The theory is clearly incomplete, given that the most ardent 'do something' people are typically severe fiery conservative or furious far-right incel types. That said, I would agree with Thett3 on something, if you take a moderate left-wing Liberal and moderate right-wing Convervative or Libertarian, the former will have more urge to do something about a situation that displeases them while the latter will try to remain more stoic, instinctively.
The actual theory runs like this, I believe:
If a situation seems to both be morally displeasing and happens to individually displease the person, people who are stronger in their leanings are consistently more likely to burn with the urge to do something about it.
If a situation seems to be morally displeasing but not individually distressing, a left-wing leaning person is much more likely to still have some degree of passion and urge to genuinely spread the word and also do things towards the cause, whereas the right-wing are more inclined to revert to neutrality on a matter unless it directly affects them personally or some people close to them.
If a situation seems to be morally pleasing enough but individually hurts the individual (perhaps you are rich in a left-wing society or you are a harsh right-wing person who happens to be working class and suffering due to the lack of provisions for you and your family), the right-wing are likely to feel a rage that when asked to 'do something' they direct towards the opposition but not towards any productive solution to the problem. When the left-wing face this dilemma they are actually much more likely to remain stoic and be okay with it as long as they feel it is a good protection to them and those close to them if they ever happened to become very poor, vulnerable, isolated etc.
If you had to sum up what I am saying in a simple concept, it works like this:
The 'direction' right-wing mindset, especially right-wing conservative mindset, is to deal with issues directly in terms of negative input to the individual. You will get authoritarian left-wingers who fall into this category though. The idea is that the less close to home the issue is the less of a crap is given and that can literally mean even right next to somebody's house there is a homeless person. The solution of very authoritarian people, especially if they are authoritarian right-wing, is to get rid of the disturbance (do they stink, are they noisy, are they reducing the value of the estate etc) whereas the left-wing approach is more as follows...
The left-wing approach is more wavy, if that makes sense. There is constant flux between the individual's dissatisfaction and lessening that and the urge to pursue the best outcome even if it hurts the individual in some way. The left-wing instinct when faced with a problem whether it's outside their doorstep or on the other side of the world is to be very curious and concerned, this is the actual reason why so many scientists are left-wing, it's because burning curiosity and inability to separate one's own personal issues from a broader system of logical framework and ethical concern runs deep in left-wing thinking. The left-wing liberal has to actively remind themselves to worry about their own sadness and personal issues and insulate themselves from others' suffering because their instinct is to worry about, take interest in and genuinely want to solve everybody's problems.
This is why I have always known that the simple division between left-wing and right-wing people, if we ignore peer pressure in their household and friendship circle, is that those that lean right worry first about avoiding their own sadness and dissatisfaction, whereas the left-wing primarily worry about net happiness and net satisfaction being optimised for all. This is a double-dynamic conflict.
I'd explain more but I don't want all my ideas to be stolen, one day I may publish a book but this sums it up.
