Two people can read the same figures and walk away certain of opposite things. The reason is rarely that one of them can't read. Knowing which of the four is actually happening matters, because only one of them is worth arguing about.
Crossbencher · 18 July 2026
The most common explanation for disagreement is also the most useless. The other side is thick, or lying, or captured. It asks nothing more of the person saying it, which is most of its appeal. And it's sometimes true. People do reason badly. Institutions do shape what their members can say. Deny either and you have a worse picture of public life, not a better one.
But if that were the whole story, disagreement wouldn't look the way it does. The sharpest fights are rarely between the informed and the ignorant. They are between people who have read the same things and reached opposite conclusions. Two economists. Two historians. Two neighbours who both follow the news closely. Ignorance breeds confusion, not conviction. The confident, opposite certainty behind our worst arguments needs a better account than "they just don't get it".
Members only
Every writer, every column
The last 30 days of the argument are free for everyone, always. The archive beyond that is a Member thing - it is part of what keeps the whole record free.
One email a day: today’s quiz, the Bench question, the argument and what broke - every figure with its source. Free, and it saves your streak. Stop it any time from one link at the bottom of it.