People naturally tend to choose the easier option. It doesn’t take as much energy to make decisions, you just ‘go with the flow’. This energy-efficient way of making decisions and value judgements is very popular among us, as it’s not only faster and doesn’t require as much thinking, but it also protects us from being abandoned by their social group.
For many believing in a shaky argument or going along with an idea that lacks logical reasoning and evidence is much more preferable than to risk offending their group by critiquing it. Anything that differs from what the group thinks needs to be silenced and if you see an inconsistency then they probably have an answer to that. The fear of questioning certain beliefs is an indirect fear of being socially ostracized.
This leads to groups where everybody conforms to the same morality without any question or doubt. And while the saying is often that people with similar ideas form groups, perhaps it’s the other way around and the social power of the groups themselves are the real power behind those dogmatically similar ideas. Not the like-mindedness of the people.
This part of human nature is exceptionally hard to tackle, we want to be part of a group, but with that comes the cost of handing in a part of our individuality and also a piece of our critical thinking skills. Instead of forming their own opinions people will learn how to defend the views of the tribe they subscribe to.
It leads people to adopting ideology package deals: a phenomenon where a person’s opinion about one topic is enough information to predict almost all of their views on society and politics, whether the issues are related or not.
Yet, we all have a choice. Just because it’s tempting and easy shouldn’t mean we shouldn’t be held accountable for throwing our critical thinking skills out of the window. Believing in or supporting certain claims, whether it’s about people, politics or religion that aren’t grounded in logical reasoning and/or a holistic or nuanced view of the matter is a morally weak action. As standing for something has influence on those matters, whether micro or not, the causes you actively support will grow stronger if you do so.
Having now established that the beliefs and value judgements people make carry a certain weight, we can see how unjust it is when that certain opinion was not constructed by evidence, but just adopted by someone because he picked it up from his group and wanted to ‘go with the flow’.
It shows us a darker side of all our political and cultural quarrels, that the actual substance of the debate maybe isn’t even central at all, but that perhaps most of the people on both teams just follow certain ideas, just because their friends or co-workers follow them and they still want to get invited to the monthly dinner party.
Another phenomenon that isn’t all too uncommon is people using their views on societal conflicts or politics for social gain. They do this through virtue signaling for example. Instead of seeing political differences as differences in people’s values, there is a morally superior opinion and a ‘bad’ opinion, one that supposedly should reveal someone’s lack of character. Whether that correct opinion leads to the best outcome for society isn’t really important, it matters that that belief is morally superior and what the other thinks isn’t.
And again the question is raised, how much of public debate is actually used to get to truth, to the best outcome possible and how much of it gets used for social gain and status.
Our thinking faculties, logic and the data we get from studies don’t get used to find the truth or come up with the best possible solution, but instead to serve as proof to confirm pre-held beliefs. When the data gets used to fit inside a framework instead of as a tool to create one, it’s a sign that truth isn’t the highest on the priority list of the person committing that action.
People are more divided than ever and we really need to question ourselves and our standpoints. We should question our beliefs, critically examine counter arguments to the positions we hold most dear.
To be more self-conscious about blindly agreeing with points that we don’t really understand. To dare to think, to dare to think for oneself. Not to immediately conform your biases or the most popular belief in town, but to look actively for their strengths and weaknesses and then make a decision.
And no, that isn’t someone who goes with the flow. But in my opinion it offers a much better alternative to be someone who isn’t easily fooled and above all: somebody who knows what he stands for.
You have just explained the situation of like 90% of the population.
Critical thinking is crucial, but I think its application is severely hindered when the media institutions dictate public discourse, that makes it exceptionally difficult for us to independently assess the strengths and weaknesses of the issue.
which I also think the applicable proverb to your article is only dead fish go with the flow.