Faith-abled vs. Faith-disabled: Toward an objective distinction between red and blue states of mind

Summary: As I've mentioned I'm trying to put my finger on what makes me and others intuit that there are two different psychological sub-cultures of humans. Red vs. Blue, Conservative vs. Liberal, Right vs. Left, religious vs. secular--maybe these divisions are symptomatic of the underlying difference, but they don't seem to get to the bottom of it. I obviously believe I belong to one of these two psychological sub-cultures, and am naturally inclined to think my sub-culture is superior. To counter my chauvinism, I’m looking for an objective way to distinguish the two sub-cultures, some characteristic about which representatives of both sub-cultures would say,  “You’re damn right that’s how I am, and proud of it.” In other words it’s not going to be the usual self-congratulatory “Liberals are more loving,” or “Conservatives are more patriotic.”  The other day I saw a vegan restaurant called “Loving Hut.” Something about the signage implied that love was a defining characteristic of liberal vegetarians.  I see the connection.  Not eating animals is more loving to the animals than eating them. But for the first time I read the connection as a conservative carnivore would: “What, you think you liberals have a corner on love? Just because your lifestyle is loving of someone, it doesn’t mean my lifestyle isn’t loving.  I love my family enough to make sure they get great animal protein.” For the first time I noticed that liberals do what conservatives do.  When conservatives claim the mantel of “patriotism,” arguing, for example that being pro-Iraq-war is patriotic, they imply that patriotism is their distinguishing characteristic, and we liberals don’t buy it.  The distinguishing feature I’m looking for would not be one of these self-congratulatory distinctions.  It would be one we’d all buy, saying, “fair enough, that really is the distinction between our two approaches.” I suspect the distinction is around a trait I’m calling meta-confidence. There’s your interpretation, story, or belief, then there’s your confidence in your interpretation, story or belief, and then there’s your confidence in your confidence--your meta-confidence. “Meta” has come to mean “recursively about” so a meta-blog is a blog about blogging. Meta-confidence is your confidence about your confidence. How sure are you that London is the capital of England?  That’s your confidence level.  If you’re 100% sure that London is the capital of England, how sure are you that it really is?  I mean, can you ever be 100% sure of something and it still not be the case? I’m exploring the possibility is that if your answer is “No.  If I’m sure I’m sure, then it’s true,” then you’re a member of one of the sub-cultures, and if your answer is, “Yes. Being sure I’m sure about something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true,” then you are a member of the other sub-culture. The capital of England is not the point.  Nor is the point that some people are more confident than others.  Confidence is the source of focus, attention and effort for all of us.  If every day you flip-flop about whether you should pursue the career you’re in, you won’t be in it very long.  Any of us can reach 100% confidence in an interpretation, story or belief. These day’s I’m high on confidence about my choices.  I think I’m on the right path. Last year at this time my confidence was way down (see mid-mid-life crisis) and I’m much more productive this year by the standards I’m confident in.  I’ll go further. I hold the theories I hold with extremely high confidence. I just don’t’ hold my confidence in them with high confidence. Though my confidence is approaching 100% my meta-confidence can’t, won’t and shouldn’t ever approach that. The distinction I’m exploring