Friday, May 17, 2013

Study: Physically Strong Men and Political Views

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

See?  It's not my fault.  It's something genetic.  Please don't call me "panty waist" for wanting to redistribute wealth my way.  :)

Have fun with this one!



Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

  • Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution
  • Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors
  • Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources
  • There is no link between women's physical strength and political views
Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.
Their study discovered a link between a man’s upper-body strength and their political views. 
Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status and support for economic redistribution from hundreds in America, Argentina and Denmark.
Men who are physically strong - like Arnold Schwarzenegger - are more likely to take a right wing political stance
Men who are physically strong - like Arnold Schwarzenegger - are more likely to take a right wing political stance
The figures revealed that men with higher upper-body strength were less likely to support left-wing policies on the redistribution of wealth. 
Men with less upper body strength are more likely to support the welfare state - like Labour leader Ed Miliband
Men with less upper body strength are more likely to support the welfare state - like Labour leader Ed Miliband
But men with low upper-body strength were more likely to put their own self-interest aside and support a welfare state. 
The researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.  
Professor Michael Petersen said: ‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursued the self-interested position on redistribution.
‘However physically weak males were more reluctant to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation between individuals.
‘While many people think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has, in a sense, always been with our species. 
‘Political views are designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.
Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people's political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models. 
‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they're designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html#ixzz2TXncebcq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


22 comments:

Anonymous said...

HAHA Peter! You must be a glutton for punishment. Okay, I'll help fan the flames.
Could it be that the men have the upper body strength because they've worked hard? Could it be that the men with less upper body strength have not?
I know it says that it doesn't apply to women but I have worked and played hard my whole life and have much greater upper body strength that most women a third my age. I live on very little money but what I have, I earned ake the fact the government doesn't make the same stipulation. I consistently vote against my own self-interest. But I will help anyone that is willing to help themselves. I just don't liSo I'm thinking it isn't genetic but rather, application and experience that lead to the muscle and the mindset.

Anonymous said...

Typos corrections of above

HAHA Peter! You must be a glutton for punishment. Okay, I'll help fan the flames.
Could it be that the men have the upper body strength because they've worked hard? Could it be that the men with less upper body strength have not?
I know it says that it doesn't apply to women but I have worked and played hard my whole life and have much greater upper body strength than most women a third my age. I live on very little money but what I have, I earned. I just don't like the fact the government doesn't make the same stipulation. I consistently vote against my own self-interest. But I will help anyone that is willing to help themselves. So I'm thinking it isn't genetic but rather, application and experience that lead to the muscle and the mindset.

sidewalk super said...

Earlier evolutionary studies showed women looking for males who were stronger to perpetuate their species.
Must have been left wingers.
What happened?

Excruciating Headache said...

Would it instead be "panty waste" instead of "panty waist"? ;)

Physical labor, in my opinion, isn't any more or less valuable than other kinds of work. I appreciate the work of doctors and lawyers and accountants as much as that of firefighters and lumberjacks. It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

Anon 7:26, (assuming you vote for conservative candidates), in what way do you feel you are voting against your self-interest? I've often wondered why the Southern U.S., which receives the bulk of welfare dollars, consistently votes Republican. If politicians would lay off the social issues, I think the South would again be solidly Democrat. We'll probably never know.

Our idea of what is attractive from an evolutionary standpoint has been skewed by a decreased reliance of physical strength for survival. Money and technology have made it less important to the survival of our young to marry an Arnie. I could have a baby with my Jewish doctor and it would probably work out just fine. My husband, built decidedly like a Neanderthal, might have some thoughts about that. LOL

Excruciating Headache said...

Another theory about political affiliation:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187

There. I've fanned, too, in spite of low upper body strength.

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Now I wonder if there is a correlation with testosterone levels. It's natural curiosity.

Trigger said...

It is a fact that stronger men have a more self-esteem than weaker men.

I know that I feel safer with a man who can handle himself physically because I know that he can protect me from outside danger.

My husband is physically strong and he is at the top in his career field.

