I'm reading an article today in the NYT by Katherine Mangu-Ward, and she writes this:
*a New York University psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, was formulating a theory about why liberals and conservatives have such a hard time productively conversing.
After mucking around in a lot of survey data, he came up with this basic idea: Liberals and people of the left underpin their politics with moral concerns about harm and fairness; they are driven by the imperative to help the vulnerable and see justice done. Conservatives and people of the right value these things as well but have several additional moral touchstones — loyalty, respect and sanctity. They value in-group solidarity, deference to authority, and the protection of purity in mind and body. To liberals, those sincerely held values can look a lot like, in Dr. Haidt’s words, “xenophobia, authoritarianism and Puritanism.” This asymmetry is the fountainhead of mutual incomprehension and disdain.*
It reminded me of your post.
very much so!!!
these depictions of the underlining or inner-workings of the thoughts and how they originate drastically differ b/w the two ends of the spectrum's... we obviously see these differences with the decision's they make, which usually hardly ever (if ever) coincide with one another.
Interesting, gonna read into this a little further... thanks for sharing this with me
Regards
@conradsuperb