One of the key obstacles to learning is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is associated with an initial inflated feeling of competence associated with acquiring new knowledge domains. This inflated self-evaluation of competence can trap people in incompetence.
Mount Stupid
People are quick to criticize the opinions and beliefs of others. Often they see little value in even the most well-argued opinions of others and they maintain an unjustified sense of self-worth based on them critiquing others.
This is based in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Named after two psychologists who wrote a paper with the name "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognising One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments’. Criticizing others is easiest if you have learned only a bit about a topic, skill, or field of knowledge, while you interpret your new knowledge in your existing — not updated, adapted, expanded — understanding of the world. In this underdeveloped understanding of the world, true domain competence sounds nonsensical.
Understanding takes time and effort, learning a few facts comes quick and easy. This entails that there is a moment, quite early in learning a new competence, in which you are oblivious its intricacies and complexities and you are therefore unable to judge when you make sense or no sense at all. This is appropriately called "Mount Stupid" and it is a place were you can get trapped quasi-comfortably.
At mount stupid you have the feeling "you know enough". And its unfortunate effect is that is this discourages further learning. Why would you make the effort, if you know all you need to know? Unconsciously another process works: additional knowledge might conflict with your existing worldview and maintaining an adequate and reliable worldview is another priority that easily discourages you from further learning.
Many (most?) people spend more time at mount stupid than they would like (and are able) to admit. And universities, corporations, and governments are full of specialists who unwittingly have gotten stuck at Mount Stupid on a wide range of topics where they did not acquire true competences and where they, time after time, make the same rookie mistakes. When their domain-competent subordinates try to prevent these mistakes, the "I know all there is to know feeling" of their superiors only inflates their confidence further: "Why do my subordinates make these unnecessary and meaningless objections? It proves again why I am the superior and they are not." typically, they use their critical abilities only to criticize others and never to improve their own thoughts. Hence, their understanding of themselves and the world hardly develops and neither do their life-strategies.
It is not easy to honestly and critically examine one’s own opinions, beliefs, and practices. Acceptance of valid criticism on your own beliefs feels initially as loss and leads to a sense of insecurity due to a perceived loss of (inflated) confidence. This is the realization that one’s understanding of the world (at least this topic) is insufficient and one has more to learn. This may be followed by the full realization of the inadequacy of one’s understanding and a corresponding sense of despair. Fortunately this despair is a clear sign of learning. A bit later one has constructed a basis on which true domain competence can grow. Truly competent individuals know they are competent, but are fully aware there is much still to learn.
Unfortunately, the more the criticism pertains to the core of one’s worldview, the stronger the defensive feelings and the more difficult it is to leave Mount Stupid. In this case the defensive feelings ensure we avoid criticizing our own opinions, beliefs, and practices and motivate us to defend them even — or especially — in the absence of objective support. Ideologies, (fundamentalist) religion, and even some specialist fields of science specialism derive their stability in part from their lack of objective support. Practitioners identifying with the ideology/religion/specialism cannot seriously entertain criticism that seriously undermines both their worldview and sense of competence without the activation of very strong defensive or even aggressive feelings. Conflicts have arisen and wars have been fought to defend worldviews and a sense of personal competence,
But what is being defended? Often a worldview that was weak or even wrong in the first place and that therefore better can be improved or replaced to prevent harmful or at least less optimal future outcomes than we are capable of. The School of Thought targets people who understand this.