I have always felt safe with him. That is why I married him.

He is a Republican.

Excruciating Headache said...

A link to a fun website that might answer some of your most pressing questions about political affiliation:

http://neuropolitics.org/

Have fun bashing people who have a different world view! I'll be sitting at the nerdy girl table studying for my Foreign Relations final.

Skeptical said...

Were these men tested for testosterone levels and the MAOA gene? How did they exclude them as variables?

Anonymous said...

"There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies and statistics."
-Disraeli

Anonymous said...

LOL I do believe this hits too close to home for Excruciating Headache.

Are you feeling threatened?


I've noticed it in the people I know personally. The ones that are "strong" both physically and mentally, tend to be more conservative and think things through rationally.

The weaker guys I have come across are very emotional and don't use a lot of common sense or logic when debating issues. They are the ones more likely to start attacking and calling names when backed into a corner that they cannot get out of.

That's just MY personal observation.

Chris said...

OT


Why not Billie and Shawn?

http://www.gonzalescannon.com/node/14409

Excruciating Headache said...

Anon 12:57, I'm a really small American woman with mostly German ancestors. In elementary school, the big beastly kids beat me half to death in dodge ball.

I was threatened then.

Now, I'm more amused that clearly inferior people, like Arnold, who cheated on his wife and had a love child with the help, are somehow venerated by self-proclaimed conservatives, and a skinny guy who has become successful, yet managed to keep in junk in his pants and his libido in check, is looked down on.

I guess if a man has to be an intellectual inferior, he might as well pat himself on the back for voting Romney (a skinny guy with a job that doesn't require anymore manual labor that it takes to hit the button on his car elevator). It's hard to be on the losing team, especially for big fellows.

:)

Anonymous said...

Excruciating Headache,
I'm the anon @7:26.I bought my first house when I was 23 instead of buying a car and clothes like my friends did. I was planning ahead, building equity and lowering mortgage payments so I could stay home and raise my kids when I got married. It would have worked if my ex hadn't turned out to be abusive and a deadbeat. But awww, he was depressed and gave up when he lost his job. :( Wow, glad I was never depressed when the utilities came due or the fridge was empty.
Instead of going on wellfare I started my licensed in home daycare. 12 hours a day. 9 fulltime children (2 under 2) and 5 part time. Plus my own kids. Who had time to be depressed? Someone had to provide for my kids. (Yes, I said MY kids. I earned the right to call them mine) In my leisure time I mowed my 1/3 acre yard, did the grocery shopping, cleaning, laundery, taught myself how to repair everyting from lawn mowers, washing machines and dryers, broken widows and car repair. Is this because I had too much testostrone? No, it is because I brought those kids into the world and accepted the responsibility to provide for them. I didn't plan to do it alone but I wasn't given any choice in that matter unless it was to choose to stay in an abusive relationship and expose them to that. We did without air conditioning in our home and cars. We used fans and wading pools. I shopped garage sales and thrift stores and my kids looked better and felt better about themselves than most of the kids that had everything handed to them. They still know the value of hard work and the value of a dollar.
I couldn't afford to take them to Disney World or the local amusement park but we went camping, just me and them and they still love camping. All my kids, their spoused and the grandkids go camping together and love it.
while I was going through all this the parents of kids I sat for got in financial trouble through their own bad choices and again, depression. (A whole topic in itself....a copout in my book in most cases.) I let the family of 3 live in my house. All they had to pay was the difference on the utilities and their own meals. The first thing they did was buy a window air conditioner and put it in the basement where they were staying. This had been my playroom for daycare kids and was the only escape from the heat. Upstairs my kids, daycare kids and myself were melting in the heat. That wasn't enough. They would routinely have pizza delivered to the front door, in front of my kids who rarely had such a treat. Then they would whisk it off to the basement and leave the smell drifting in their wake while my kids mouths watered. Oh, then there was the hairdresser, she had to have a perm. I cut my hair and my kids hair. I would have loved to have a manicure or a trip to the salon but I had to prioritize and sacrifice. The husband sat on the nice cool basement and watched soaps after sending their son upstairs for me to watch. Mom had to have a nicer car, clothes and hair because she had a "real job". I could go on. After 8 months they hadn't paid anything toward their debts, or saved a single dime.
I own nothing that anyone would envy but I have some greats adult children who are raising some wonderful kids themselves. If I had to chose between raising them with too much or too little or raise them off your handouts or anyones else's, I'd chose to do exactly as I did. And best of all, they all told me even when they were kids, as we were going through those rough times that they wouldn't change it either and they were proud of me for doing for myself. I don't know how you live, but most people would be shocked at what I live on and what I do with out. But I wouldn't trade you. I have my pride and I will STILL help anyone that is willing to help themselves.
I refuse to vote for ANY increase in taxes or growth in government interference. I'll sleep in a tent before I'll willing hand over my life to anyone else. Does that help answer why poor people vote conservative?

