I'm currently reading through Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I came across a passage that's very apt for describing the relationship between the ideas of this sub and the mainstream:

This idea that systems may need some stress and agitation [i.e., antifragility] has been missed by those who grasp it in one area and not in another. So we can now also see the domain dependence of our minds, a “domain” being an area or category of activity. Some people can understand an idea in one domain, say, medicine, and fail to recognize it in another, say, socioeconomic life. Or they get it in the classroom, but not in the more complicated texture of the street. Humans somehow fail to recognize situations outside the contexts in which they usually learn about them.

As soon as I read the phrase "domain dependence", the infamous SMV graph immediately sprang to the front of my mind. It entertains me to no end to see the reasons people come up with to deny that sex and sexual attraction are human interactions which may in fact be subject to the same market forces as pork bellies and oil.

Here's an excellent example of a TRP member applying domain independence to lend some credibility to said graph.

This concept of domain dependence also notably applies to the application of the principles of evolution. It's okay to suggest that it is possible to create a breed of dog with specific physical and behavioral attributes through selective mating, but to say the same thing about humans with regard to hot button issues like sex and race is strictly out of the question. Women may have developed a dual mating strategy as a result of selective pressure? That's misogynist.

There are likely more ideas that are victim to domain-dependent thought. If you have any, throw them up in the comments.

EDIT: Alpha Game Plan on antifragility and Game (thanks /u/BreakingTrad)