Hm, somewhat interesting! I wasn't previously familiar with Jost.

I read an interview with Jost from 2015 in Salon (https://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/the_right_has_fked_up_minds_meet_the_researcher_who_terrifies_gop_congress/), and the paper he'd just published in 2014 (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.675.5895&rep=rep1&type=pdf), as these seem to be what you're referring to.

It's not all that impressive. He was only able to conclude, basically, that the Conservative-specific moral intuitions may predispose one modestly to favor inhumane treatment of others--which is exactly what Haidt said they were for (well, not purity, but the other two) anyway.

I think you characterized it correctly: they're statistically associated. It's just not a super-strong association.

I don't have any particular attachment to moral foundations theory, or to the five (or six, or more) foundations identified. The evidence seems pretty good, and the evidence Haidt presents overall seems very good. If better evidence shows they're wrong--great! But for the time being, I don't think anything Jost has shown casts enough doubt on Haidt's work to make The Righteous Mind not still an excellent book to read for those who haven't.

I'll look through a few more Jost papers, probably, but given the relatively modest effects (and the historical examples of left-wing authoritarians as well as right-wing), I don't think the results should be chilling. The research just doesn't seem that solid or that alarming.

What's actually happening in the U.S. politically is rather chilling, though. We're a few procedural changes in a few state legislatures away from the end of democracy, and I'm not even sure that's the most chilling thing.

Anyway, thanks again for mentioning Jost. Although I wasn't wildly excited about the research, it was definitely interesting enough to read about during a holiday.