Social groups, by growing larger through modern communication (internet etc) now have to encompass more issues so they demand all members hold strong positions on many more issues > no time to analyse every issue thoroughly > people have opinions about issues that should not matter to them. People still need to hold these opinions to be accepted as part of the social groups. Many misinformed but strongly held beliefs. Makes it harder to compromise on issues as almost every issue demands a position to be held (as smaller communities are absorbed into larger social groups via internet etc). Social groups have always dictated the individuals beliefs. The epistemic approach is to adopt your social groups beliefs. In the past people would know mainly about problems facing them directly in their local towns etc- then less about surrounding regional issues and only basic knowledge about their states. Hardly anything on a global scale. However by being well informed about local issues they could fight/vote for applicable solutions. Now if you are part of a social group all of these regional issues compound as the groups have widened through the internet. This happens by local social groups that share values and some key issues becoming aware of each other through the internet, even if they are half way around the globe/ other side of the country and have different circumstances. But seeing as values and beliefs are gained by the individuals not through rigorous epistemic foundation but rather by simply wanting to be part of the group, the different circumstances are ignored and the groups join and assimilate. Local issues are weighed more lightly as there are simply more issues on the scale. But there is no space to investigate any issue thoroughly. So people have strong positions on irrelevant (to them) issues but no well thought through solutions.