What if many people are quite challenged by the unfamiliar primarily because they have had so much regularity in their time in public school (or similar settings)? They are not used to spontaneous learning. They are used to being instructed (and then repeating back whatever they are trained to repeat back in order to get social validation from the instructor for their conformity).
Do they listen with an open mind or are they suddenly scared and compulsively looking for justifications to dismiss the unfamiliar? Do they actively resist or attack unfamiliar ideas in order to preserve their comfort with their familiar but unexamined presumptions?
Of course, people who did not attend school can still display close-mindedness and hysterical panics. If their family and culture oppose curiosity as a presumed threat, then they will still flee from controversy or reactively attack unfamiliar ideas to avoid being faced with overwhelming evidence of their naivete.
However, less humble people may also attempt to hide their lack of real competence through arrogant antagonisms. They may be terrified of their blind naivete being revealed as blind naivete.
Are they expecting their teacher to reward them for their loyalty to their programmed blind presumptions? Are they condescending toward people who dare to voice skepticism toward their sacred, unexamined presumptions?
Or, are they relaxed enough to be open to intelligent questions? Do they value intelligent questioning of their own habitual presumptions (or even seek it out and pay for it)?
Who is brave enough to admit that they have been terrified of ideas that challenge familiar presumptions? Who is so terrified of criticism that they pretend they have never been naive and are now free of all conceptual presumptions?
It is one thing to advocate for a particular change of policy. It is quite another thing to hysterically panic in the face of the slightest controversy or any inquiry about the logical foundations of a particular conclusion.