When we are hearing or reading a consistent argument which fits our existing ideas, whether it simply confirms or even expands them, this is what usually gets us to push that đź‘Ť button.

When the idea and argument conflicts with our world model, we might quickly label it as nonsense, “not interested”.

I guess, I’m broadly describing what creates our filter bubbles.

Cognitively, it is quite taxing to actually process and confront the other sides’s argument. Some people are better trained in that, like scientists for example.

But I made a different observation recently. Here, the conflicting ideas are coming from the same side. So the surprise is more along the lines of, “Why does this person say that?”

What I want to remember is that the resolution of the cognitive dissonance can often be found in identifying different scopes.

This reminds me of Taleb’s ideological stance depending on group size:

I am, at the Fed level, libertarian;
at the state level, Republican;
at the local level, Democrat;
and at the family and friends level, a socialist.
If that saying doesn’t convince you of the fatuousness of left vs. right labels, nothing will.

The conflict is superficial, or obscured by not making the scope of reference explicit.