It's a common problem. It almost seems as though reasoning is a lost art. The same with persuasion and civil discourse.
I took a course in logic. Probably the most valuable thing I learned were the informal fallacies. They are informal only because they do not pertain to formal, i.e. symbolic, logic. They include the ad hominem attack, the genetic fallacy, and the argument from authority. I hear these often.
Climate change, and before it global warming, is sold primarily through the argument from authority - a known fallacy.
I have to admit to a reasoning problem myself. Trained as an economist, I see benefits to free trade. So I was supportive of NAFTA, because it is called a free trade agreement. In fact it is not a free trade agreement; it is more of a managed or controlled trade agreement. I was fooled by words used, at best mistakenly, at worst dishonestly. I now think of NAFTA as Not A Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). With that revised foundation, I can reason better on the subject.
> I have to admit to a reasoning problem myself. Trained as an economist, ...
Ouch. That’s got to make reasoning super difficult.