[cwkoss]

Yeah, I would estimate <1% of people try to deeply understand the nuances of any issue.

It would be great if we had a reliable way to identify that 1% and sort articles/comment/reach by this metric, but it's a hard problem.

For as many people that deeply understand a topic, there are many more that are parroting or making up rationalization for the beliefs they think they are expected to have. These sorts of arguments aren't really arguments, they are just a self-soothing method of tribal identification.

I think there is a pitfall with trying to "understand the other side" because there are an infinite number of possible opinions and not all have merit. It is useful to a point, but when taken to the extreme you just waste a bunch of time reading garbage.