Some First-chair highlighting-fu helps the medicine go down. One must not rush-through his leisurely build-up, I wot (there need not be a Quiz.. or other harassment.)

Towards the end, This link brings in a bevy of stat-folk to try to bring focus to the Problem (of inextirpable? smugness)
ie where most-all are demonstrably inured to a? ... his?... their?? mindset. As here:

Commentators such as Sunstein (2009) have thus predicted the rise of “echo chambers,” in which individuals are largely exposed to conforming opinions. Indeed, in controlled experiments, subjects tend to choose news articles from outlets aligned with their political opinions (Garrett 2009; Iyengar and Hahn 2009; Munson and Resnick 2010). Additionally, search engines, news aggregators, and social networks are increasingly personalizing content through machine-learning models (Agichtein, Brill, and Dumais 2006; Das et al. 2007; Hannak et al. 2013), potentially creating “filter bubbles” (Pariser 2011) in which algorithms inadvertently amplify ideological segregation by automatically recommending content an individual is likely to agree with. Moreover, individuals are more likely to share information that conforms to opinions in their local social neighborhoods (Moscovici and Zavalloni 1969; Myers and Bishop 1970; Spears, Lea, and Lee 1990; Schkade, Sunstein, and Hastie 2007). If realized, such information segregation is a serious concern, as it has long been thought that functioning democracies depend critically on voters who are exposed to and understand a variety of political views (Downs 1957; Baron 1994; Lassen 2005).



Given the manifest Dis-U.S. extant: assuredly that contingent is a rather small minority? for a qed.
(POQ has one massive Editorial Board; guess that's what it takes to herd a mass of Statisticians into one virtual-space.) I hear that there are no old, smug--mushroom hunters or--Statisticians.