Anonymous said...

p.s. And no, I didn't marry a burly man. I don't like Arnold. I'm not a Republican. I'd vote for anyone of any party that would cut big government, entitlement programs and the welfare state we are living in.

Excruciating Headache said...

Anon 5:11,

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you came through that okay. The reason I am liberal is that I think most families who struggle are like you and not lazy deadbeats. The hardest working people are sometimes the poorest. I don't mind helping.

My brother and I came from an alcoholic household with working parents who never made much money. Our parents were neglectful and we both went in the military to support ourselves after graduating from high school. Mom and Dad had long moved out to live with their new love interests, leaving my brother and me to fend for ourselves.

We both went in the college after the military and we both have decent jobs now.

He is a Republican and I'm a Democrat. I don't think it's useful to make generalizations about men based on their body types. We all know small guys with Napoleon complexes and big teddy bear types.

The real beneficiaries of USDA food programs are big agribusinesses. People hate the low man on the totem pole - food stamp recipients - when big business gets a much bigger share of our tax dollars.

Have a good weekend.
EH


Anonymous said...

Ex Headache, I left a reply hours ago and it seems to have vanished. Thank you for your reply too. Kudos to you and your brother for for rising above your upbringing. We agree on many of the things you said. Most of the disagreement is on who should be in charge of who and how to help. Anyway, you have a good weekend too. :)

OldPsychNurse said...

"The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science."

LOL Well, that explains why these "results" were disclosed and not discarded.

Lis said...

I have to take exception to the article describing conservatism as "self interest." Conservatives are no more self interested than liberals. Conservatives have a different (more realistic, I feel) view of human nature and unintended consequences, so they have a different opinion as to what is *actually* helpful to people, i.e., people are not helped by being made helpless and dependent.

Conservatives are more of a logical and realistic disposition, tending to look at how much a program is going to cost, for instance, and whether it can be paid for, than at how it makes us "feel". We have a deep sense of responsibility towards the future, not wanting to leave future generations a legacy of bankruptcy. We look at ideas with more scrutiny of the details and of what the unintended consequences are going to be. A social program may purport to help people but if the government must print money to pay for it, that deflates everyone's money, and is no different than raising taxes.

The word 'conservative' comes from the word 'conserve.' Conservatives believe in conserving that which is proven over generations to be valuable and important to human civilization. We are more likely to look at past experience as future indicators. Conservatives see human nature as consistent and predictable.

Anonymous said...

run this story by the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, IBEW, Ironworkers, ILA, etc. etc.
can't be enough prius-driving pencil-neck yuppies to offset that Hoffa-level brawn on the left.

Anonymous said...

OldNurseRachet,

"Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by SAGE Publications. It is one of the most influential journals in psychology and ranked among the top 10 general psychology journals for impact by the Institute for Scientific Information."

I love Wikipedia. I wish it had been around when I started college.

The saying "Nurses eat their young" was brought about by nasty nurses like you.

Anonymous said...

WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by searching for right

My web blog :: fastest way to lose weight