A criticism you'll often hear about people who hold onto firm beliefs without looking at the possibilities is that they are being overly dogmatic, rigid to the point of restricting or even causing additional stress to themselves rather then a garner sense of understanding. After having some time to observe these types, it's quite necessary to question and be skeptical to put in good service for seeing things as they are. Dogmas only get their power to engulf the minds of people in an environment of total control, a milieu where it's beneficial for many to not think, where the amateur Socrates, Jesus, or Buddha is likely to be seen as a threat; interestingly, this is the same kind of restricting environment that happens in the mind by those who've been trapped by their own dogmas. This is also why identifying with labels can make one eventually become "stuck in their ways", ultimately a label is just fluid naming convention for determining ideas, though when people cling to them they forget the uncertainties—the endless interpretations and their original meanings.
Pointing out that someone is being ideological or just overly dogmatic with their beliefs is a question-begging statement. Without trying to get caught up in pedantry, I would expect a response something along the lines of, "how is one suppose to know this"? This is a valid concern, surely getting genuinely called out for having a belief may open up an avenue for a correction of thought, which is one of the most important things you can go through. Yet there's no test, metric, or standard that can be used to determine if something has crossed the line from reasonable to dogmatic, beliefs of course need to be gauged from the perspective of truth and this includes a clear judgement about the effect on the overall well-being while holding them—are they pleasant, does it bring forth joy and health? It's been typical to develop ideas which apparently are formulaically sound like frameworks of formal science used in engineering and technology, though looking at the record of collectivism, they are often used inhumanly when applied with no limits towards groups of people.
The nature of individuals being what they are, even if such quantifiable data is accurate or how tight things can be set to fit a particular model, it's not the final say unless there's a means for them; the only primary thing on the mind is fulfilling it's own profits, whether they are spiritual or material, that seems to be a given. Nevertheless, one may indeed have some general certainties, as I just made about the nature of man, and many times this helps along the journey as much as cardinal directions establishes a reference point when looking at a map.
