I don't believe brands are a method to 'outsource' thinking. I don't think it has anything to do with thinking.<p>Think of it more as a way of identifying with something, and letting others make assumptions about who you are based on what you identify with.<p>I'm not mathematically inclined, but let's take deep technology as an example, as hopefully we have that as a common thread here on hn.<p>Note: These are all going to be stereotypes, that goes with branding.<p>Some people identify themselves as iOS developers. They write Objective-C, and will tell you how it is the best platform with users spending the most dollars, etc. etc. They'll tell you they'd never program for Android because javas is too verbose, the platform is fragmented, etc.etc.<p>An android dev will tell you that they love open-source (a stretch, but just go with it for now). They believe they are serving the largest market, they have the freedom to build the apps as they like and can do things that can't be done on the competitors platforms.<p>Then you've got the web people. Maybe a Ruby on Rails dev, they'll talk about the speed of quick iteration cycles, simple MVC code, write-once-run-anywhere (stretch your imagination just a bit).<p>If we look at these as brands, you start to get a picture of what each of these people might be like outside of just this mode of thinking. You have a stereotype of what that person is, what they believe, how they would behave.<p>This is essentially what the brand is doing for the person.<p>If I were identified with Ferrari as a brand, you'd have a very different image of me, and me of myself, than if I identified with Smart cars, or Tesla.<p>Somebody who shops at safeway identifies with food in a different way than somebody identifies with Trader Joe's, Whole Foods or your local farmers market.<p>It's basically a short-cut for somebody to label themselves, or project to others what they stand for.