Family gatherings and social-media debates often end the same way—in arguments about society, money, or tradition. In those moments it feels as if the other person simply cannot think logically. Science suggests otherwise. Facts and arguments alone do not help, because our worldview grows out of evolutionary psychology and personality traits .
The psychological foundation: different fears
New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt showed that people’s views are shaped by different moral foundations. According to his Moral Foundations Theory, our brains respond unevenly to threats facing society:
- For people with progressive and liberal thinking, the most important foundations are care and fairness. Their psychology reacts especially strongly to injustice and the oppression of weaker groups. Their core fear is inequality and the restriction of freedoms.
- For people with conservative thinking, care also matters, but they additionally feel a strong need to protect authority, tradition, and loyalty to their group (nation, family). Their core fear is chaos and the collapse of proven norms.
The conclusion is objective: neither outlook is psychologically “wrong,” because both function as different survival mechanisms. Some seek to preserve society through rapid change and openness; others through stability and order.
Why “left” and “right” are outdated terms
Because of these psychological differences, the traditional split into “left” and “right” no longer works. A single line cannot describe someone who, for example, wants large state pensions (left) but firmly supports the traditional family and religion (right).
Modern sociology uses a two-axis system:
- The economic axis (how do we share resources?): from state control to a fully free market.
- The social-freedoms axis (how different may people be?): from strict traditions to maximum personal freedom.
Combining these two axes reveals a fuller picture of society—nine distinct worldview archetypes.
Political values compass map
Horizontal axis: economic left (role of the state) on the left, economic right (free market) on the right. Vertical axis: individual liberties at the top, traditions and order at the bottom.
Individual liberties (Progressive)
Traditions and order (Conservative)
Tap any square to learn more.
Source: tester.lt
How to talk with someone who sees the world differently
In his book The Righteous Mind, J. Haidt uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider. The rider is our rational mind; the elephant is intuitive emotion and values—and emotional intelligence helps us recognise both. In discussions we often address the rider (facts, logic), but if we fail to convince the “elephant” (the person’s moral foundations), the conversation is doomed.
Drawing on recommendations from psychologists and conflict-resolution experts, here are three of the most effective ways to avoid pointless arguments:
- Speak in your opponent’s values language (moral reframing). Instead of trying to persuade someone using your values, try linking the argument to theirs. If you talk with a conservative about environmental protection, avoid appeals to global equality (the care foundation). Talk about preserving the country’s natural landscapes for future generations (loyalty and tradition). If you talk with a liberal about the free market, emphasise how it creates equal opportunities (the fairness foundation), not how it grows the state’s overall power (the authority foundation).
- Ask to understand, not to reply. People can tell when you are waiting for a pause so you can “strike back.” Before presenting your own argument, ask a sincere open question: “What worries you most about this decision?” That de-escalates conflict and shifts attention from attack to problem analysis.
- Avoid facts and statistics at the start. When someone’s values feel under attack, the brain activates a defence mechanism and our inner “elephant” prepares to fight. Any facts offered in that moment will be rejected. First show that you respect the other person’s perspective and can see their logic. Only after trust is restored do people become open to logical arguments.
