I’ve never met anyone who takes the attitude of “my lack of
understanding clearly indicates I’m right”.
I’ve seen plenty of failures to understand something blamed on the
other party being crazy or stupid, but that’s something else, and just
indicates the person doesn’t really care about understanding it - just
dismissing it.
I don't think the author intended for the person saying that to be perceived as genuinely arguing in that way. I read it as whatever he actually would have said realistically being overwritten by the objective psychology of the person.
Google "greivence studies" + hoax. The hoax is predicated on not believing in* what they can get published. The authors also have a history of arguing against the strawman they create. Very popular amoung even non-rationalists (but adjacent in attitude).
It’s so spot-on it hurts.
I’ve never met anyone who takes the attitude of “my lack of understanding clearly indicates I’m right”.
I’ve seen plenty of failures to understand something blamed on the other party being crazy or stupid, but that’s something else, and just indicates the person doesn’t really care about understanding it - just dismissing it.