It has long puzzled me how someone might be able to think for themselves without thinking by themselves. Thinking is a product of education. The values that parents transfer to their children, or the information that teachers convey to their students, to give two examples, are social processes. Thinking is social.
Thinking for oneself is not cognitive solitude. What, then, is the path of the critical thinker? Independent thought is found in this: encountering contradictory pieces of information, evaluating it, and attaching oneself to those particular pieces of information that appear most credible—even when that information is at odds with the beliefs of someone (or some people) that the critical thinker has strong relational ties to.
A paradox emerges: thinking is social, yet the pursuit of truth can threaten social cohesion.
There are multiple motivations for holding different beliefs than others. Thinking differently than those around you may be done out of courage. But it may just as well be done out of a superficial arrogance that is self-congratulatory or delights in receiving attention from others.
What makes critical thinking worthwhile? It has already been written that it can threaten social cohesion. Is it wrong if that occurs? Perhaps critical thinking is not valuable in itself. Based on the definition provided in paragraph two, truth is not guaranteed, even though it is aimed at. The critical thinker is interested in what appears most credible, and this would not filter out false judgements entirely.
Critical thinking seems to be important because nobody is infallible. It is the individual pursuit of truth when the social process fails. The social nature of thinking is good, and we do not want to resort to Hobbesian conflict. But when an individual is surrounded by others who possess falsity on a certain point, he is only left with the option of pursuing the truth alone.
Critical thinking might not vouchsafe truth or certainty, but it intends to get as close to correctness as possible.