“Your point of view is baffling to me, how could you believe that?”
What I believe happens is that a series of differing interpretations compound and eventually lead to radically different conclusions.
For example:
If we take three events and pull a conclusion from it. So one person sees A + B + C and concludes D. Whether as another person might interpret the same events as A (2 degrees off) + B (now 4 degrees off) + C (now 8 degrees off) and conclude D (16 degrees off). They have both seen the same events but have drawn very different conclusions.
So I think in order to understand someone with a vastly different opinion, you have to trace their steps.
That way it becomes a lot more logical.
You can figure out that they saw A very differently to you so when they saw B they started to form a theory and continued to find evidence to support that theory (C).
That’s my two cents on it anyway.
Thomas Duggan 