I have a personal anecdote related to this topic! Not evidence for anything, but may be of interest :)
I didn't know my biological father until recently. My mom met him in the '80s protesting Reagan and Thatcher's market reforms. He lived on a farming commune. They had some stuff in common: they both smoked a lot of weed, read socialist newspapers, were in Paris for '68, at Woodstock, etc. etc.
Fast forward to 2010, and I meet the guy for the first time. Turns out that now he's a top soil biologist (skills honed by growing MJ, I guess) He was there when the first GM experiments were happening. And he protested them, the way he and his friends protested factory farming, pesticide use, monocropping, agribusiness tactics in the developing world, etc. etc. Until, on a trip to the US (he's British), he picked up a copy of the NY Times with a cover story debating abortion. This is sort-of a non issue in Europe by and large, so it caught his attention.
Being a liberal, and a Brit, his reaction was "Crazy Americans. How could anyone not be pro-choice?" And then it hit him:
His rationale for protesting GM was based on the same tribal instinct that lead pro-lifers to reject abortion. It's God's will, no matter what science says, humans have no grounds to be meddling in nature, etc. etc. When he got back to the UK he devoted his lab time to trialling GM crops and their effects on soil depletion and stuff (sorry, this is the worst paraphrasing ever, I'm a film editor not a soil biologist). Nowadays, he's a staunch defender of GM technologies (with some caveats) - we could actually engineer crops that are specifically environmentally-friendly (growing tropical crops in temperate climates, for example, to eliminate air travel; nitrate-adding plants to replenish soil; plants with increased CO2 absorption). He still smokes a lot of weed.
My personal anecdote is very different, but people may find it interesting (like I did yours). My background is electric utilities. My degree is electrical engineering, and I've worked for utilities for about twelve years. I used to get in long arguments on reddit over the electric system. What I found was some people had passionate opinions but little personal understanding to support those opinions. This was true on all sides, including those I agreed with. So now when I look at debates like GMOs, I refrain from jumping to any conclusion. My opinion isn't useful. I don't understand GMOs, and nothing short of a degree in biology will let me understand them. In the meantime, I need to and do look to the science and scientists to summarize it and raise flags if necessary and dispel myths where appropriate.
I'm not sure a person needs a biology degree to be interested, though! IMO interesting stuff can happen when people without technical degrees start messing with new technologies in their basements...now when I look at debates like GMOs, I refrain from jumping to any conclusion.
I will certainly try to emulate this. I have noticed a tendency to kneejerk-react the same way as the rest of my tribe in my media echo-chamber :/
That's true! Having an interest is a good thing as long as people recognize their own limits. When faced with information supporting a counter view, tinkering in the basement or doing some personal research should be encouraged. Your tribal analogy is a great one. That's a better way of summarizing my block of text above: seeing the tribal responses on both sides of a debate I understood well suggested tribal responses are likely occurring in areas I don't understand well.
I guess he is. I have trouble seeing it, I guess due to resentment at him having left me alone to bring up my mother ;D