Precisely. E.g. the charity diversification disagreement I ran into here several times (even before I formed an opinion on AI stuff). I said, on several occasions, that the non-diversification result in larger rewards for finding and exploiting deficiencies in charity ranking algorithms employed, I even provided a clear example from my area of expertise of how the targets respond to aiming methods. Nobody has ever even tried to refute this argument, or even state that the effect of such is not strong enough, or something. Every single time someone just posts a reference to some fallacy which is entirely irrelevant to my argument, and asserts that it is the cause of my view, repeatedly (and that typically gets upvotes). One gets more engaging discussion simply asserting that you guys are wrong (no explanation given), than providing a well defined argument, because the argument itself doesn't make a damn difference unless it is structured in the format of 'assert a bias' game (whenever I get upvotes being contrarian, that's usually really shitty arguments following the assert a bias format rather than there is such and such mechanism format)

Well, you might have different priors, leading to different posterior beliefs from the same data; or you might have different values, leading to different decisions or policy prescriptions from the same descriptive beliefs.

(One might expect that a person raised in a large close-knit extended working-class immigrant family might have different values regarding economics than a person raised in a small individualistic nuclear middle-class ethnic-majority family, for instance.)