I enjoyed Brian Resnick's article (at Vox) "7 Psychological Concepts That Explain the Trump Era of Politics," but I found the title problematic: the psychological concepts, valuable as they may be to understand, explain political reasoning in general, not just in this era. Worse, by labeling this "the Trump Era," Resnick (and/or his editor) makes it seem as though only Trump voters are guilty of the epistemic flaws he itemizes.
What are the seven psychological concepts? According to Resnick, they are:
(1) Motivated reasoning: rooting for a team changes your perception of the world.
(2) People who are the most well-informed about politics are often the most stubborn about it.
(3) Evolution has left us with an "immune system" for uncomfortable thoughts.
(4) The argument that's most convincing to you is not convincing to your ideological opponents.
(5) Many people seem unashamed of their prejudices.
(6) Fear has a powerful influence on political opinion.
(7) Social norms that protect against prejudice can change in the blink of an eye.
These concepts are, by and large, unobjectionable so far as helping to explain partisanship, ideological rigidity, and what we call "epistemic closure"; one can add a caveat or a nuance here and there, but Resnick's overall taxonomy still holds. But while he pays occasional deference to even-handedness, citing examples of both liberals and conservatives falling into these categories, the thrust of his article is clear (and the intended audience at Vox won't mistake it): This—irrational fear, blind prejudice, and stubborn epistemic closure (e.g. living in the Fox News thought bubble)--is why Donald Trump got elected.
The problem is that the concepts apply to, and affect, all of us; if we act as though we (and our like-minded friends) are immune to such tendencies, we merely perpetuate our own tribal loyalties while demonizing our opponents. In other words, it will do us on the Left no good at all to seek out and highlight examples of Trump voters' motivated reasoning, their fears, or their prejudices; we would do better to examine our own—mote, beam, and all that.
The first step in an actual political dialogue cannot be "Let me explain to you how wrong you are, and while I'm at it I'll explain why you're unable to recognize or admit your wrongness." That will get us precisely nowhere. Instead, we should take Resnick's concepts seriously, acknowledge that we're just as guilty of epistemic errors as the next person, and begin the dialogue by saying, "I know we don't agree; maybe you could help me understand why?"
Of course, if they answer, "Because you're a liberal and all liberals are stupid, dishonest, and bent on destroying this country," then all bets, and gloves, are off.