I would say there are two central points of the article: one, the general/meta point that there is a cognitive pattern that leads people to incorrect conclusions about their outgroup, and two, that this explains Klein’s response to Rubin in this particular scenario. I would agree that the first point is true in the sense that it’s a plausible hypothesis that we should keep in mind when trying to understand ingroup/outgroup dynamics. I disagree that this is going on in the example you’ve provided—that part doesn’t seem true to me.
My general point is that if you choose a controversial current event as your example, you will reliably polarize the response in a way that wouldn’t happen if you chose almost any other kind of example.
I would say there are two central points of the article: one, the general/meta point that there is a cognitive pattern that leads people to incorrect conclusions about their outgroup, and two, that this explains Klein’s response to Rubin in this particular scenario. I would agree that the first point is true in the sense that it’s a plausible hypothesis that we should keep in mind when trying to understand ingroup/outgroup dynamics. I disagree that this is going on in the example you’ve provided—that part doesn’t seem true to me.
My general point is that if you choose a controversial current event as your example, you will reliably polarize the response in a way that wouldn’t happen if you chose almost any other kind of example.