If you refer back to some of Jonathan Haidt's work on his Moral Foundations Theory, one of the results he found was that the more liberal/left someone was the worse they were at inferring motivation/reasoning about the opinions of centrists and conservatives. Basically, leftists score the worst on a "political Turing test" to properly model/emulate what other

His in theory explanation for this was that leftists/liberals only really operate on 2/5 moral foundations (fairness and caring) while basically having no concept of the other 3/5 (loyalty, authority, sanctity). Conservatives and moderates, having non-negligible amounts of all 5, run the gamut and so actually CAN 'emulate' the thinking patterns of liberals to a much better extent than liberals can conservatives or moderates because they're just...blind to even the concept of valuing things beyond fairness and caring.

Whether that's the primary cause, a manifestation of underlying causes, or just one of many causes (can't count out things like moral hubris or simply being generally lower conscientiousness [probably also less systemitizing...] and therefore not caring about the solidity of your arguments) it is definitely the case that leftists...can't properly model people who disagree with them.

For some of them it might be a deliberate strategy but it's just...far too widespread and consistent across contexts for that to be it. It really does seem that leftists are just mentally deficient in terms of modeling what other people think, and reality more generally [inb4 muh leftists scientists: never underestimate the powers of compartmentalization].

Which, if they can't properly model (and therefore have good faith arguments/discussions that can reach compromise) with those they disagree with...that leads to some troubling conclusions w/r/t how differences can actually be resolved...

Gonna be a fun few years...