Hi Πετροκότσυφας and Sime, thanks for your comments, and for the references.
Sime, you are right that the "mutually exclusive causes" can generate polarization. Interestingly, this need not be irrational. The project I am working on is precisely about that (here is the paper).

https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/dubra_-_attitiudepolmarch15.pdf

Sime, why do you say it "is" a fallacy-fallacy? From wiki (sorry, I don't know the right references) a fallacy-fallacy is

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.

I don't quite see the connection.

Hi to all. Thanks for your comments and replies.
T Clark: regardless of your views about empirical realities, I think philosophers set the right standard for asking questions, so comments are of course useful.
You are right that it seems like "begging the question", but my argument (I don't know if it matters) has two parts (there is a hard working person and a lazy person). In particular, in both of my examples there is something that needs to be explained (differential reaction to a common factor: rising wages in one case, common information in the other) even for two people. Then, the real question is why populations of males act one way and of females a different way (or why those with high initial beliefs increase them, while those with low beliefs decrease them).
McDoodle: female labor force participation is indeed it is a complex question. As you said, I was just trying to summarize and simplify to present the argument in as clean a way as possible.
I will check the Tversky chapter you mention.
Thanks again, and if anything else comes to mind, I'll be grateful.