It really depends on the topic, and there are times where trying to find sense in the other side’s position is the road to madness.

If you’re debating the optimal sales tax rate, yes, being unable to comprehend the other side means you’re doing it wrong. If the topic is, say, wiping out people of a particular religion, not so much.

>wiping out people of a particular religion, not so much.

As a nihilist I would disagree.

The kind of people that want to do that have a much different set of morality and ethics.

There is no objective moral framework that you can base claims for or against wiping out a particular religion. You can however use your own, personal, subjective moral framework and most people will probably have something vaguely compatible to it and agree with you that wiping out religions and it's people is bad.

I think the sad fact of politics is that demonizing and misunderstanding the other side is quite deliberate and purposeful, and getting at the truth is the least important of concerns.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. People hold all manner of irrational political beliefs and there is value in recognizing that irrationality.

Do you know the reasons for their beliefs? Can you articulate them? If not then you are conflating your own beliefs with the standard for rationality. You will also be really ineffective at convincing them they are wrong. Not because they aren't smart enough but because you are unable to communicate effectively to them.

What makes you think people understand the reasons for their own beliefs? How do you know the reasons they give you when asked are the correct ones? Why do you believe that challenging those statements respectfully will change their minds?

The actual requirement for persuasion is a believable narrative with a bit of moral weight, and a random selection of standard persuasive tricks that politicians and lawyers have been deploying with outrageous success for millennia.

Generally, being objectively correct is one of the least effective ways to change anyone's mind. You might have some hope in a scientific setting. But in popular debate, facts and rationality are almost completely powerless.

I don't know that challenging them respectfully will change their minds. After all what if they are right?

I do know that not challenging them respectfully is unlikely to persuade anyone least of all yourself.

Yes, but there is also the real possibility that your beliefs are irrational as well. Everyone thinks they're right, and everyone has a train of thought that has led to that belief.

A key test for rationality is prediction.

If you believe that banning sex education in schools will decrease teen pregnancy, and it turns out that teen pregnancy rates actually increase when teens aren't educated, then your belief about sex education isn't rational.

Many - possibly most - public policy decisions are open to this kind of testing.

The fact that formal testing rarely happens, and that it's consistently ignored even when it does, suggests that politics itself is inherently pre-rational.

Arguably it's then irrational to expect it to be rational - but that's a deeper problem that doesn't just apply to politics.

A rational thought may not be a predictive thought.

Before people knew the earth was a globe, it was entirely rational to think everything that goes up goes down again.

And for all testing you can do, ie, throwing an apple up, it'll come down again.

It is entirely rational to conclude from the available evidence that everything falls down when thrown.

But recently we've discovered that things you throw up hard enough may not fall down at all.

Thusly, the rational thought was still rational but wrong.

Predictability is important when you want to evaluate scientific models (ie, assume earth is flat, assume earth is round, assume earth is a mostly round potato all have different predictive quality, though the first ones are easier and sometimes sufficient)

There's almost always a reason for those "irrational" beliefs.

I, like many, was appalled to hear the statistics on the number of people who believe news they didn't agree with was "fake news" regardless of its accuracy.

Then I heard a counter-argument: in short they're applying the rubric "fake news" to biased news, which is a whole 'nother discussion I'd rather not dive into here.

I don't think there are all that many truly irrational beliefs out there, political or otherwise. The world is a massively complex place, and I can't really blame people for letting con men tell them otherwise.

(Ok, who am I kidding: yes I can blame them, but it does no good to assume everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or a victim.)

it's a lot easier to dismiss political ideas that you don't like by labeling them "irrational" than it is to open your mind to the reasons why a person might rationally disagree with you.

And irrationality is an intrinsic aspect of politics, not a problem to be solved. When two or more people agree on a desired end, rationality is relevant—rationality serves as a tool to find the most efficient way to meet the mutually desired end. But when people want mutually exclusive outcomes, application of reason can never satisfy both. In the absence of willingness to compromise their struggle must be founded upon emotional appeal, tribal identity, and power.