I don't think you mean that. We are working from a different set of information and observations. If we were working from that same set opinions would collapse in agreement.

The human brain takes information and has a photoshop snap-to-grid like feature. We pair information received with the closest information we've already seen, and generally sketch in ideas about anything missing between those points. It's that missing fill-in-the-blank part that causes comedy sitcom experiences.

You've identified what it feels like when there exists a gap in relevant information. A new information can feel like it doesn't fit world view. This sort of cleavage gets us to the common experience of society experiencing 'two movies playing on the same screen', where some look at information and see a completely different story than others do. Usually because they see that information from different perspectives.

This is the 'why' behind your university recommending teaching best practices of start a class with familiar from the prior class, then build on the new information. This primes which piece of prior information to attach the new information to. And explains a tool that can be applied more broadly in other areas as well.