Group Think and Proper Software

People, in general, are motivated to adopt the ontological views of groups for the sake of belonging and sustenance. This inclination frequently overrides concerns for what is true or epistemologically sound, as survival supersedes the scrutiny of a worldview one finds pragmatically nurturing. “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”, as the saying goes. The heuristics employed for survival can easily develop into unwavering axioms and dogmas when shielded from consistent criticism though. Ironically, this is the very thing that suppresses and destroys the ability to apprehend reality, adapt, and have well-being in the long run. 

My personal aversion to communities stems from this phenomenon. The term "community" often becomes synonymous with a strict ontology, consistently causing the group to devolve into bastions of ideology. When an institution cannot correct its errors, it becomes static and brittle, compelled to wage war against anything that threatens its integrity, including rational discourse. And when rationality is gone, the only option is physical violence. Ideological communities usually resort to protecting themselves by any means necessary, just as a cornered animal would. 

However, we should recognize that institutions or communities are comprised of individuals who share common ideas. The larger issue, then, lies not so much in the physicality or structure of the organizations itself, but the ideas that are upheld within it via tradition and whether or not the individuals themselves embrace error correction as a central tenet. The analogy here is that it is the software running on the hardware that dictates actions and dynamics. Software that allows for error correction (rational criticism) is necessary for any community to overcome violence and to understand reality. Our fallibility precludes us from ever reaching the fullness of truth, so there will never be a time when this piece of software won't play a central role in our journey through life.