On your last para there, some but not all of my original suggestions can apply to both mudcatters and the I/P dispute. I've added one of John MacKenzie's.

Being uninformed.

Different psychology.

Cognitive dissonance.[Aka 'not allowing myself to see etc.]

Lack of empathy.

Refusal to consider that he/she might be wrong



One other I mentioned 'conflicting interests' may be applicable to mudcatters in far-from-obvious ways, whereas it's fundamental in the Near East problem.


Further there is a clear conflict of interests from the following

"As many have stated before, it is reasonable that people disagree.
It is the reaction to disagreement that is puzzling."


Whether or not it is reasonable to have disagreement depends on the subject.

I don't think it's reasonable to dispute that we don't live on a flat disc.

And your interest is clearly on the reactions to disputes [in which i am also interested]. However, I have a greater interest in what lies behind disputes.

As an example of a dispute where identifying the cause led to a resolution:-

There was once a disagreement at the U.N. between the American and Soviet delegates, but curiously, it wasn't clear what the problem was. Eventually, for whatever reason, they called in a linguistics expert.

He identified the cause of the dispute in one simple fact. Both delegates were using the same phrase, 'self-expanding economy', but with conflicting attitudes.

For the American, the phrase was obvious and uncontroversial and a fact of life'; for the Soviet, the phrase had no meaning because such an economy was impossible.

End of puzzlement. Someone had discovered what the 'reason for the disagreement' [copyright application pending :-) ] actually was.

Weirdly, I prefer interesting discussion to pointless argument.[Even pointful argument is better.] I'm funny like that.