When I read the article, I suspected there may be some ideological (mis)uses of the content. It seems to me that there will be a very positive reaction to it fr

When I read the article, I suspected there may be some ideological (mis)uses of the content. It seems to me that there will be a very positive reaction to it from who are more collectivist/socialist/liberal oriented, and a negative one from the indivudualist/objectivist/conservative oriented. Making some (potentially incorrect) assumptions from your language (choice of terms largely), I would guess you are in the later group. I think that the strong potential for ideological differences to erupt in a flame war in this thread is high, and therefore want to suggest perhaps we look at the actual research mentioned before attacking it as reported in the New York Times (a place we largely deride for awful science reporting in most other cases), rather than make assumptions about it based on our ideological gut reactions to the conclusions.