Why do some people expect definitive or helpful individual answers to questions regarding collectives?

Example:"what do Lib Dems/Hindus?atheists? gays/ Christians think of - - - ?". No-one can see into the heart& mind of each in an entire collective.Would the questioner get a more helpful informative respose to "What du you, as a Lib Dem/Hindu - - think of - - -?` And thus a dialogue of small deeper understandings could be more helpful. It`s hardly possible that an individual could truthfully speak representing a mass of people, so attitudes fly back and forth very often. And I don`t get to deepen my understanding of an issue, nor how to respond if a topic interests me if I`m taken as representative of the thoughts of many.And many are already contentious issues the questioners -and me too - are concernd with or of a complex nature. Generalizations compound the complexities of the `hot-headed ` issues. What`s a simpler way than the one I`m struggling to find a way to make into smaller manageable bites, please?