In our age of political polarization, it seems hard to convince anyone of anything that they didn't already believe in. This consistent inability to reach any real mutual understanding can lead some to "agree to disagree," but when it comes to serious matters, like the question of healthcare or whether Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter a nation-state, lives are at stake.

Olga Khazan ofThe Atlanticexplores a possible "trick"绕过说服的问题。Khazan认为某些“道德框架”对某些人来说比其他人更有说服力。在美国政治的案例中，Khazan发现“高度重视爱国主义和忠诚”这两种道德框架的信息，“对保守派来说比传统上更自由的价值观，如互惠和关怀更重要。”

This interesting example of how cultural differences alter how we receive certain moral ideas might have ramifications for more philosophical approaches to morality. When it comes to more familiar and complex ways of approaching morality, such as consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc., are we also culturally or psychologiaclly conditioned to find some more appealing than others? If certain ways are more or less convincing, does this reveal a certain political limit to our moral thought? And how should we strategize when it comes to deeply important moral dilemmas? Should we stick to our guns in our own way of thinking about it, or find a way to appeal to alternate ways, even if we aren't convinced of their validity?

Read the full article here:https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-simple-psycholog...

Also, check out our episode on "The Psychology of Partisan Politics"with psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author ofThe Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion.