Basically whenever anybody suggests to me that there's a consensus on something, I reflexively laugh to myself and automatically assume that the consensus is a load of rubbish while nodding my head 'oh ok' to allow the person to think I believe them. Later I come back with a half dozen examples proving the conesnus is bullshit. I've gotten so cynical over time that I almost want to just blurt out some very offensive and sarcastic comments rather than being polite, but for the most part I manage to keep my mouth shut. This happens everywhere. It quite commonly happens on Internet forums including here, and it also happens in real life. In exceptionally rare cases, I might actually agree with the consensus on something.
I think a lot of it has to do with a vs axis divide.
Alphas are the ones coming up with all sorts of neat stuff.
Betas are the ones pushing some of that into the mainstream.
Gammas are sort of like a gatekeeper, and the first to value .
(and Deltas are just trying to hold the house together)
Also I think it comes from a complete, total, utter rejection of . A lot of people might buy into a consensus simply because they "trust" the person an opinion or idea is coming from based on their position or authority and whatnot. An ILI rejects all that. Once upon a time at the office, entire departments up to and including VPs had bought into something as being true on a particular issue, and I was asked to carry out some actions based from that consensus. But I thought the consensus was BS, risked my own job, went my own way, and actually solved the problem while proving the consensus wasn't true. Not down-talking anybody else - sometimes you really do need a "fresh" perspective on something.
Groupthink is quite common on Internet forums. If it sound good and feels good to believe that something is true and everybody else is saying it, it therefore it must be true. This is the weakest form of reasoning of all, but surprisingly common. Sometimes there might actually be some well thought-out arguments with plenty of merit, but that commonly leads back to the Ti vs Te divide. A disconnection between the theoretical world and reality.
Just as there is an under-representation of Gammas on this forum, there also seems to be one out in the real-world and on other Internet forums too. I think it's because the ILI spends so much time researching trying to determine if something is really true or not that they never get around to posting anything! For the most part I might read a forum for a particular interest, see what people are saying, 90% of the time I'll come to the conclusion that the consensus or "view of the forum" is rubbish, and then not bother to even argue back. Seriously, why bother? Do I have WEEKS of time to argue back and forth with people? Do I care that much? For the most part no. The knowledge is kept to myself and those that have bought into the consensus "just because" miss out on a diversified viewpoint that they might actually benefit from. For many people just going with the flow, it might never occur to them that the consensus could be false, nor that an opposing view could actually be legitimate. Only in exceptionally rare cases where I truly care and am actually passionate enough about the subject will I actually bother "going to war" to battle some bullshit consensus, either online or in real-life.
I have no idea how 16T is these days, but back in the day I would make a post with an opinion or view or example that went against the grain and the next thing I knew I'd have a dozen posts about what an idiot I surely must be because "this has all been decided already and you're wrong". Ok that's nice. Do I care enough to bother arguing back for 15 pages? With socionics the answer is no. Sorry. I like this theory but not enough to argue back and forth for hours on end.
On another topic on another forum it's been the opposite case. There the overwhelming forum consensus was that something or someone (a public figure out there) was 100% BS. That I especially love and automatically assume that that something/someone must have a whole lot of good points or information! A lot of this is anger from aggravating the forum's , and the ensuing irrational/emotional response. 90% of what people would claim was provably false, and the remaining 10% was simply difference of opinion mixed in with arrogance and bigotry and being unable to handle any other opinion than their own. Since this was a topic I cared about much more, I actually bothered to argue, and spend quite a bit of time doing it. Soon after others came out of the woodwork and would argue as well. Others would send me private messages applauding me for "standing up" against all the BS and that they agreed, but just didn't want to get in the middle of it or waste their time. Today I think the consensus might be far more neutral as there's now a critical mass of those willing to defend what everybody previously thought was BS whereas before there wasn't. This particular public figure I've typed as an SLI with PoLR , so I especially can relate. Since Internet forums tend to have a rather high quotient and this particular figure wasn't the least bit shy about voicing opinions that would aggravate the Fe, that would explain the highly negative views a lot of people had of this particular public figure.
This also ties into: Are INTPs whistle blowers?