This article is agreeing with what I posted. Both liberals and conservatives dismiss facts that do not fit their world view.
That's not what your article/study is doing.
What it's doing is saying the presentation of facts is an an affront to mutual respect. And that no one should bother using "facts" and instead use "personal experiences" which is just a proxy for "feelings" This is a core bedrock of identity politics. It's got some window dressing and some frosting, but it's still the same ugly piece of cake underneath.
My article talks about group identity as a survival mechanism and roots towards biological imperative and the logistical reality that cooperation on individuals WITHIN "tribes" were needed to survive the harsh world looking to kill them off as fast as possible.
What no one wants to discuss is there is more than one tribe. Different tribes existed with different cultures and value systems and remained separate from each other. A competition for resources made armed conflict and war inevitable.
The idea that everyone needs to find this mythical middle ground is not human reality. It has no basis in how human behavior works all throughout recorded human history.
"Tribes" respect leverage. Not personal experiences. Why do you think so many nations are trying to become nuclear powers in the modern world? Why do you think those who are nuclear powers do so much to prevent the rest from becoming new nuclear powers? Leverage means financial might and military might.
There's a real problem when
1) All forms of actual mainstream investigative journalism is basically dead ( i.e. the quest to find facts)
2) Social media dominates the information landscape (i.e. let's just feed people Twitter bite sized nuggets to enrage them)
3) One side is being silenced, cancelled, demonetized and deplatformed
4) The other side controls the MSM, Hollywood, Big Tech, Big Social Media and Big Education
5) The side with the control wants "mutual respect" but only by means of total surrender of their opponent's identity, starting with their "facts"
I'm not here to change your mind. I don't care if you agree with me or not.
That's the difference between the two of us. You want some kind of utopian level of agreement in defiance of actual human nature. I am perfectly content to enforce distance and leveraged silence. What I'm not going to do however, and the example I'm not going to set for the other conservatives here, is to allow anyone to tell me that "facts" has become some kind of new pariah and dangerous threat to some bizarre woked out New World Order mantra. Minimizing the value of "facts" is minimizing the value of the truth.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant for the entire world.
You apparently like things shrouded more in darkness, where the facts don't live. That's OK, that difference makes it easier for us to avoid each other. The sunlight often comes with a painful glare, there's a cost, but at least you can see where you are going and at least you can see things without it's "feeling prioritized then weaponized" window dressing. The dark doesn't bring comfort because it hides the glare. The dark brings comfort because it teaches one how to live with the lies.