[cripplecreek]

[Crazieman]

Signed up to post this?

[BenLurkin]

[fwdude]

Psychobabble Today. Figures.

[houeto]

Calling all TOLs! Calling all TOLs! Oh yea, there’s only 1...Have a nice day!

[GreenAccord]

Well....

[dowcaet]

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.

[boycott]

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.

[Crim]

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.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/

[fwdude]

"...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."

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.

[Old Sarge]

[Petrosius]

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 [other people's] private resources for the welfare of such others.

This is not altruism but tyranny.

[ozarkgirl]

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.

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.

[Interesting Times]

This person is not very bright.

[MortMan]

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.

[ArtDodger]

“...liberalism is evolutionarily novel.”
In other words, liberalism is a random mutation, an experiment of nature to see if it works.

[Texas Eagle]

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.

Yeah. If by "private resources" you mean other people's money.

[Amagi]

I see.
The "Smartest Woman in the World" (Hillary Rodham Clinton) is a liberal.
The "Highest IQ POTUS Ever" (Barack Hussein Obama) is a liberal.
Indeed, they have big brains. Period.

[boycott]

That is all one big lie.

Conservatives give far more to charities than liberals.

[OttawaFreeper]

Gee, and I guess it is not enough for these people to do psychological profiles on ones like Rush Limbaugh or Ronald Reagan and even compare them to Adolf Hitler (as I recall one so called study a number of years back did so). They are just now simply calling liberals more intelligent than conservatives. I’ve heard that one before that if you are not racist or sexist or homophobic or non-progressive, you are just plain stupid. And they need a forum like that to promote that sort of claptrap, sad.