Hello, OldGuy,
I would like di dispute the premise of Professor Haidt's proposition. Just because he finds analogies among values (which are, by the way, poorly defined in that piece) in different cultures, it represents no evidence that they are "hard wired".
Briefly, I would like to point out:
1. Each human is, by definition, a unique individual, with no identical predecessor and no identical successor.
2. The Life process itself is characterized by these fundamental drives: survival, procreation and adaptation.
3. Evolution is a big gambling scheme. Mutations are random, but only successful adaptors survive in the big competition for existence.
4. "Conservative" and "liberal" are very loosely defined descriptions of vague and frequently logically inconsistent opposing (for practical political gains) ideologies.
5. There are two fundamental concepts that are missing most of the time in these discussions:
a. Parenting, teaching and managing are the three "incestuously" interrelated activities aiming at making individual humans better. The quality of all three is trending lower in out times.
b. There are huge differences among individual humans in their cognitive capabilities. Nobody dares even mentioning this, and the two "ideologies" I mentioned above completely ignore this.
6. Levels and quality of education and concrete abilities of individuals have enormous economical consequences.
If we can agree on a set of basic definitions, then, if we also "behave", we might have a productive discussion on the plans for the future.
Wish us all good luck and a happier, more rational future.
All the best.
Sincerely,
Maritimus

I think he understood that it came down to more than just life or death.

See...there is that mentality that they are superior when in fact, they are just the opposite. Talk about a fantasy world.

Brilliant response. +1 million if I could.

Makes me think I should have included Shakespeare as one of those top ten philosophers on the other thread.

+1

It seems that in order to be a modern liberal one must, to their core, disavow the dignity of others. I was joking that I was surprised the Brits even got to vote on the Brexit. Then, a very liberal office mate of mine said, "Some things people shouldn't be allowed to vote on" in reference to Brexit and his disappointment in it. I laughed really hard. He thought I agreed with him. No.

Agree...

True...it's as if there is a blockage between the brain and the mind and just like what happened to a good percentage of bicameral men, devastating events and oppression broke down that blockage.

Funny...that' just what Jaynes was describing.

It's all about Thinking vs. Feeling in the Myers-Briggs paradigm. Unfortunately, I'll have to post more later when I have time, but I've studied this for more than two decades. Part of my studies included one of libertarians running as Libertarians; 90% were thinkers (logic first, people's values second in terms of how one makes decisions). More later if there's an interest in this and time-permitting.

Well said...

Now we understand a bit better I think, Dino...

I enjoyed Haidt's book. I found it funny to see how he then applies his theory at the end to exempt his own views from the theory. Making the false assumption that libertarians are less caring because they do not advocate using the state to help the poor. Dumb. Otherwise, a very inciteful book.

Even thought it's rudimentary it give us an idea at least of why there is such a divide.
Now, take that divide and multiply it 100 times and you get islam, especially the radicals.

Excellent.

To be or not to be...that has always been the question...they have chosen not to be. I think, at least for some, (the most vial), it is genetic and their hubris leads them to make everyone in their image instead of the image the laws of nature and creation make possible.
If it wasn't for this basic information built into us...we never would of survived this long.

Yes.
Liberal means: seeing the world as they WISH it was.
Conservative means: seeing the world as it ACTUALLY IS.
Liberal means: believing top-down, govt control FIXES all life's ills, which REMOVES INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.
Conservative means: smaller, less intrusive govt allows individuals to rise as high as their talents, desires and effort will take them.
Liberal means: guaranteed equal outcomes (irrespective of effort or ability)
Conservative means: guaranteed equal opportunity.

Haidt's analysis profoundly affected my understanding of conservatives and liberals and I recommend it very strongly.
Of particular interest to this group should be Haidt's additional thoughts relating a a sixth base of morality, that of liberty/oppression. He says, "The desire for equality seems to be more closely related to the psychology of liberty and oppression than to the psychology of reciprocity and exchange.... [So] we added a provisional sixh foundation-- liberty/oppression. We also decided to revised our thinking about fairness to place more emphasis on proportionality."
There are two aspects of fairness, "On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality - people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes."

I read Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" in hopes of finding out how to bridge the divide. I was disappointed to find his conclusion is that the gap between "true believers" is unbridgeable.

What I did find fascinating was his disclosure that he had an acknowledged bias, as a liberal, but was shocked to find his research showed conservatives had a much more realistic view of the world. The most balanced moral view belonged to the social conservatives.

His conclusion? Liberals tend more to the fanatic, with unflinching, absolutist positions, and only a personal, devastating event can change their minds (as has been said, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged). Conservatives waste a lot of time trying to reason with liberals.

I will paraphrase a quote from Ayn:
"Good people subdue the earth. Evil people subdue other people."
I have lived such a life as to have found this to be true.

Conservatives often confuse freedom of individuation with "liberal anarchy" which is nonsense.
Liberals often view social order as "force" ...which is nonsense.

Morality is reality...and reality is the final arbiter.

Only Kool-Aid drinking libtard voters would think that an obvious bought and paid for Clinton Crime Foundation crook with zero secretary of state accomplishments and a long list of "gates" and put down "bimbo eruptions" is someone fit to progress their socialist agenda.
Honest Bolshevik Bernie woulda been better. Only for libtards, that is.

That was very enlightening, OUCarl!

One of the key ways of separating liberals from conservatives is the concept of a zero-sum game. Liberals generally believe there is only a certain amount of wealth and if you have more than someone else, you took it from them. This is why Obama said "spread THE wealth around".

Conservatives generally consider the amount of wealth completely controllable by how much effort people put into making it and the barriers in their way to doing so. They don't spend much time worrying about how much someone has figuring that if you bake enough bread, everyone will get some.

I find this even carries into scientists vs engineers where scientists try to determine the rules of a real universe -- and there are only so many rules, and engineers build things without limit.

Great article. Thanks for posting!

I think that what positively identifies Liberals from Conservatives stems from the nature of the five categories themselves. Liberals will take the stance which minimizes the three identified by Haidt as lacking in their worldview because they view themselves as the originators of those notions. They view themselves as the ultimate authorities, they ascribe to might makes right philosophies (eschewing loyalty to people or principle), and they view themselves as temporary and therefore willing to discard the body. Conservatives take the approach that they are not the ultimate authority nor are they temporary and that alliance to lasting principles is important.

So the real question in my mind is this: what leads a person to reject the other three ideas?

When someone's motives, morals, and attitudes are the diametric opposite of your own, how can you possibly discuss anything with them? Rand said the same.