- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,191
- Reaction score
- 64,734
- Points
- 148
FWIW, I do agree with Haidt's argument here. People are quite reluctant to absorb new information or self-assess their own positions. My job used to be to go door-to-door to talk to potential voters, so, I've seen this thousands of times with perfect strangers.
This is the kind of thing where it is very easy to draw the wrong conclusion from how people respond. It may not be a reluctance to absorb new information as it is a reluctance, at that moment, to spend time listening to some stranger spout politics, or to waste time responding to them.
It also may be that after just a few seconds, they know they're hearing an argument they have previously considered and rejected, so it really isn't new information at all.
I just think that differences in moral principles, and how people weigh competing moral values, too often get overlooked. People argue facts when many times, it isn't really facts that are the real issue.