What are the primary causes behind people disagreeing with you? Why do whole discourses, movements, and possibly even academic fields exist that embrace models and values you find plainly incorrect?

Is it stupidity, subconscious material interests, conditioning, personality...

Almost everyone with a strong position & dismissiveness to their opponents in given debate has some implicit general theory of Why The Other Side Embraces Wrongness.

One of my favorite past times in reading different camps or theorists is picking out what this theory is for them

The flipside of such theories is of course What Is The Unique Thing Of Value In Yourself Or Your Team.

Often folks will be like "obviously these folks are wrong because of their class interests" when they're in the SAME class, and the implicit theory is one of personality.

This is not to suggest that literally everything boils down to personality or ossified cognitive strategies, but quite a lot of leftist theorists quite strongly if indirectly embrace theories wherein what differentiates them from The Wrong is a matter of personality.

After all, two white academics raised in the suburbs are not really that different in class interest and conditioning. How did one see The Light while the other fell prey to simple minded mistakes that benefit The Evil Ruling Whatever?

It's uncouth in left academic circles to talk directly of personality, but there's a number of strong indirect appeals to it. One of the most common is in terms of arrogance. The Wrong People are *confident* enough to think they're right, when the depressed type are superior.

Another avenue is "hard working" -- The Wrong People are just not hard enough workers, they haven't researched as hard as The Right People, they don't have sufficient protestant work ethic and so fall into their pit of abject wrongness and general sin.

Because different discursive communities tend to aggregate different habits, different most-used heuristics and strategies of problem-solving these often get framed into personality conflicts. eg arrogant reductionist STEMlords vs humble complexity mapping Humanities Chads

Implicit in most of these fights is a personal belief that they've found a magical bullet that provides superior access to the world, that is best at solving a wider or more rooted or more meta domain of problems. Since after all, their personal strategy has worked on ___ ...

Or, you know, sometimes folks just directly think they're biologically more intelligent, full stop, no need to engage further. What I find fun about all this is how rarely folks are willing to note explicitly "this is why I think *I* arrived at the Truth and those fools didn't."

Don't get me wrong, it's usually implicit as all fuck, everything but fully in-your-face textual. Although sometimes it's a bit more obscured. Especially when an academic sticks to hella flat prose and soft argument structures.