4 ms·
An interesting article. It should be pointed out, however, that it contains an easily misunderstood statement. > Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of
by ggchappell 17y ago
An interesting article. It should be pointed out, however, that it contains an easily misunderstood statement.
> Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity for men (but not for women), ....
But this is not "liberalism" in either its usual American or European usage:
> Liberalism … [is] 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.
- Psyonic 17y agoWhile I agree that the American political "liberal" says much more than that, it's still similar. Hence the phrase "bleeding heart liberal."
- ggchappell 17y agoI don't agree. American liberalism is associated with allocating public funds to others. The article specifically stated private. So, for example, some Muslim societies are what we would call "ultraconservative" politically, but rank rather high on a liberalism scale by the definition in the article, due to private contributions to charities.
- otakucode 17y agoThat is a very important distinction I think. Many people misunderstand libertarianism to be very uncaring and not compatible with empathetic and charitable individuals or actions, but this is certainly not the case. Wanting to help other people is quite distinct from wanting to use coercion and physical force to compel others to do so against their will (which is what compulsory taxation is and should always be thought of as).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- teuobk 17y agoIn the full paper, the author makes explicit his choice to use the contemporary American sense of the word "liberal." This, of course, differs from classical liberalism, which is similar to modern libertarianism.
- ggchappell 17y ago> In the full paper, the author makes explicit his choice to use the contemporary American sense of the word "liberal." Really? That's interesting, since the definition given in the article contradicts that. I guess the real question is how he measured "liberalism". E.g., did he ask people who they voted for, or how much they gave to charity, or what?