Well pony the fuck up.

I thought SJWs like you didn't believe in evidence, logic and reason? Those are Enlightenment values, that created racism, slavery and white supremacy. But just in case anyone else is reading this:

http://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

https://web.archive.org/web/20150428090025/http://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

Johnathan Haidt's research has so far uncovered six evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception, subconscious intuitive understanding, and conscious reasoning. He calls them moral foundations. He ALSO finds that moral foundations are the essential building blocks of human society. In his 2008 TED Talk "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives" he explains that human society is possible through the use of "all the tools in the toolbox." It's no coincidence that evolution pre-wired them into our brains.

Haidt finds that conservatives use all of them but liberals use about half of them, and of that half mostly just one. There's no conservative moral foundation that is not also a liberal one, but half of the conservative foundations are external to, and inaccessible by, liberal cognition.

When half of the evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception and understanding are essentially unavailable to one's subconscious intuitions and conscious reasoning one is left with no cognitive alternative for understanding people who think differently but to conclude that they're afflicted with some sort of mental dysfunction.

A conversation about social issues between a liberal and a conservative is like a conversation about rainbows between a color blind person and a fully sighted one in which the color blind liberal "knows" that the sighted conservative is an extremist nut case because he sees moral colors that "everybody knows" are just not there, and conservative think liberals are misinformed because they DON'T see moral colors that everybody knows ARE there.

R. R. Reno concluded his review of The Righteous Mind in the magazine First Things as follows:

"Thus the profound problem we face. Liberalism is blind in one eye, yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern."