Critical thinking is good and great, especially if there is a ton of conflicting opinions around you, so if you’re an MRA, you shouldn’t blindly follow what your group says. However, too much critical thinking might actually be counterproductive to your MRA activism.
I think ideology and activism can be compared to scientific progress. According to the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, science doesn’t smoothly progress, it often has paradigm shifts (example: when classical physics were shown to be an approximation to relativistic physics, or when it was discovered that the Sun didn’t revolve around the Earth). Scientific progress could be describes like this:
pre-science –> normal science –> crisis –> revolution –> new normal science.
Pre-science is when it’s followers aren’t even in agreement about the fundamentals of it, and it isn’t very effective at solving practical problems. Normal science is when its members are in agreement about fundamentals, experimental methods and standards about what is scientific and reasonable. At the same time, followers of normal science (normal scientists) are pretty unquestioning about all those things, and only start to question them if there is a crisis – that situation when your theories just don’t fit with observable reality. Despite that, normal science is pretty effective at solving practical problems and getting somewhere, precisely because its members work using the same rules and don’t spend tons of time questioning them.
For ideology, it means that critical thinking is important, but too much of it stops you from progressing and working under the same rules/assumptions, and together. And to get anywhere, MRAs would need to collectively apply their efforts to the same problems. So think about this when someone says you agree too much with everyone else.