Sure. I mean, that's the whole point of the original article (I think? I don't really get it, but I'm also a fan of sociology and good statistics, so I was neve

Sure. I mean, that's the whole point of the original article (I think? I don't really get it, but I'm also a fan of sociology and good statistics, so I was never going to like this crap). "People think that people who aren't like them aren't like them in more ways than they actually are!" is...something? Probably not "bad" exactly, but not good either? And I still don't get how this is a "broad brush"? People don't want to go on vacations to challenge their ideals. They're usually going somewhere to relax or visit something they find interesting. No offense to the state of Mississippi, but it's not known for being a tourist destination. I'm not generally a fan of cancel culture, and the abortion legislation their government passed moved the needle from "0% chance I'll ever visit" to "0% chance I'll ever visit" but I don't think someone is "misinterpreting" something when they decide not to visit somewhere they likely had no intention of visiting before new information was provided to them that opposed their worldview. TL;dr- This anecdote doesn't help demonstrate anything meaningful to me. In this way, it is very much like the article. Language is very nuanced and often because we don't have infinite time we take linguistic shortcuts that can eliminate some clarity to our meaning/intention. That's all this really seems like.