Posted on 04/07/2015 6:19:47 AM PDT by MayorKoch
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.
Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel...
Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
Signed up to post this?
Calling all TOLs! Calling all TOLs! Oh yea, there’s only 1...Have a nice day!
As Rush would say this is nothing but gobbledygook. Liberals are more compassionate with spending private resources my behind. They’re compassionate about spending other people’s money. We all know lefties are cheapskates when it comes to spending their own money.
I don’t know about all that but I do know that intelligence and wisdom aren’t the same thing. Liberals are totally void of having wisdom.
The guy is a hack.
As it turns out, Kanazawa is a repeat offender, with years of roundly criticized and heartily debunked pseudoscience-based shock-jockery under his belt. Despite this, he is still posting on the blog of a reputable mainstream publication, still teaching at a respected university and still serving on the editorial board of one of his discipline’s peer-reviewed research journals. Though, possibly not for long: this particular post’s racist hypothesis offended many, unleashing serious righteous outrage across the internet: social media users raced to blog, tweet and even petition demanding that Psychology Today remove Kanazawa as a contributor to their Web site and magazine. Psychology Today removed the post late Sunday night, and Monday morning the largest student organization in London (representing 120,000 students) unanimously called for Kanazawa’s dismissal.
This is a lie and merely a talking point. It has already been concretely proven that conservatives give EXTRAVAGANTLY more to charities of all kinds, with both money, resources and time, than liberals as a whole.
Lying is the native tongue of the Left.
This is not altruism but tyranny.
I'm afraid this is true with me for the most part. However, I would be more than willing to help widows/orphans/mentally challenged/etc. if I felt the money is going towards a good cause. Problem is, anytime the federal government gets involved - it's nothing but a huge waste of money. Situations like that should be at the lowest government level where they would be more careful with the money and actually be able to monitor WHO really needs it and who's just scamming.
Best case scenario would be for churches to make those determinations but we can't have that in Amerika.
bttt
This person is not very bright.
I find it interesting that you signed up today to post this drivel, which conflates private giving with higher taxes, and further asserts that this is evidence of superior intelligence on the side of the governmentalists.
“...liberalism is evolutionarily novel.”
In other words, liberalism is a random mutation, an experiment of nature to see if it works.
Yeah. If by "private resources" you mean other people's money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.