D'oh! Ironically, on reflection, I see that I -- Sonic -- have misrepresented and failed to engage Fouad Boussetta's comment 5 above!

For one thing, the book does remark (in passing, later in the book) that Haidt's 2, 3, 4, and 5 are ultimately related to item 1 (in Sam's view), so Fouad has a basis for posting the remark in my blockquote above (although this is not a crucial point to Sam's theory). More importantly, Fouad originally weighed in with feeling "left uneasy by Sam's thrashing of Jonathan Haidt's theory," and now I can see, this goes to identifying terms of conflict.

For example, Sam rightly (in my opinion) thrashes the journal Nature for praising Francis Collins for supposedly bridging the gap between science and "religion" -- where Nature says "religion" as a euphemism for the culturally dominant superstition being Christianity on a basis of pragmatics -- not Shiva (et. al.) on a basis of principles -- and Collins botches the operation as the amphiteatre can plainly see -- so who are Nature and Collins fooling?

But earlier in the book, where the book head-butts Haidt's theory at length, Sam is establishing that Sam's theory is different than Haidt's theory. But Haidt is a psychologist explaining why liberal Americans don't eat at Applebee's. "Fact!"** So Sam and Haidt are talking about different things, and a synthesis between their views is potentially possible and productive.

** San Francisco Giants closing pitcher Brian Wilson after winning the playoff last night.

Time for me to stop posting before I do any more dommage.