Several interesting ideas.

Does increased intelligence result in enhanced empathy?

Does "viewing the world holistically" ameliorate nationalism?

An individual's beliefs about the nature of the world will generally find validation in anecdotal events. There are enough materialistic women in China to validate SB's view of Chinese women. There are enough Muslim terrorists to validate Taffy's view of Muslim immigrants. Our 'belief narratives' intellectually 'highlight' and 'cull' both the anecdotal events of our life and our pervasive media exposure to support these narrative beliefs.

It seems to me that 'ethics', institutional or academic or emotive, come into play when we discard narrative beliefs that we recognize as conflicting with our ethical values.

I am emotionally driven to believe that all wealthy, white, conservative, Christian, U.S. men are selfish racist idiots. I have much anecdotal data to support that belief system. But I ethically choose to try to find some empathy for their fear and loathing of the changes in their world.

SB and Taffy have both participated broadly in the world, traveling in China and Southeast Asia. Both have married women of another race. They have seen a much wider spectrum of life than most of my classmates from the U.S. who have never procured a passport but cling to views of American Exceptionalism. I'm confident that if Taffy lived in a Muslim country he would broaden and deepen his views of Islam. I note that SB has positive feelings about Thai women.

Our 'narratives' about the nature of the world truly define who we are. But ethically, we must be wary of these self-constructed belief systems. Their influence on our behavior and our speech does impact the world. When we act with anger and fear, we become the anecdotes supporting the narratives of others.