Related: The book "How Minds Change" by David McRaney.
With regard to the stability of beliefs, there's a strong element of social reinforcement at work. An incident discussed in the above mentioned book is how a group of prominent 9/11 truthers was invited to meet with various scientific experts who presented the case against the conpiracy, and as a result of the meeting, one (but only one) member of the group did change his mind about 9/11. However, this rejection of the conspiracy by a prominent conspiracist did not cause a crisis of belief among the rest. Rather, they rejected and shunned the mind-changer from the community, despite the fact that he used to be a leader of the community.
These dynamics play out everywhere when you stop sharing fundamental beliefs about a system.
There are numerous of cases of financiers, academics, etc. who have been expelled because they have corrected their beliefs in contrary to the groups.
I see a lot of general social dynamics being presented negatively depending on the case: We need inclusion in primary school but celebrate exclusion in other communities (like the conspirators).
I guess the world is just a bunch in incoherent emotional babbling with no hope for a consistent model.
> There are numerous of cases of financiers, academics, etc. who have
been expelled because they have corrected their beliefs in contrary
to the groups.
The best thing to do is leave. Once you cross that Rubicon, never
think "I can change this system/institution from within". You will die
on that hill.
I wish people had better psychological education and preparation to
understand what institutions are. Realistic preparation before joining
the police, army, government, or academia would help many people avoid
so much suffering - and make those institutions "better" by making it
easier for differently-thinking individuals to get out and start new
movements or institutions.
It's really hard, because sometimes ones whole identity gets wrapped
up in that group. Cult leavers often talk about this. Rejecting the
ideas is the comparatively easy part. Escaping the people is
harder. But hardest of all is escaping the part of yourself that
identifies.
Sorry I don't have a better link to this video [0], but it matches my
experience, of waking up one day in an in institution I had outgrown,
surrounded by tiny-minded, compliant, insecure, mutually hostile,
self-deluding people. It takes courage to move on.
With regard to the stability of beliefs, there's a strong element of social reinforcement at work. An incident discussed in the above mentioned book is how a group of prominent 9/11 truthers was invited to meet with various scientific experts who presented the case against the conpiracy, and as a result of the meeting, one (but only one) member of the group did change his mind about 9/11. However, this rejection of the conspiracy by a prominent conspiracist did not cause a crisis of belief among the rest. Rather, they rejected and shunned the mind-changer from the community, despite the fact that he used to be a leader of the community.