I teach sociology, which is super hard to teach, as it questions pretty much everything you think is true in everyday life (much like bitcoin does...), and the hard part is that the new knowledge is in conflict with what "they've always know to be true" (but isn't.)

What people think is deeply intertwined with who they think they are. "refusal to understand" is usually that: it's the realisation, conscious or not, that changing this piece of knowledge would change self-images and social relations.

This is especially true when the "new knowledge" goes against what the media usually present and what aunties usually say, i.e., "dominant social knowledges". To change this stance means to put oneself in conflict with one's social circles (and more).

(This is related to the old insight that it is impossible to make someone understand something if their paycheck is dependent on them not understanding it, which is a way of saying, the people that pay them require them to not uderstand it. the same goes for friends and family when it's their self-image and social connections.)

That "refusal to learn" is thus often a form of fear to fall out, and it's quite justified fear, practically speaking.

What solves it is inclusion in a social circle where this "new knowledge" is respected and honored, and realizing this is a SLOW chain. The slow learning you needed is the slow learning others need as well; they are not computers to be fed data to process immediately, and they have the same social shifts you have.

Also, of course, you need a strategic assessment of who you need to convince and who you don't. One mistake peope always make is thinking "but everyone has to understand this and be on my side!". No, they don't. There are some people who are central to draw on your side. Some people don't have to be convinced, it maks no difference if they agree with you or not, and pure pride shouldn't be a reason; they can safely be ignored, when what they think is not your problem (literally, as in, it makes no problem for you).