…the end, you find those reasons unconvincing). Dr. Haidt has done reasonable job (as a liberal) of trying to understand the conservative mind. I also recommend Arnold Kling, an economist who wrote The Three Languages of Politics, and Thomas Sowell, who wrote A Conflict of Visions. I should also add that there is an increased intensity with some of the rhetoric, but I think that has more to do with people (on both sides) sensing…
Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics" has a good answer to a piece of this puzzle. In short, the major political 'camps' think about events with a different dimension. Conservatives think in the 'civilization vs barbarism' axis. Progressives…
Even the language that the different parties use is targeted at certain sets of values; Arnold Kling wrote this short book on the subject ("The Three Languages of Politics"): https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdotorg/books/ThreeLanguag... "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt is another, more nuanced (and complicated), but extremely interesting take on the subject of…
…than give to it. Maybe you should spend some time away from the news media and consider how we're all being bamboozled by the both parties, "right" and "left". Consider reading freely available "The Three Languages of politics" (summary here: https://quillette.com/2018/08/08/the-three-languages-of-poli... and enlighten yourself as to why the conservatives and progressives can never agree - because they're not talking about…
…political space for it to exist doesn’t exist. There is a refusal to admit the problem on one hand. And a vilification of the incumbents as idiots, or worse, in bed with the criminals, on the other. In "The Three Languages of Politics" Arnold Kling classifies three basic perspectives that can become central in a person's mind in such a way that expressions of the other perspectives are incomprehensible. The perspectives are described…
There is a framework I recognize as similar put forward by Arnold Kling that I think of often, the Three Languages of Politics, that suggests part of what makes political discourse so often fruitless is that the primary value axes differ for three major political interest groups: Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism Libertarians:…
……到头来你发现那些理由根本站不住脚）。海特博士（作为一名自由派）在尝试理解保守派心智方面做得相当不错。我还推荐经济学家阿诺德·克林的《政治的三种语言》，以及托马斯·索维尔的《观念的冲突》。我还要补充一点，某些言论的火药味确实越来越浓了，但我认为这更多是因为（两边的）人们都隐约感觉到……
…the end, you find those reasons unconvincing). Dr. Haidt has done reasonable job (as a liberal) of trying to understand the conservative mind. I also recommend Arnold Kling, an economist who wrote The Three Languages of Politics, and Thomas Sowell, who wrote A Conflict of Visions. I should also add that there is an increased intensity with some of the rhetoric, but I think that has more to do with people (on both sides) sensing…
阿诺德·克林的《政治的三种语言》为这块谜团提供了一个很好的解答。简而言之，几大主要政治“阵营”在思考事件时所处的维度是不同的。保守派习惯以“文明对决野蛮”为轴心来思考，而进步派……
Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics" has a good answer to a piece of this puzzle. In short, the major political 'camps' think about events with a different dimension. Conservatives think in the 'civilization vs barbarism' axis. Progressives…
就连不同政党所使用的语言也是专门针对特定价值体系定制的；阿诺德·克林就这个主题写过一本小册子（《政治的三种语言》）：https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdotorg/books/ThreeLanguag... 乔纳森·海特的《正义之心》则是另一个更为细腻（也更复杂）、但极其有趣的视角，探讨了……
Even the language that the different parties use is targeted at certain sets of values; Arnold Kling wrote this short book on the subject ("The Three Languages of Politics"): https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdotorg/books/ThreeLanguag... "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt is another, more nuanced (and complicated), but extremely interesting take on the subject of…
……而不是给它添乱。也许你应该远离新闻媒体一段时间，好好想想我们大家是如何被“左”“右”两党联手忽悠的。建议读读网上免费公开的《政治的三种语言》（摘要见此：https://quillette.com/2018/08/08/the-three-languages-of-poli...），搞明白为什么保守派和进步派永远不可能达成一致——因为他们根本不在一个频道上……
…than give to it. Maybe you should spend some time away from the news media and consider how we're all being bamboozled by the both parties, "right" and "left". Consider reading freely available "The Three Languages of politics" (summary here: https://quillette.com/2018/08/08/the-three-languages-of-poli... and enlighten yourself as to why the conservatives and progressives can never agree - because they're not talking about…
……根本没有它立足的政治空间。一方面是对问题拒不承认，另一方面则是把在任者妖魔化为白痴，甚至是与罪犯沆瀣一气的共犯。阿诺德·克林在《政治的三种语言》中归纳了三种基本视角，它们会在一个人的头脑中根深蒂固，以至于对其他视角的表达完全无法理解。这些视角被描述为……
…political space for it to exist doesn’t exist. There is a refusal to admit the problem on one hand. And a vilification of the incumbents as idiots, or worse, in bed with the criminals, on the other. In "The Three Languages of Politics" Arnold Kling classifies three basic perspectives that can become central in a person's mind in such a way that expressions of the other perspectives are incomprehensible. The perspectives are described…
阿诺德·克林提出过一个让我深有同感的思维框架，我经常会想起它，那就是《政治的三种语言》。它指出政治讨论之所以常常劳而无功，部分原因在于三大主要政治群体的核心价值轴各不相同：保守派：文明对决野蛮；自由意志主义者：……
There is a framework I recognize as similar put forward by Arnold Kling that I think of often, the Three Languages of Politics, that suggests part of what makes political discourse so often fruitless is that the primary value axes differ for three major political interest groups: Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism Libertarians:…