Tell someone your view on net zero and they may think they can guess your view on Gaza. There is no necessary connection between the two. Yet political opinions often arrive together, and disagreeing with one part of the package can make people question whether you belong on their side at all.
That bothers me more than someone simply reaching a conclusion I disagree with. I want to know whether they have considered the question, or learnt which answer their friends expect.
We all rely on other people
Nobody has time to become an expert in energy, epidemiology, asylum law and constitutional history. We have to rely on people whose knowledge or judgement we trust. Choosing sources that broadly share our values isn't automatically foolish.
But we ought to remember when we are relying on someone else's assessment. There is a difference between saying "I trust their explanation" and treating a conclusion you couldn't explain as beyond dispute. The less you understand the evidence yourself, the more room you should leave for being wrong.
Political loyalty can make that difficult. It is uncomfortable to discover that the people you agree with on most subjects are wrong about something important. It can be easier to defend them than to risk an argument with your own friends.
More informed doesn't always mean more independent
Philip Converse's 1964 work on political belief systems found that the views of political elites were more closely organised around ideology than those of ordinary voters. Pew's 2014 study also found more consistent ideological positions among politically engaged Americans.
That doesn't prove that following politics makes people less thoughtful. Shared values can reasonably lead to similar conclusions on several issues, and those studies concern American politics. But it should discourage the assumption that consuming more political information necessarily makes us more independent.
Sometimes we are learning the evidence. Sometimes we are learning what our side believes.
A useful question is where you disagree with the people you usually support. Having no answer doesn't prove you haven't thought for yourself, any more than being a contrarian proves that you have. It should at least make you check.
Can you explain why you hold each view? Can you describe what would change your mind? Would you apply the same standard if your opponents had made the argument? Those questions matter more to me than whether someone's opinions form a recognisable political package.