[edmcnulty101]

ALL people value fairness and harm avoidance. They just define 'what' or 'to what level' is fair or harmful, differently than you.

It shows the bubble one lives in to think otherwise.

It's very telling that you apply more favorable labels to one group and labels associated with negative outcomes to another.

[notacoward]

Perhaps it's not explicit in the context provided, but Haidt was talking about priorities. Most people believe in all things on the list. The question is which way they'll decide when they encounter a conflict between two (or more) of these values. Which one do they preserve, and which do they suspend? It's the literal definition of a moral dilemma, and people have been pondering these questions for thousands of years. The only "bubble" is the one where someone has never encountered this idea before, and jumps from suspension of a value (in the face of a higher moral imperative) to its absolute negation.

[edmcnulty101]

What's the science behind claiming that conservatives prefer authority over fairness or caring for others?

Sounds like unscientific terms used to demonize an large group by choosing favorable characteristics for one group and unfavorable characteristics for another.

Conservatives do it also by characterizing liberals as emotional and irrational and bleeding heart and impractical and incompetent furry avocado toast eaters.

I don't know how accurate these labels are for large groups of tens of millions of people.

Sounds like the kind of thing people want to hear to feel a moral superiority over a group that they differ from, exactly what the article describes.

It's like saying all Arabs have terroristic tendencies.

I would love to see Book sales of that specific book broken down by political region.

[notacoward]

> What's the science behind claiming that conservatives prefer authority over fairness or caring for others?

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/novemb...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-...

That's just a quick sample. I could spam this discussion with links until the cows come home, but I won't. It's pretty well-known stuff really, and it shouldn't even be surprising. Wouldn't it be weird if such differences in priorities didn't exist, or ran contrary to the obvious and deep antipathy between adherents of those two quasi-religions? Maybe some people are uncomfortable with such results placing them in a category inconsistent with their self-image, but that dissonance is best handled via introspection instead of aggression.

[edmcnulty101]

Here's the actual study from the NYU article that you claim makes this 'well established' science.

> Two hundred and twenty-five NYU students participated in a mass-testing session for course credit

>Two hundred and seventy-two participants filled out our survey on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

Here's the study for the scientific American article that you claim makes this 'well established' science:

>Haas put 58 people with diverse political views in a brain scanner

You're clearly being manipulated by the media and don't even have the will power to look at the citations in the pop science article to see if the article is valid?

A liberal supreme Court Justice just said that there's 100,000 children in hospitals from Covid.

This cavalier arrogant ignorance towards science that has taken root in the Democratic party, who are highly susceptible to CNN and Media influence, is scary.

[ajmurmann]

Sorry, I didn't apply the labels. This is taken from the book. The book also claims that everyone values fairness and harm avoidance. The difference is that conservatives have additional things they value.

I don't think this model reflects my personal values in their entirety either, but that's not the point. The point is that there are inherent differences in what different people value and that always will be a source of conflict.