According to Sowell&#x27;s &quot;Conflict of visions&quot; theory, the primary difference between people with right wing vs left wing views is their intuitive assumption about the span of human nature.<p>If you believe that human nature is malleable, perfectible and essentially good, then you tend to assume that the span of human potential is very large, i.e. the gap between the best of us and the worst of us is large. Sowell shows how this leads through basic logical deduction to left wing views.<p>On the other hand if you believe that human nature is essentially fixed, unchanging over time and flawed, then you assume that the span of human nature is not very large, and the gap between the best and the worst is not that big. This leads by logical deduction to right wing views.<p>So it&#x27;s perhaps not so much that right wing people are more &quot;afraid&quot; per se, but rather, that they tend to be quicker to assume that as there&#x27;s no way to fix &#x27;enemies&#x27; by raising their human nature to a higher level, you may as well put in place systems that protect society from them. Whereas people with more left wing views may tend to assume that you can in fact negotiate and debate people away from being your &#x27;enemies&#x27; and thus, they appear to be less fearful.<p>The above description makes left wing views sound superior to right wing views, which was not my intention. In fact Sowell&#x27;s book lays down an extremely fair and balanced description of both right and left wing beliefs and assumptions, with IMHO no discernable bias between them.