Despite being the most cognitively advanced animal, adult humans remain remarkably prone to defending absurd and false assertions. For instance, many adults can drive cars, calculate an appropriate tip at a restaurant, and execute cognitively complex tasks, yet still endorse Birtherism, maintain that Iraq had WMDs all along, or contend that Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration was the most widely-attended. Many of these strange commitments are the results of distorted reasoning and are identified in belief polarization literature. Psychologists and philosophers have written extensively about what mental processes/es might play a role in forming these strange commitments. I intend to show that participants' utterances or responses do not always reveal their beliefs. Non-belief attitudes also motivate utterances, and I propose a non-doxastic account of attitude polarization. I suggest that attitude polarization in politics could result from an attitude I call political acceptance, which is distinct from a belief in its functional profile.