I keep wanting to talk about a concept that doesn't seem to have a name. I propose "consensus cloud", but maybe someone can tell me that a name already exists.
The idea is that a group of people have an apparent consensus about some belief or set of beliefs. These belief sets often have their own names, such as "woke" or "MAGA". They include various forms of nationalism, such as the belief in the existence of a "Russian people". They include religious ideologies, such as the ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel, pro-Hindu politics in India, Islamist politics, and the "religious right" in the U.S.
These belief sets differ in that some of them are limited to the groups that hold the beliefs. The ultra-orthodox do not seem to care whether the rest of the world adopts their religion; they just want state support for their own communities. Other belief sets apply to everyone, such as woke ideology or, by definition, various forms of evangelical Christianity.
All these belief sets are maintained as within-group social norms. Group members want others to agree and are willing to take action to promote agreement.
All these cases also benefit from "pluralistic ignorance". Believers think that the number of co-believers is higher than it really is, in part becuase doubters do not make themselves known, thus avoiding the censure that would result from enforcement of a social norm.
Pluralistic ignorance is itself abetted by control of an "information space", such as a government that systematically discourages or punishes dissent, as is happening now in Russia and China. Thus a kind of stability is achieved. Many Russians seem to believe that Ukraine is part of some sort of Russian essence and thus should be a part of Russia.
Belief sets often include beliefs about why outsiders do not agree. For example, some Russians believe that resistance to their claim to Ukraine is the result of western nations efforts to isolate Russia and hamper its development, and its associated propaganda. Control of the information space is not necessary if the group ideology can define outsiders as part of a conspiracy against it (as Russia does). MAGA believers see such things as public heath mandates and climate protection to be the result of infiltration of academia and government (the "deep state") by leftist ideologues who produce pseudo-science to support their politics. The same sort of rationale often allows people with delusions to dismiss counter-arguments as coming from part of the conspiracy against them.
The beliefs of interest seem to descend on people like a cloud that becoms a fog. People cannot see outside of it.
Of course, some people do consider alternatives and question the relevant beliefs. We might expect individual differences in adherence to any sort of consensus cloud. Those who are prone toward myside bias as a trait are more likely to join a consensus, and, therefore, those are endorse the standards of actively open-minded thinking are more resistant. Similarly, those who are prone to accept conspiracy theories are more accepting, especially when opponents are seen as part of a conspiracy.
Possibly the trait of "intellectual humility" can work both ways, as it could make people less accepting of their own conclusions and more willing to listen to others. Its effect thus depends on which conclusions and which other people are affected. Intellectual humility is not the same as actively open-minded thinking, which implies that humility is needed only when a conclusion is the result of little thinking by anyone, or the result of poor thinking.
