I'm on board with 'naïve realism' as a concept, the tendency to attribute rationality to people one agrees with and irrationality and bias to everyone else seem

I'm on board with 'naïve realism' as a concept, the tendency to attribute rationality to people one agrees with and irrationality and bias to everyone else seems natural and obvious. However I'm not sure how they're trying to apply this idea to solve conflict or 'political fractures'. It just sounds like.. marginally less naïve realism? The conclusion shouldn't be that we teach people about naïve realism and then we will solve our problems, I think the correct conclusion is that different people and groups can be entirely rational and also in fundamental opposition. Rationality is instrumental. If two people start with different assumptions or in different places they can both be entirely reasonable and unbiased and also arrive at two very different points. Teaching them to recognize this rather than thinking the other side is delusional is fine, but it doesn't actually resolve any conflict. It's naïve to think you're objectively right and everyone else isn't, but it's equally naïve to think being subjectively in disagreement is somehow less substantial. The "Golden rule" the authors provide in the end seems in fact to straight up contradict their diagnosis: "Proceed from the naïve but charitable assumption that when people respond in ways that are surprising or offensive, it is generally their perceptions, assumptions, and construals, rather than their basic values, that differ from our own" This is not charitable. If naïve realism is the problem then it is precisely our basic values in which we differ, not our perceptions or capacity to reason.