I wonder if a reasonable way to broadly categorize people's thinking is dividing folks into TWO groups?. "Clear thinkers" tend to apply reason, logic, and the experimental method, accept new information as it comes to them, change their mind when evidence demands it, and generally seek out information even when it contradicts their position.
The second group is much larger and in fact more representative of the forces that shaped humans over time, and tends to think "tribally" (Groupthink, conformity, dogma, prejudices,alliances) and "emotionally". I'm starting to call this "artistic" thinking, which is often more interested in the outcome of the analysis than the analysis itself. For artistic thinkers facts are collected with the outcome in mind rather than to support or disprove their working hypothesis. Focus is narrowed to those things that support the story line.
What if we all agreed for a few years to apply a combination of rational analysis, experimental method, and highly optimized government spending using things like risk and reward analysis rather than political and emotional analysis?
We could solve a lot of problems by accepting more risk/danger in areas where we now demand far too much safety or quality standards.