The other kind of thinker comes to an idea, concept or object more innocently.
Sure they will have a set of assumptions and opinions with which the new thing will fit or not. The difference between an innocent thinker and the apologetic thinker is that rather than try to make sense of the new thing so that it fits their pre-existent world-view they will attempt to make their preconceptions as malleable as possible.
The difference is that where one is forced by their self-identification with their belief systems (motivated by fear of losing their identity that is) to see the new thing in one way; the innocent thinker fearlessly imagines they have different world-views and looks at the thing through these various world-views.
Ultimately the innocent thinker becomes disinterested in such things as belief or truth. Instead they concern themselves with the beautiful realm of idea space.
A unicorn doesn’t exist. So what! Unicorns are beautiful.
An apologist cannot see the beauty of unicorns or any ideas because he is – falsely – concerned with having power over others in the guise of convincing them of the truth. He really wants to reach into their minds and make them copies of his own.