I suppose it at least narrows the points of disagreement? So that, e.g., economists will agree on a _lot_ of stuff, even though their points of contention are

I suppose it at least narrows the points of disagreement? So that, e.g., economists will agree on a _lot_ of stuff, even though their points of contention are so magnified that it appears they agree on nothing? The HN example is interesting. The one topic that comes up consistently on HN that I feel like I have expert-level knowledge of (bitcoin) reveals mostly tribalism / religion couched as rational discussion. It was the most visceral illustration for me of that construct (can't remember the term) about how you read about some topic in the newspaper where you have expertise and say to yourself: this is such crap, they've missed all the nuance. And then you go on to other parts of the newspaper and believe it un-critically.