Why is our willingness to entertain an idea dependent on our pollarity to the idea and moral certitude?

The example used to explain this question is an example of a Hypothetical Situation, this question is not however about Hypothetical Situations.





While looking back over my questions I have noticed something odd. When I have asked hypothetical questions involving somewhat controversial subjects I have noticed that there is always at least one person who will argue tooth and nail that the question is wrong, the situation could never happen, that people do not act like that, ad infinitum.





Now a standard Hypothetical questions format is 'IF you are HERE and you have choice 1 OR 2 AND NOT 3,4 OR 5 WHAT would YOU do?'. This asks that person to imagine that something is happening as detailed and asks for a reaction based on this. However as the person becomes more and more opposed (polarity in opposition) to the idea they are less and less inclined to engage in hypothetical reasoning. It has also become clear that as people become more and more sure of their own moral certitude and ideological rightness they become less able or willing to conceive of opposing or differing ideas.





So why is it that as people become more sure of their own position (their moral certitude and polarity for or against a specific position) and they become less able to entertain other ideas, conflicting or not?





Please explain your position.





Thanks.

Why is our willingness to entertain an idea dependent on our pollarity to the idea and moral certitude?
The Law of Attraction.