I expect a major driver of this is that people always tend to underestimate how much tacit knowledge they're using and so to assume that people who disagree with them are fundamentally stupid, malicious, or crazy when they're really just coming from a different background. http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_dista...
> people always tend to underestimate how much tacit knowledge they're using I like how you put that. Any thoughts on the best way to respond when someone asks you for something that requires hundreds or thousands of hours of tacit knowledge?
The thing is that you should just always be sensitive to the possibility of large inferential distances when you're interacting with people of different opinions. "Don't ascribe to malice what may be due to stupidity. Don't presume stupidity when ignorance is as good an explanation. And try not to be too sure your opponent is the ignorant one until you can prove otherwise." That's very much in descending order of importance, but it's always good to keep the third point in mind if you can.