Liberal psychologist says that conservatives are more in touch with human reality and human needs than liberals

Liberal psychologists (and are there any other kind?) have a virtual industry which is always busy at work pumping out the latest scientific finding that conservatives are less intelligent, less creative, less psychologically balanced, less adaptable, more fearful, more rigid, more prejudiced, more ignorant, and—let’s face it—less human than liberals. The clear message of this continuing flow of articles and books is that the human race would be a lot better off if conservatives didn’t exist. So what follows is a sort of man-bites-dog story.

Julian C. writes from New Zealand:

I found this interview with psychologist Jonathon Haidt about his forthcoming book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” It’s an attempt to document the cultural divide in America, connecting it to the differences in moral psychology between people on the right and left.

Haidt says:

“When I began this work, I was very much a liberal. And over time, in doing the research for my book and in reading a lot of conservative writing, I’ve come to believe that conservative intellectuals actually are more in touch with human nature. They have a more accurate view of human nature.

“We need structure. We need families. We need groups. It’s okay to have memberships and rivalries. All that stuff is okay, unless it crosses the threshold into Manichaeism. So I think that it would be very difficult to run a good society without resting much on loyalty, authority and sanctity. I think you need to use those..

“Liberals see some aspects of where the social system breaks down. And conservatives see others. You have to have consequences following bad behavior. That is as basic an aspect of system design as any. And that’s one where conservatives see it much more clearly than liberals … “

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 28, 2012 01:40 PM | Send