i think haidt was close when he made his assertion that liberals are minmaxed for care and fairness so they literally cannot understand what compels right wingers to come to different conclusions than them. i think haidt is wrong in his own conclusion though. throughout his book he mentions the importance of diversifying your moral matrix and uses his trip to india as an example of how he learned to be disgusted by americans wearing their shoes indoors. he extrapolates further that the outrage students feel at their fellow students opinions could just be a symptom of a narrow view because they exist in an echo chamber. if only they had broken out of that echo chamber and experienced other peoples moral depths then they would be more tolerant of eachother, or so he claims (even his own personal example includes him becoming more intolerant). if you actually follow his book rationally, you would reach the exact opposite conclusion he reaches.  if politics is irrational, and if people come to all their conclusions as post-hoc justifications for their intuition or moral elephant, and if people actually become even deeper believers of their conclusions as a result of being challenged (cognitive dissonance), then taking them out of their echo chamber would achieve at best, nothing.
United States