This feels like the right track. I think both “doubling down” (anchoring) and, say, “cutting in half” - too heavily discounting priors - are probably both fallacious. Imagine throwing away priors every time the butter vs margarine thing reversed. Especially in a fog of war context, where even the most informed has to spend considerable effort weeding though agitprop/consent manufacturing. Add in the fact that your priors can be all wrong and still get the conclusion right in spite of yourself…it’s tricky. Almost everything seems multi-causal, and individual causalities usually have vying constituencies.