[ds9]

"The best insight here is that self-worth and fear of shaming are the main motivators for not agreeing."

This is often true, but it is not always true. One person forms opinions on topic X based on reason and evidence, another based on ideology. It is only the latter who feels threatened by new facts or arguments, precisely because his rational foundation is shaky.

Thus there seems to be a fallacy - I'm not clear whether it is from the linked writer or the researchers he refers to - of assuming in the first place that the opinions being talked about are necessarily based on emotion more than on reason and facts.

Put another way, it's rather presumptuous to say, in essence, this new argument of mine is so strong that if others reject it, it must be due to their irrational ideology rather than the merits.

Edit: I don't mean to disparage the idea of making one's statements more diplomatically rather than contentiously - that is certainly a good thing, but that is a separate issue from presuming the reasons for people's views prior to finding out the actual reasons.