Or something like that. Justin Fox writes,

We all like to think we can evaluate information and arguments rationally, regardless of where they come from. But we don’t. As Yale Law School’s Dan Kahan, who has studied this stuff a lot, puts it:

People feel that it is safe to consider evidence with an open mind when they know that a knowledgeable member of their cultural community accepts it.

When the information seems to be coming from or favoring the other side, all bets are off.

Read the whole thing. Pointer from the indispensable Mark Thoma. I think this ties in well with my essay on Haidt and moral reasoning.