Oh? And Liberals accept changes proposed by Conservatives with enthusiasm because their Libs? Libs seem to reject the "Fair Tax" out of hand, is it because they don't understand it, or because it would massivly reduce the power of politicians & Govt to manipulate the economy?If Libs are soooo open minded to change why did they fight Reagan's plans, Bush 1's plans, Bush 2's plans?
Because of your very own statement... Not all change is good change.
Elizabeth Landau wrote the article, she is not SUMMARIZING the article.
She is SUMMARIZING the study.
A scientific publication can be referred to as an article, study, experiment, etc. ESPECIALLY since it's being published in Social Psychology Quarterly. That would make the study itself an article as well.
The article explains about the study, it does not even try to suggest whether the study is true. The very first sentence in the article is:
"(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds."
Chukpike, when things break in the news, the media often has to be extremely careful as to what they can and cannot say. For example, even though everyone KNEW the UAH shooter was Dr. Bishop, the media still had to refer to her as the "alleged" shooter, for legal purposes. When a writer says "may," it is simply "one of those things" the media has to do.
The article never tries to prove anything.
Your statement in the very first post on this thread is that the study is true. Having never read the study yourself how can you make such a statement? Where are your facts?
If you actually read the article yourself you might learn that Dr. Kanazawa does not say the study proves his hypothesis. It only support it.
Again, I'm not sure if you think Elizabeth Landau is making up the original study, or if you think Dr. Kanazawa is some quack who shouldn't be taken seriously, but (and since you read the article, you know this)"Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs."
That is the second sentence of the article. I'm not sure how that could be manipulated into an untrue statement. Please tell me how that is not a "fact." (On second thought, don't bother, because I know the only reason it's not a "fact" is because it makes me smarter than you.
)
Many responders on this topic have conveniently ignored this statement:
"and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say."
The above statement being deep in the article indicates posters such as MontyB did not read the article as they have made stereotypical assumptions.
Quote MontyB;
"Which is exactly why "conservative" is seen as backward, change is ok as long as it follows an accepted path and that is not "open minded"."
So, the caption under the photograph is "deep in the article"? *chuckle* Shows how much we read, doesn't it?
Rob we have seen you take a satirical interview of George Bush from Rolling Stone magazine and actually quote from it as true. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, that's right. Draw the attention away from the f**k ups you've made and put the spotlight on the person who brought them up. Hahaha. Hey, everybody, let's look at how Chukpike thought "male exclusivity" meant "homosexuality"! Ha. Ha. Ha.
It is fascinating how people on this forum make statements as true, with out verifiable sources. Then, if they are questioned they get silly defensively and demand the questioner go look it up.
Verifiable sources? The article summarizes the data... She cannot simply make up her own story, so there has to be truth to the article.
fftopic:response anyway. Just wanted to stop by and label people. 
