2. “The more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements” is greatly overgeneralizing. Kahan couldn’t have shown that, he only used one kind of numeric data. Other sorts of information (e.g. of a partisan leader switching positions) likely have different effects. And unquantitive factors (like morals/rights) are properly influential. 3. “Being better at math...drove [partisans] further apart.” Drove is too causal for Kahan’s correlations. Similar laxity in Klein’s piece equates “smarter” with higher numeracy. 4. Too much science/wonkery ignores that our cognitive capabilities evolved in contexts where disrupting your tribe hurt your chances of survival. Only relational rationality was and is adaptive. 5. Social science results, like humans, are motley (high-numeracy politicized case: 57% correct, 43% wrong). “Explainers” and policymakers must cope with such heterogeneity. Some are safer in trusting their reason - bigthink.com