Political disagreement can be explained using the theories of cognitive hubris and radical ignorance. The basic idea is that nobody has a grasp on capital-T truth, but each of us believes that our own map of the world is highly accurate. When we encounter someone who holds a similar map, we think, “That guy knows what he is talking about.” When we encounter someone who holds a different map, we think, “That guy is an idiot.” When you overestimate the accuracy of your own map, it is very difficult to explain the existence of people with different maps, other than to impugn their intelligence or their integrity.
AM: Remember this when you're calling someone in an opposite political camp "an idiot." Karl Popper said, referring to our knowledge of the social world, that "social scientists drive their piles in swamps." There is ground but it is soft and constantly shifting.
I tell my students, when they are doing 'readings' to operate under the assumption that the author is honest, smart, and trying to make a real contribution to a subject. This certainly does not mean that one is forced to agree with the author, criticism is always encouraged. But I think honesty requires giving your intellectual foil the benefit of the doubt. This is one reason why I appreciate Kling's point about cognitive bias: we are none of us immune, but we can try to move forward if we recognize this.
This is also what I was trying to get at with the post on Maher.
