Blood keeps you alive, working hard is important, community makes you happier overall.
While being wrong that:
If you're sick it's because your blood is poisoned, you should work as hard as possible no matter what, you should always put community first.
This is an imperfect set of examples. A better set would look like a graph of interconnected beliefs that are hard to disentangle, each node being a statement that is true under certain circumstances but not others.
The idea that there is an absolute truth with no shades in between truth and falsity... that:
1) ignores the graph-theoretical nature of truth
2) is a form of psychological "splitting" (which is described in the article)
3) is basically a fundamentalism
When we decide to label someone's statements as wrong and act against them, we ought [;-)] to be aware of this and take ownership of that stance, not attribute our epistemic decision to absolutes.
Most people are at least partly wrong or mistaken about most things, but there are usually some things they are right about.
There is value to be gained in finding out what another person is right about, even if they are wrong overall or you disagree with them.