> Suspicion, bias, identity, and a whole schwack of other things, all fall under the domain of psychology.

For sure. I just mean the act of pivoting and re-framing. It's hard to imagine the contiguous core motive that brought you to say both that you harbor suspicion that climate scientists are cooking the books and that you wonder if psychological misunderstanding is the reason we can't move forward. It seems like you laid out one kind of bait, caught about what I'd expect, and then wished you'd caught something else.

> It's like 90% armchair psychology...

Sorry--this was probably obfuscated by moving my reply here. My interest is in where (along the scale from actual researchers down to general nonscientists communicating in public fora) people are saying things that rub you the wrong way. I certainly see issues up and down the scale, but they're different.

> ... but what I think might be somewhat of a novel/underinvestigated idea, is how these things manifest in day to day interactions, and in turn affect subsequent behavior... Has there been any academic study into this?

I have hunches, but not much hard knowledge from which to reason about how well recognized/investigated this is. It's something I have and continue to actively reflect on a lot. I'm not aware of a big body of empirical work here, but the world is vast and I am not. It seems inevitable that there's research (knowingly or not) pulling on threads of this from multiple vantage points. My gut says there are chicken/egg problems here, but I'd have to take some time out to survey a good random sample of real research to know how well-tuned that is.

> It appears on any culture war topic

I think these are pervasive hermeneutic/epistemic problems, though I suppose conflict does highlight them.

> ... perhaps our perceptions of the nature of "resistance" or "disagreement" may not be accurate, and in turn our solutions/response to that may be suboptimal.

It certainly seems this way. I don't know how to cash this realization out once people are in the trench, though.

> ... I see little evidence that others are making any effort to understand. Rather, it seems that my lack of complete agreement ... seems to invoke an authoritarian, tribal response.

>...the amazingly widespread inability and unwillingness among intelligent people to step out of this mode of thinking, or acknowledge clear signs of it.

Mostly just acknowledging these. I don't have a single clear response. I can imagine a lot of different things going on here. Maybe it helps to imagine the people who aren't responding, and reflect on how the medium, forum, topic, discussion, subthread, your own post, and the very act of clicking the "reply" button to a long post may all act as filters that skew your sample.

> Is the fact that climate change is (has become) a culture war topic interfering with people's ability to discuss or think clearly about the matter

> or does group identity trump everything (System-1 overpowers System-2, ~without exception, even among the intelligent)

> If the requirement is mass persuasion (and it very much is), and the topic is identity-related (causing the human brain to malfunction, resorting to tribal, System-1 thinking)...

> Even if we could get everyone's sentiments pointed in the right direction, there are a lot of other seemingly unrelated issues that may need to be taken into consideration, but if a higher frame of enlightenment (willingness to cooperate, MAYBE) could be established, perhaps we could fix several problems at once.

I'm not sure there's a meaningful direct way to address what skeptics think. I assume they can be clustered in at least a few ways, but I haven't looked for studies breaking it down. I imagine the broadly "conspiratorial" cluster (people who are interpreting climate in light of a conspiratorial outlook), however big it is, is largely unreachable. The strictly "identitarian" cluster (people who would have no opinion if not for some group/ideology commitment) is probably a little (but not much) more reachable in the sense that some event could shake their ideological/group commitment and leave them open to revision. There are obviously other clusters (and overlap/grey zones), but the technical nature of the topic informs how prevalent I assume they are.

I guess it's trite (and maybe useless), but I feel like pointing out how thoroughly this dance is structured by the ~invisible idea that average people should have any opinion--let alone one we insist must be founded on cold, hard, rock-solid rational logic--about a mountain of published research (itself built on many vast datasets, quite a few complex models, and projections) that collectively draws on, synthesizes, and spans many disciplines. Perhaps the first reaction is that, well, this is how democracy works. But step back, and realize that this pattern demands epistemic hubris. And I think we get it.

In that light, I think we have too many opinions (regardless of how well-founded they are). I have wondered for a while now how much room there is to cultivate epistemic humility and whether we'd be better off if most of us were able to resist dropping anchor on things we don't need to have an opinion on. Perhaps it'd just be a different hellscape.