Krugman sort of touched on this while talking about Warren's policy proposals vs Paul Ryan's
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/opinion/elizabeth-warren.html
"In that case, however, why haven’t other presidential contenders been rolling out comparable plans? The answer, I’d suggest, is that Warren — herself a significant policy scholar — understood from the beginning something that other candidates are only beginning to grasp: The difference between being serious and being Serious.
What I mean by being Serious is buying into inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom — the kind of conventional wisdom that in 2011, with unemployment still catastrophically high and interest rates at historic lows, created an elite consensus that we should stop worrying about jobs and focus on … entitlement reform. What I mean by being serious is paying attention to actual evidence on the effects of economic and social programs.
What Warren gets is that serious analysis is a lot more favorable to a progressive agenda than Serious conventional wisdom, which is obsessed with
keeping taxes low and restraining spending. Leading experts on the economics of taxation favor substantial increases in tax rates on
high incomes and
wealth. Top economists studying social spending argue that there are
huge benefits to higher spending on early child care.
As a result, Warren has been able to lay out plans that are very progressive but also well grounded in evidence and analysis."
@nostradumbass hears about Clinton smashing an iPhone and has visceral reaction to it. His mailman and garbageman would never smash their iPhone so it must be bad
You inform him that it was State Department policy to do that but he can't process the information. It goes against is visceral reaction and "conventional wisdom"
If you converse with him enough it's apparent he just can't process information. He knows what he knows and that's it. And his knowledge and opinion has equal weight to everyone else.
It's just pure emotion
