Key problems appear to be the degree and extent to which brains (as though pattern-recognition savants) are so willingly bewitched by the structure of an argument as a sufficient reason to believe in its validity. The psychologically reflexive experience of an argument or conceptual constellation tends to reproduce epistemological subjectivity in ways biased towards structure over substance, of information over semantics. Provide a linear teleology by and through which identity most (or more) effectively self-validates and the kernel seed of narrative self-propagation is sown.
Add to this that it is precisely those most consequentially long-term catastrophic narratives and ideological biases that hold the center of this global system, and the true nature of the problem begins to reveal its mischievous intractability. So, engaging with unconstructive dissonance becomes the main game and no time is left over to invest in invoking the deeper, richer and effectively unbounded psychological subjectivity that sustainable, equitable futures depend on.
Good arguments are as easily lost in the fray as are bad arguments prone to percolating to ascendance. I suspect that as soon as this game is misrepresented as conflict, all hope fades.
Daedelus Kite 