I’d love to hear posts (on this blog or others) describing disagreement case studies.  That is, tell us about a specific disagreement (on a matter of fact not value) that you have with specific other reasonably respectable people, and tell us how you reconcile that disagreement with the irrationality of forseeing to disagree. 

You know their opinion, and they know your opinion, and yet you hold differing opinions.   You realize that both your opinion and theirs may result in part from defects, such as thinking errors or not knowing something that the other knows.  So:

• Do you conclude just from the fact that they disagree that they must have more defects?

• Do you think they realize that they can have defects, such as thinking errors or knowing less?

• Should the fact that you disagree be a clue to them about their defects?   Is it a clue about yours? 

• Do they adjust their estimates enough for the possibility of their defects?  If not, why not?

• What clues suggest to you that they have more defects, or under-adjust for them?

• What clues suggest to them that you have more defects, or under-adjust?

• Do you both have access to these clues, and if so do you interpret them differently? 

• Do you each realize some clues might be hidden?   

• Does your inability to answer any of these questions suggest you have defects?

• Consider all these questions again for your meta-disagreement about who has more defects.

Some people’s answers come down to "I just know I’m smarter; I have no reasons." I am writing a book on disagreement and want to include case studies like yours in my book.

Added:  If many are involved in your disagreement, consider these questions  about other people on all sides. If your case is interesting, I’m willing to interview you by phone to walk you through this line of questioning.