (getting caught a few times will teach you to do that), and you're really paying attention and playing "spot the ambush" then they won't catch you. But because you're being so damned focused and alert, you're also a safer driver.

OTOH if they nail you, that means you weren't paying attention. So you weren't merely speeding; you really literally were speeding unsafely, and the ticket is the proof. (If you were so safe, then how come you didn't see the guy with the radar gun in time?)

Every. Single. Time. I got ticketed, my mind was wandering and not fully focused on the road. I wasn't looking for a speed trap, so I didn't see it in time. Busted. And those times I was looking? I didn't fall for it. I slowed down and avoided a ticket.

The ideal system (in terms of safety) happens to also be downright sporting! The ol' classic speed trap was almost .. a game?

Either you lose $200 billion now, or you lose your lives in a few years.
The IR has been actively building missiles, developing better ones and funding various terrorist groups around the world while making money selling oil.
They are stronger now than they were 20 years ago. They openly call for the complete destruction of Israel, and they call the US "The great satan". If they had the capability to destroy Israel and the US right now then they absolutely would, if they ever got that capability in the future they wouldn't hesitate to use it.

The majority of the Iranian population HATE this regime. They also know that this regime is ruthless and will not hesitate to kill, and yet thousands of them stood up against it in january and lost their lives.

The sooner the IR is taken out the better for everyone, $200 billion this year, $400 billion next year, $1 trillion in 2 years time, or in 3 years it's too late and they take you out instead. And unlike western governments, the IR will not hesitate if they have the capability.

They did, but it's never too late to cheapen how they're current stuff is produced.

Still, I think they know all too well that mainframe is "stuck" doing it the way they always have done it.

Damn! My mod points expired through disuse some time over the last 5-6 hours.

My Kilimanjaro suggestion was aimed at people who had always planned to turn back long before getting anywhere near the top, and I felt the need to point out that 3000m is not a big deal for most people.
I'm not a mountain climber, although I'll walk or ski at those altitudes without a second thought, although ski touring (walking uphill through deep snow with "skins" on my skis) is not something I'm planning to do again at my age.

"Only yesterday, I saw a guy with lung cancer smoke. If everyone stopped smoking, there would be no more cancer, right?"

A friend has it, he's never smoked (so he says, and I've known him for 40 years). His wife did some research and came up with the figure 40 - 40% of people who have lung cancer have never smoked. Assuming they were telling the truth.
Let's not get into passive smoking though.

If you are diabetic, sure. Otherwise, you obviously haven't known anyone who has tried to get this as a weight control solution and deal with insurance that absolutely doesn't want to pay for that stuff.

Here's the thing, some folks do the discipline and keep a healthy weight, but they are basically always feeling hunger. Some people don't feel it but some people are having to constantly fight sensation of hunger, with a respite of a little bit after a meal, and almost never feeling 'full'.

If we had something to tame the rather depressive experience of constantly denying one's hunger because you know in your mind that you got the nutrition and caloric intake you need, but your body wants to eat your way to obesity.

How does age-verification for bots work? I think bots should be walled out because they are too young and don't have the maturity to understand what they're seeing. Especially Open AI bots.

At altitudes above 3,000 meters, mild symptoms of altitude sickness are common.

I've spent a week at that altitude - with excursions on foot up to around 3800m - with no ill-effects at all. On the other hand, my room mate was barely functional at 3000m.
Another time in the mountains (this time in the Alps) I was hiking while carrying a (lesser) load at around 3880m. There were six of us in that group and two did have serious problems up there, the stupid thing was that they were aware beforehand that they were susceptible - apparently around one third of the population is.

Some people need time to acclimatise to altitude, but I don't understand why people who should know better think that even marching up the foothills is a good idea. In my case I have never been higher than just under 4000m and have never had altitude sickness so I don't know what my limits are. Maybe I should head up Kilimanjaro (just under 5900m) but I think I'll pass, and maybe Everest tourists should be required to walk up Kilimanjaro - or an equivalent - before tackling the big one.

If you can't figure out for yourself what's wrong with ordering large numbers of men to their deaths, then I won't be able to explain it to you.