A commenter writes,

There’s one thing I’m still not clear about from the book. You distinguish talk from thought but … many readers do not make this distinction…

Three antagonistic framings of issues that the three tribes use in a constant intellectual war – the antagonism causing them to represent each issue entirely as one of civilization versus barbarism, or oppressor-victim, or coercion-liberty. This leaves little room for hope as it has nothing to say about what people think: perhaps it’s not simple partisanship but how they really think too.

In theory, I see a distinction between:

1) arriving at an opinion by yourself. Call this private reasoning.

2) justifying your opinion to others. Call this public justification.

I mean for three axes model to apply to (2). But in practice (1) and (2) are so closely related that it is easy to slip into applying the model to (1).

Let’s use an example. Take the travel ban from Muslim countries. Along the oppressor-oppressed axis, what stands out is the fact that many American non-Muslims are wary of Muslims, and to progressives this makes Muslims an oppressed class. For a progressive, this justifies opposing the ban. Along the civilization vs. barbarism axis, what stands out is the threat that Muslim extremism poses to our civilization. For a conservative, this justifies supporting the ban. Along the coercion-liberty axis, what stands out is that the ban coercively deprives innocent people of an important right. For a libertarian, this justifies opposing the ban.

However, I do not wish to say that any person adopts a single-axis reason for supporting or opposing the ban. In fact, a person who self-identifies as progressive and who takes a progressive position on many issues might, for some reason, support the ban. Our tribal axis plays a role in private reasoning, but it is not everything.

When I say “justifies,” I mean public justification, not private reasoning. In public (i.e., talking with others), a progressive is likely to:

a) make oppressor-oppressed arguments against the ban;

b) view favorably others who use such arguments;

c) accuse supporters of the ban of being oppressors

In fact, even if a progressive for some reason had decided to support the ban, that progressive still would be receptive to (a) – (c). With regard to (c), the hypothetical ban-supporting progressive probably would feel a need to say, “Yes, I know there are many Islamophobes out there who support the ban, but my reason for supporting the ban is not Islamophobia.”

It is easier to escape your preferred axis privately than in public. When you are among members of your own tribe, it is almost impossible to escape from your (tribe’s) preferred axis.

I hope that helps.