Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best.
People who benefit from a system are unlikely to look for problems with it and unlikely to notice any contradictions. Anything which appears as a contradiction gets shrugged off as "Well, there must be a good reason, I'm not an expert. I will trust the experts." These people corrupt Occam's Razor that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. "The experts say ..." becomes the ultimate simplest explanation to everything... And the experts that they choose to listen to are those who are aligned with their existing beliefs.
Then you have people who notice the contradictions but they see so many from first-hand experience that they don't trust the experts and they don't have access to enough different information to be able to choose a good one; so they just adopt the least-bad one as their own... The one which best protects their self-image and whose (comparatively) few contradictions can be plausibly explained away by corruption, conspiracy or dishonesty.
But I think the latter group is in fact one step closer to the truth. The truth is there is no conspiracy (at least no grand, all-encompassing one), it's worse than that; systemic incentives create alignment and remove the need for intentional coordination. The coordination, the illusion of conspiracy is just a byproduct of incentives. The second group of people are wrong about the mechanism but their view of reality leads to the same outcome... So with each passing year, their views are being reinforced by more "proof."
The system which manufactures the incentives which create alignment is itself probably not the product of conspiracy; it's just a system which evolved slowly over time to subtly serve its operators and their supporters. They don't want to change it, not out of nefariousness, but out of justified fear of what havoc any change might wreck... Bureaucracy also plays a part.
It's very difficult to co-ordinate a lot of people to agree on anything, let alone act on it. This is one thing that the mainstream anti-conspiracy folks are completely right about.
I'm a global top-50-university-credentialed expert in Information Technology who majored in System Design and has worked for a wide range of companies of different sizes, in multiple industries (education, remote work platforms, social media, banking/finance), in multiple countries including in highly political areas like crypto... So the "trust the experts" folk can trust me when it comes to information flows and system design...
Try this: take a position you hold that you are sure is rational but that a number of people disagree with, and pretend it is wrong and look at it from the opposite perspective. Steelman it and honestly take that perspective as true and argue it in your head. You might still not agree with it, but you can make it rational. So, how certain are should we be that our positions are the rational ones if we can do this?
I do this already with all of my beliefs.
That's not to say my beliefs are exhaustively battle-tested and correct; maybe other people have information that I'm missing but in my role as a software engineer working across multiple industries and some politically sensitive projects, I've had access to information and first-hand experiences that most other people haven't.
The thing is; if I told the average person what I witnessed without providing any interpretation, they would doubt the basic facts because some of what I experienced doesn't make sense when measured against mainstream narratives and most people's day-to-day experiences.
For example, about the crypto/blockchain sector; when I tell people about my experiences, outsiders often say stuff like "The founders behaved this way because of hype and irrationality of the markets" but when you've been through it every day for 2 years and experienced the taboos inside the company, seen the suppression of projects and community members, following a clear, predictable, repeated pattern, it's impossible to believe that it is random or irrational.
> Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best.
Perhaps everyone is irrational?
How we would know otherwise if we can make irrational things rational just by thinking about them hard enough?
Yes, it's a spectrum. The best test to figure out the extent of your own bias is to make a list of ways which in which a particular ideology benefits you.
For most of my contrarian ideologies, they are harmful to me in most ways except "Protects my ego by redefining personal failings as system failings." Most of my contrarian ideologies have this characteristic but this point has been getting weaker over time; I don't have much pride left. I'm literally working for a bank now.
Or maybe I work for a bank just to prove to myself that I don't care about pride? Getting kind of elaborate.