The goals set out in the opening post are to reduce certain bad consequences of the conflict:

But the fact is, the conflict arose. It has only bad consequences as far as I could see, such as people fighting over each other, breaking friendships, and prejudice of great intensity on both sides.

Those goals are valid ends in themselves. Especially for those people who are autists or have otherwise weak social skills, communicating their truth in a way that doesn't destroy some of their friendship is very valuable.

we shouldn't attempt to resolve conflicts by agreeing to believe a "compromise position" at the expense of seeking truth.

I don't think anybody argued in this debate that one should agree to believe in a "compromise position".

I understood Eneasz in a way where he argued that proper evolutionary psychologists don't spend enough public effort on debunking incorrect and sexist evolutionary psychology.

As a sidenote, evolutionary psychology predicts that few people have the goal of finding truth. Knowing "the truth" is not very useful for a hunter gatherer. It is more important for the hunter gatherer to have a high social status in his tribe.

Humans might publically profess that finding truth is their motive but they don't act accordingly. Most people care a lot more about getting approval from other people. They care about feeling like they are in a priveliged position where they know more about the way the world works then other people.

There a good Dilbert cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-10-07

If people would really care about being truthful, they would be less confident that their overconfident positions are true. Holding to an overconfident position on the other hand make it easier to feel like you know the truth while other people don't.