I think in practice the crux of most disagreement is failure to understand something about how the other person thinks, with various practical or psychological difficulties enabling this failure. Game theory mostly enters this picture when it wants to further disrupt something on that path to understanding. Sufficiently persistent disagreements can involve tying yourself into philosophical knots, so that your thinking becomes infeasible to understand for (in particular) those who disagree, probably also for yourself.
Ideologies develop extensive lore held together by obscure patterns, which gets infeasible for even non-professional insiders to follow in detail. Some questions are just difficult, and the only existing reasonable hypotheses are very complicated. In both of these cases, there emerges a stratum of professionals who can follow the arguments, with outside interactions on the topic becoming impractical.
Disagreement feeds on preference for nuance, on cultural accumulation. Legibility breaks the cycle (even for very complicated ideas), where it can be found. Sometimes legibility only grows on the soil of cultural accumulation, cultivated with nuance. Quite often, it can be found directly, if nuance is cut away.
I think in practice the crux of most disagreement is failure to understand something about how the other person thinks, with various practical or psychological difficulties enabling this failure. Game theory mostly enters this picture when it wants to further disrupt something on that path to understanding. Sufficiently persistent disagreements can involve tying yourself into philosophical knots, so that your thinking becomes infeasible to understand for (in particular) those who disagree, probably also for yourself.
Ideologies develop extensive lore held together by obscure patterns, which gets infeasible for even non-professional insiders to follow in detail. Some questions are just difficult, and the only existing reasonable hypotheses are very complicated. In both of these cases, there emerges a stratum of professionals who can follow the arguments, with outside interactions on the topic becoming impractical.
Disagreement feeds on preference for nuance, on cultural accumulation. Legibility breaks the cycle (even for very complicated ideas), where it can be found. Sometimes legibility only grows on the soil of cultural accumulation, cultivated with nuance. Quite often, it can be found directly, if nuance is cut away.