If so then explain. If you mean that he treated the left too optimistically, I w

If so then explain. If you mean that he treated the left too optimistically, I would say he did the same of the right – but this behavior is in tradition of university publication and especially in psychology (its advice).
We work in a much more rigorous discipline that requires full accountability by use of behavioral econ and jurisprudence (its decidability).
I don’t generally expect university intellectuals to satisfy the demand for jurisprudence as we do.
So, as long as they aren’t outright attempting deception or social construction and to obscure, conflate, or inflate (use Abrahamic-Marxist Critique) then I make use of the insight, and correct for the greater demands of jurisprudence that they are unaware of, can’t or won’t.
The academy is as bound by incentives, selection bias, market demands of academies as businesses, the consequences of adding women to the student and professorial bodies, and the ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’, as was the church – and perhaps worse.
Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
In Haidt’s case his measurement of morality is no more accurate than the Big5/6 personality, and certainly less so than the IQ scale before dumbing it down, and dumbing education down, to equilibrate the measures of the sexes.
That does not mean that his moral foundations cannot be ‘corrected’ and reframed as we have as capital bias, nor subsequently reframed by neuroscience.
We have done more, yes, but he has REACHED more people than we have.
Because for all the NEED the people have for jurisprudence, they only WANT advice.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @JonHaidt