The article seems to map how the differences effect the overlapping issues in peoples existing ontologies. We're all aware that abortion exists and generally ha

The article seems to map how the differences effect the overlapping issues in peoples existing ontologies. We're all aware that abortion exists and generally have an opinion about whether it is an individual and social good, which would fall into this ontology mapping. We are not all aware of discrimination, since it's noticed mainly by the people who experience it - which would be a gap between ontologies that has more to do with polarization than how people view the same object. Polarization itself is the resistance to understanding. It isn't a rational phenomenon. We could use quantitative polarization models as post-hoc explanatory metaphors, but as a model with predictive power, I think literary narrative depictions will still provide more foresight. There is very little new under the sun. The question from me would be, what might these models credibly predict that reasoning through with tools from psychology, history, economics, or even game theories could not provide in a more reliable and accurate way?