I agree that understanding is an important goal. To the extent your piece supports understanding, that's all good. That said, I found your piece disquieting for two reasons.

1) You don't say anything about people using this understanding of themselves to *become* more rational. This is an introspective and/or therapeutic process.

In some context, you or Haidt or whoever should be encouraging this process. It's a huge fallacy to believe humans cannot make this kind of change. I've seen it too many times.

2) I accept some people are deeply committed to the extra priorities of authority, loyalty and sanctity. I place value on them two. They have a clear role in human society.

On the other hand, to the extent the Enlightenment and the liberal humanist tradition reject these priorities, there is good reason to do so! In excess, these priorities have caused incalculable suffering throughout history.

Yes, that is a humanist perspective. But really, how justified are those priorities given the suffering they caused? It's open to discussion, but it's a worthy goal to some extent to minimize those priorities through introspection and/or therapy.

I'm very aware of the flaws in the Enlightenment. Yet I'd still argue the basic principles of the Enlightenment deserve, with constructive more discussion, to trump those other priorities and the cultural values that come out of them. We live in a much better world due to Enlightenment values.