So I am a bit puzzled by your post, Sylvester. Do you believe that people shouldn’t be held to support their hypotheses with confirming evidence or are you advocating that we return to burning people at the stake?

I’m open to listening to why some feel a need to build militias and an arsenal of weapons that serve no productive purpose beyond intimidation, engage in conspiracy theories to unhinge the general population, and advocate a return to supremacy of state’s rights even though that issue was settled forever by the Civil War. My impression is that many are being left behind in the dust of an increasingly complex society and they don’t like it that their simplistic, cut and run policies that would have worked poorly even in the 1800s are not being praised as supposed solutions to the complex problems that our modern society faces. Well, a part of solution to our ills is to stop tolerating faith based ignorance.

If those who manage the public voice called off their dogs of racism, anti-Semitic, conspiratorial fear, and hate mongering, it definitely would improve the intellectual, scientific, and political climate. Since we have too many in our society who are aggressive and advocate violence, it is important that their excesses be curbed. This is the first time in my life that I’ve heard people advocating the assassination of our President. Perhaps Dr. Haidt can help. Pretending it is somehow solely the fault of the liberals is absurd and harmful as it rewards those who work only for their private gain and punishes those who patiently work for the good of humanity. We need more balance. Is Dr. Haidt simply looking for funding from some conservative faith based group or what?

The comments from the all-knowing ‘superior’ liberals that responded to this article prove the point.

Andrew, you come off as a snobbish jerk.

If it is, then those with PhDs in the field approach the critics and say, “You’re wrong, and here’s the empirical evidence to show how and why you’re wrong.”

This also means that if you’re a ‘conservative social psychologist’ (for lack of a better term), then either you’re right or wrong. So make some assertions that are falsifiable and let’s discuss them, rather than just pointing fingers.

Conservatives have had this gripe with science in general for quite a while. That is, that they’re somehow underrepresented because they disagree with the science. The problem for them, however, is not being underrepresented. The problem is that they are simply wrong.