Wow. So now conservatives and traditional thinking is immoral if we follow our DNA. That's quite a holier-than-thou conclusion. Unfortunately, I think that's a belief many liberals, socialists, Marxists, globalists, etc think and believe.
So if a person thinks that national rights should transcend international (ie Brexit), the territorial imperative of man makes that person immoral in his thinking. We must give up our patriotism, otherwise we're not moral beings. We're just knuckle dragging Neanderthals. That caring for people of your own tribe first is immoral?
That keeping money that you earned to be used to further your own family's welfare is immoral to giving it to others. Well, we'll just take it if you're not willing to just give it. What happened to charity? Can't conservatives be both? In any case, liberals are phonies. They're conservatives in liberal sheep skin, willing to take your money to be spread around for the common good, but don't raise their taxes. [/font]
So far as I an can tell, this is a misunderstanding of Haidt's modern theory, although this interpretation could be based on earlier work. Haidt, admittedly, started off as a progressive liberal who lost his mind when the 2nd Bush was elected. He could not understand why people would vote for such a man and started his research to answer this question. Perhaps his earlier work was based upon confirmation bias, which is where this is coming from? Now, however, he seems to imply both sides are crazy and identifies as a classical liberal.
However, as I understand his modern theory, there are three main political groups, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. Note that libertarians are a separate group from the other two. The group which one attributes to boils down the combination of traits of the five main personality traits along with a person's ability to be disgusted by new ideas.
Liberals are very empathetic for others, are hard to disgust, open to new ideas, have a low level of conscientiousness (meaning they lack order) and a low level neuroticism (higher risk taking). So when a liberal looks at gay marriage, they feel for them and are not disgusted by the idea of gay relationships. Since they are open, the idea of another lifestyle does not bother them, they don't care about loosing order by allowing this to happen and are willing to take the risks of allowing order to become compromised. This leads them to be for gay marriage.
Conservatives (and I know for liberals this going to be hard to believe) are also very empathetic for others. However, they are disgusted easier and less open to new ideas. They are also much more conscientious and more neurotic. So when a conservative looks at gay marriage, they feel for them deeply, but are ultimately disgusted by the idea of gay relationships and not open to the idea of other lifestyles. Being that they are very orderly, and since order is hard to obtain, are not will to take the risk of allowing order to decrease. To them, allowing order to decay by allowing gay marriage would not be good in the long run for anyone, especially gays. So, they try to help them by being not for gay marriage and by trying to add more order to their lives.
Libertarians are the odd ones. They have little empathy for others, and this is replaced by a high level of analytical thinking with the ability to not allow emotions to interfere. It is nearly impossible to disgust a libertarian and they are even more open to other lifestyles then liberals. They also have a high level of conscientiousness (order) and a low level of neuroticism (higher risk taking). Libertarians look at gay marriage and really feel nothing for gays, but look at it from a logical stand point. They come to the conclusion gay marriage is not going to effect them, they are not disgusted by the lifestyle and open to the variation in lifestyle. Although they are very orderly, they are also willing to take risks allowing order to be lost with others since it does not directly effect them. So libertarians are for gay marriage not because they care about others, but because they feel it would have no effect on them personally and are willing to accept the societal risks.
I find his work so interesting because of his research on libertarians. I am a libertarian and have never be able to understand why people allow emotions to effect their logical thinking. So hearing all of this helped answer this question. Also, for the longest time I always had issues with whether or not I was a conservative or a liberal. I agree with liberals on nearly all social issues, but with conservatives on nearly all fiscal and regulatory issues. Understanding a libertarian is a totally separate political identity was kind of reassuring and the personality differences certainly answers many questions I have had on why I agree with liberals sometimes and conservatives other times.