Yes, though perhaps the word trained makes it sound more deliberate than it is. I think it's more that rational thinking is hard but schools teach people that it's easy: just attend, get a fancy bit of paper and now you're rational! So people get that credential then fall back on fast-mode thinking that's all based on associations and other shortcuts, whilst telling themselves they're in slow mode all the time.

The result is a discourse dominated by irrational reasoning of the form, I felt X when Y said Z, therefore Z is a bad thing and Y is a bad person. The possibility that the listener lacks emotional self control or reasoning just doesn't come up, and nobody will be brave enough to suggest it. Hence the argument that seems to be being made by this paper: if someone hears a statement and infers something from it that wasn't actually said, then the speaker is being ambiguous and they should do better. Presumably by attempting to guess at every possible misread of what they said, including malicious misreads, and painstakingly spell out everything they are not saying (which won't matter, because the fact that they have to deny it will be taken as evidence about what they really think). Whereas maybe we'd be better off if listeners learned to check their assumptions.