<p>While dialogue across difference appears to attenuate surging affective polarization, we seem caught in a vicious cycle: partisan sorting and the perceived cost of dialogue with those we now dislike has elevated resistance to cross-cutting political discussions. I theorize this situation may be less dire if such hesitancy is based on misperceptions of the out-party. I find rampant overestimation of discursive intransigence and that experimental correction of these overestimates shrinks the partisan gap in affective evaluations and discussion comfort. However, while corrections reduce the gap between preferences for concordant and discordant discussion, they do so by making concordant discussions less enticing while leaving discordant discussion preference unchanged. These results highlight the tension between participatory and deliberative democracy wherein a greater understanding of the other side causes disengagement. Further, they suggest in-partisan affinity — more than out-partisan disdain — is partly based on exaggerated beliefs about out-partisan anti-deliberative attitudes.</p>